What do you think about thepiratebay's cartoon?

[binbash]

I know piracy is not allowed on this forum but this is not piracy : ) i just want to ask what do you guys think about the cartoon at thepiratebay :

http://i622.photobucket.com/albums/tt310/knoyan/cartoonish.gif

[Therion]

I'm typically left unimpressed by propaganda, even when the subject matter is something I personally support.

[mthei]

I actually thought it was kind of funny until a scrolled down and saw the dialog from the guy in the suit, then it got needlessly preachy. The point would have gotten across without it.
Although I think that is more about me nitpicking about the cartoon itself.

[Naiki Muliaina]

I agree with the fella above aout it being fine untill i read the corporate guys dialouge. It was amusing up to that point.

[Dr Small]

Haha. It is true.

[FuturePilot]

It's so true.

[Redache]

Good Cartoon.


I'm typically left unimpressed by propaganda, even when the subject matter is something I personally support.

So all forms of art leave you unimpressed? because whatever way you look at it anything a human being creates is propaganda, if we accept that all humans are biased towards themselves.

[jomiolto]

I think the last part about human rights is a bit over the top, but otherwise it's a great cartoon. The first part of the suit-man's speech made me laugh when I first saw that cartoon :)

On the other hand, I can understand the human rights part too, because the media corporations are definitely not shooting blanks with their lobbying and such.

[Therion]

So all forms of art leave you unimpressed? because whatever way you look at it anything a human being creates is propaganda, if we accept that all humans are biased towards themselves.
This is wrong on so many levels I'm not even sure where to begin.

[SuperSonic4]

I'm typically left unimpressed by propaganda, even when the subject matter is something I personally support.

I agree, I can make up my own mind on whether or not something is good

[SunnyRabbiera]

It brings up many good points...

[solitaire]

I like this one:
http://www.little-gamers.com/comics/2009-02-27.gif

[Orlsend]

I think they made a clear point.

[Roofdaddy]

http://batman560.homestead.com/files/mainscreen.jpg

Need to read those next time.:lolflag:

[lykwydchykyn]

It gets us no closer to a solution to the issue.

I gotta agree with Therion; and I'll add that a poor argument for something is more damaging than a good argument against it.

[Skripka]

I agree with the fella above aout it being fine untill i read the corporate guys dialouge. It was amusing up to that point.

Yep. This is a sledghammer where tweezers are needed.

[BuffaloX]

I like this one:


The awesomeness of mr. Madsen is clearly exaggerated. :lol

Oh and I kind of agree with Pirate-Bay, but the cartoon wasn't really funny.
Their point about the industry crying wolf for 30+ years now is 100% correct.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

I thought the cartoon was very good. The only part I didn't like was the last part where he says "because our copyrights are more important than your human rights". I thought that was a little needlessly preachy.

[Redache]

This is wrong on so many levels I'm not even sure where to begin.

If we take Propaganda as something that is meant to change a persons perspective to that of a political/social party then it's not a massive leap of logic to say that art can be defined within this boundary as the person who has created that art wants to change a persons perceptions.

I don't agree that art is propaganda on the basis that propaganda is something that is completely subjective, where one person might see something as propaganda and another might not. I am however offering a differing view point.

[cprofitt]

Hollywood and the Music industry suck. Dancing cats are far more interesting than their music; not even sure if that would really qualify as a copyright violation either.

[Therion]

If we take Propaganda as something that is meant to change a persons perspective to that of a political/social party then it's not a massive leap of logic to say that art can be defined within this boundary as the person who has created that art wants to change a persons perceptions.

I don't agree that art is propaganda on the basis that propaganda is something that is completely subjective, where one person might see something as propaganda and another might not. I am however offering a differing view point.
Understood. I think the core value of art, what makes it intrinsically valuable, is that it elevates and broadens certain higher emotions and principles inherent in the Human Condition. It stimulates us positively. Propaganda, on the other hand, has a far "baser" intent.

So while I can understand your viewpoint, I think it can be summed by saying that while propaganda MAY be art (or have artistic value) not all propganda is art, and not all art is propaganda.

[Thirtysixway]

I thought it was funny but true. On youtube you can upload your own video but if you have copyrighted music in the background it gets muted. I don't agree with that at all. It's not as though someone is downloading your video just for the music first off...

[swoll1980]

I thought the cartoon was very good. The only part I didn't like was the last part where he says "because our copyrights are more important than your human rights". I thought that was a little needlessly preachy.

I think it's funny that the pirate bay thinks pirating software is a human right.


Add: doesn't pirating mean, to take something that isn't yours. The name of their site implies that they know they're doing something wrong, and that it isn't a human right.

[jomiolto]

I think it's funny that the pirate bay thinks pirating software is a human right.


Add: doesn't pirating mean, to take something that isn't yours. The name of their site implies that they know they're doing something wrong, and that it isn't a human right.

I don't think that's what they are saying at all. I believe that they are referring to all the awful laws that are in consideration because of record companies'/movie companies'/etc. lobbying. You know, all that "ban p2p networks" and "add a mandatory DRM module to every computer" stuff. Some of those proposed laws are really idiotic; like the one (in New Zealand? I forgot) about throwing people out of the Internet for being accused of illegal downloading. Now, consider the fact that the record companies are known to sue grandmothers who've never owned a computer and even networked printers, and you have a real winner law...

I was also going to add something about "piracy" here, but I think that'd be off topic, because this thread is about the comic ;)

[swoll1980]

I don't think that's what they are saying at all. I believe that they are referring to all the awful laws that are in consideration because of record companies'/movie companies'/etc. lobbying. You know, all that "ban p2p networks" and "add a mandatory DRM module to every computer" stuff. Some of those proposed laws are really idiotic; like the one (in New Zealand? I forgot) about throwing people out of the Internet for being accused of illegal downloading. Now, consider the fact that the record companies are known to sue grandmothers who've never owned a computer and even networked printers, and you have a real winner law...

)

So where do the human rights come in?

[Methuselah]

This may be propaganda but there is plenty of RIAA/MPAA propaganda out there as well.

And really, there is a truth to it, theses guys are greedy.
If they could find a way to erase the music/movie from your head so you have a desire to watch it incessantly they'd probably do it.

How dare you store a copy of the movie in your neurons.
Copyright infringement!

[jomiolto]

So where do the human rights come in?

This is probably getting too close to politics and we're going to get this thread closed ;)

But, anyway, I think you could say that it is a human rights issue if media corporations are going to get you thrown out of Internet for doing nothing wrong or illegal. The same thing with the frivolous lawsuits: I don't think it's very fair for the big corporations to sue random people without any real evidence. Especially as fighting those lawsuits in court is not easy nor cheap (from what I've read -- I don't have much knowledge about actual legal systems), and people end up settling just because they don't want to go to the court.

[swoll1980]

This may be propaganda but there is plenty of RIAA/MPAA propaganda out there as well.

And really, there is a truth to it, theses guys are greedy.
If they could find a way to erase the music/movie from your head so you have a desire to watch it incessantly they'd probably do it.

How dare you store a copy of the movie in your neurons.
Copyright infringement!

Everyone has an agenda. The only thing the pirate bay is worried about is loosing the revenue from all those porn ads on their site, not anyones rights

[swoll1980]

This is probably getting too close to politics and we're going to get this thread closed ;)

But, anyway, I think you could say that it is a human rights issue if media corporations are going to get you thrown out of Internet for doing nothing wrong or illegal. The same thing with the frivolous lawsuits: I don't think it's very fair for the big corporations to sue random people without any real evidence. Especially as fighting those lawsuits in court is not easy nor cheap (from what I've read -- I don't have much knowledge about actual legal systems), and people end up settling just because they don't want to go to the court.

The comic that the thread is based on is politically motivated, so it's kind of hard to answer the question "So what do you think of this?" w/o getting political about it.

P.S. nice avatar

[jomiolto]

The comic that the thread is based on is politically motivated, so it's kind of hard to answer the question "So what do you think of this?" w/o getting political about it.

That's true...

I'm also the wrong person to debate this, because I have not really followed the latest news about the issues (despite the Pirate Bay trial, which I think is very interesting).


P.S. nice avatar

Thanks, I like yours too :)

[MikeTheC]

Could have sworn I replied in this thread. Can't find it. Maybe it was deleted. Maybe I didn't hit submit. Anyhow...

I agree completely with the cartoon. I have to admit I'm a bit surprised by the reactions to it amongst F/OSS users.

In any event, I vote with my wallet, and what that means is I'm doing an awful lot of "no" voting with respect to the entertainment industry.

[lykwydchykyn]

I don't disagree that these copyright laws and treaties coming along are ridiculous and damaging. And I totally respect someone who neither purchases OR "shares" copyrighted material in protest. I have no respect for someone who won't buy copyrighted material, but finds value in it and takes it without respecting the license. Same goes for software.

The more I think about it, what really irritates me about this cartoon is that "the industry" is pictured as a fat, balding, ugly little troll of a man in a suit -- the complete antithesis of the sleek, sexy young rock/pop stars we all love and worship. It pushes forward the ridiculous idea that "the industry" is just a bunch of greedy old execs, while the "artists" everyone loves are really against copyright and want you to "share" their music. Bull.

I was a recording artist. I have friends who are recording artists, engineers, producers, studio musicians, songwriters, and yes even record company employees. Let me tell you right now that $FAVORITE_ARTIST is as much a participant in this stuff as the grubby little man in the suit. $FAVORITE_ARTIST is cashing those ASCAP/BMI/CESAC checks. $FAVORITE_ARTIST signed the contract willingly and knew what he/she was doing.

By all means the recording industry needs an overhaul. They need a business model that reflects reality, they need to stop fighting technology. But if you're going to declare them "the enemy", then be man or woman enough to get an accurate picture of who you're fighting.

[Dr. C]

The Pirate Bay cartoon is actually a reference to the dancing toddler case.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/07/universal-demands-takedown-of-homemade-dancing-toddler-clip-eff-sues.ars. Where the issue is no longer "piracy" but rather big content using "anti-piracy" as an excuse to censor, free speech, fair use, parody, exposure of corruption, exposure of human rights abuses, exposure of abuse by corporations or governments etc.

The reality is that big content sees the Internet as a serious competitive threat that turns passive consumers into active competitors, and are in reality fighting to turn the clock back to the 1980's where they were in control.

A good example of the media that big content would just love to suppress is Steal this Film (http://www.stealthisfilm.com) which by the way one can download legally, without infringing on anyone's copyright by obtaining a torrent form The Pirate Bay.

[init1]

It's not as though someone is downloading your video just for the music first off...
Actually, I've done that many times.

[Bannor]

This is an interesting subject without going off on human right etc,

both sides are wrong

the music industry is trying to use an analog model to distribute music in the digital age. what really gets me mad is that they are using the threat of expensive lawsuits to extort isp's, colleges, and users to do what they say or else. A clear case of Might makes right.


In truth if you down load music (and don't upload it) legally (us law) you haven't done anything wrong. the internet is public domain so anything you take off of it is fair game. Adding copyrighted content to the internet is illegal but it is difficult to track. If you use TPB than you are doing both. But the Pirate bay doesn't do either.

[Bannor]

the heart of my beaf with the music industry is this.

The law is supposed to be fair and equal regardless of money. It is not. The cost just to defend yourself against the Riaa is too much for most people to bear (not to mentions work and have a life). The RIAA knows this and is using this fact to bully.

I think the abuse the RIAA has done to the legal system if far more of a consern than where you got your Radiohead CD.

Most of us don't care that they sue a bunch of hackers, but what happens when they make a mistake and go after someone who just left their wireless internet open. Is that a crime?

[NeferalCrossfireX]

stealing is stealing, downloading something that has no physical form to me is not stealing. you cannot own sound. the riaa and the labels their representing have buisness models that seem to live in the 1980s or something, i hope thepiratebay wins and the riaa and co go away and think VERY hard about the future of their buisness'

[Chame_Wizard]

I love the Cartoons :P

[MikeTheC]

It tends to be for me (or at least, this used to really be the case more than at present) if I hear a song or obtain it and really like it, I'll try to check out that artist and see if they have other stuff I like. If they're more than a one-hit wonder and the rest of their stuff is really good, I'll make a concerted effort to buy from them.

In principle, this is what I do even now. The "where the rubber meets the road" is that there's a lot more politics going on now, and so I have to take cognizance of the fact that, when I show support for an artist, I'm also showing support for the label, etc., and there are some organizations out there (for example, Sony) which I refuse to support in any way, shape or form. Consequentially, I avoid those artists because of whom they associate with.

I would prefer to support indie artists who are either self-published or at labels which are known for respecting the artists who hang their hats with them. There are several I know personally (having seen them several times at small, local venues) and you will never see me pirate their music. I want them to have my money, and giving them my money is, as mentioned above, the way I show support for them and what they do.

Frankly, I don't maintain a massive library of music. I have a number of CDs (though it's dwarfed by even a number of friends' libraries), and I have a small-to-moderate amount of music "otherwise acquired". However, most of that stuff is just one or two songs from a given artist, or even in the case of multiple songs from artists, usually it's 1-2 songs per album max, then spread across multiple albums. I'm sorry, but I refuse to pay for junk.

I've also acquired any number of songs over the years which proved useful in determining that X or Y or Z group didn't make stuff I liked (at all). Why should I have to pay to discover I don't like a band?

I think, in all of this, the thing which disturbs me the most is the extent to which the entertainment injusticetry has lobbied to get laws passed which are nothing more than legislative codifications of company policies -- or even industry ones -- so they can use the U.S. Government as their private pit bull to attack citizens with not just impunity but "justification". It's offensive and disgusting.

For these and other reasons, as I already mentioned up-thread, I agree with the cartoon.