quote: Well I have to admit that this is genius. The guys from the Pirate Bay have a a 30million SEK fine which they say they won't pay. However they have come up with a plan where all their users can join in which works like this.
Everyone sends a small amount of money in an electronic transfer to the law firm that represnted the music industry. Suggested amount is 1 SEK (equivalent to 0.13 USD. Apparently the law firm's bank account is only allowed 1000 electronic transactions before it starts to cost them, the account holder money.
The charge per transfer at this point is, wait for it... 2 SEK. Thus after the first 1000 SEK, if people send just 1 SEK it will cost the law firm more than the money they receive to process.
Welcome to the Distributed Denial of Dollars attack (DDo$)
I thought this was quite interesting....
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It's interesting, but I'm not sure in my mind where it falls morally on the scale between "non-violent protest" and "terrorism".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It's interesting, but I'm not sure in my mind where it falls morally on the scale between "non-violent protest" and "terrorism".
Actually, it seems pretty clear to me that this is pretty clearly encouraging vandalism.
Whatever else you think of pirating or file-sharing or what have you, this is encouraging vandalism-morally if not legally.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
One of the bemusing things about modern life- the electronic world seems to be forcing us to adapt our language, and often leaves us struggling with words and metaphors that almost but don't quite fit, like "stealing" that leaves the thing stolen still available to the owner.
"Vandalism" is an interesting description. At first it calls to mind grafitti and the like, things that might make a business less attractive but not actively interfere with the running of same, but throwing a rock through a window or slashing tires might also be vandalism, and could possibly cause a business to shut down completely.
The reason "non-violent protest" and "terrorism" come to my mind is that either could do an entity harm, though in the former case it's more likely a result of lost business (through loss of public stature or boycott) and in the latter it's more likely more direct harm (preventing the entity from acting and making others afraid to follow the example, etc.)
There's also something of a question as to how much this is "do you recognize how many people feel negatively about your actions" (peaceful protest) and how much this is "feel our wrath and tremble in fear" (terrorism).
Like I say, the internet age seems to make many words into "almosts".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: The reason "non-violent protest" and "terrorism" come to my mind is that either could do an entity harm, though in the former case it's more likely a result of lost business (through loss of public stature or boycott) and in the latter it's more likely more direct harm (preventing the entity from acting and making others afraid to follow the example, etc.)
Except that this activity, if it goes as planned, isn't a matter of 'could possibly' interfere or harm the business. If this goes as planned, it certainly will cause harm.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
For some reason, it's hard for me to side against them, though.
Go figure. Perhaps it's because I was brought up on bootleg movies as a child.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:For some reason, it's hard for me to side against them, though.
Not for me. In my personal opinion, this sort of thing will prove more damaging at least in the short run to opponents of the labels rather than the labels themselves.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Honestly, the real shameful thing is the fee structure. The "attack" sounds like a useful way to highlight an absurdity inherent in the banking fee structure. I doubt the law firm would actually get STUCK with a large bill (doesn't seem wise for the bank to advertise that sort of liability), but this would certainly be a nuisance for both the firm and the bank.
What makes this different, if anything, from something like a street march that interferes with a firm making money?
The way things are going, the Swedish government will hurry up and make a law against making small payments in support of someone convicted of copyright infringement (or whatever related crime the PB guys were convicted of)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It's interesting, but I'm not sure in my mind where it falls morally on the scale between "non-violent protest" and "terrorism".
Actually, it seems pretty clear to me that this is pretty clearly encouraging vandalism.
Whatever else you think of pirating or file-sharing or what have you, this is encouraging vandalism-morally if not legally.
Wait a second. Sending them money is vandalism?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Wait a second. Sending them money is vandalism?
Sending them money in such a way that it costs them money to receive it, more money than is sent, with the intention to cause them to lose money?
Sure sounds like vandalism to me.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
Sure sounds like awesome to me.
The only thing that charging these people is going to do is have other people take their place. Pirate bay is one of the best set up sharing sites I know.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Wait a second. Sending them money is vandalism?
In much the same way that throwing a purse full of quarters through my window would be.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
How does electronically transferring money involve the destruction of property?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Wait a second. Sending them money is vandalism?
Sending them money in such a way that it costs them money to receive it, more money than is sent, with the intention to cause them to lose money?
Sure sounds like vandalism to me.
Not to me. We didn't make them sign a contract like that, nor are we responsible for the consequences.
Then again I once paid my rent to a bad landlord in unrolled pennies, then took a picture of him kicking me out of his office. When he took me to court the pictures proved he was lying. Not only was the debt wipe off, but he was found guilty of lying to the court.. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: How does electronically transferring money involve the destruction of property?
It's not a perfect analogy, but what is?
Knowingly sending money in such a way that it costs the recipient more money than the transfer doesn't seem very different from throwing through a window half the cost of repairing it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:How does electronically transferring money involve the destruction of property?
I'm not sure why some folks are just saying stuff like 'electronic transfer of money'. That's rather like saying, "All I did was give him an egg roll with shrimp," when the eater is allergic to shellfish. Not as bad, of course, but the principle of only bearing responsibility for the exact, specific thing done and nothing it's connected to is the same.
As for how it's like destruction of property, I consider it like vandalism because it's not exactly vandalism and it's not exactly theft, even though the result is the same. I'm just as happy to call it theft, though. If I'm at a poker game and am deliberately losing to someone else in order to help a third party cheat, I can hardly say, "All I did was lose some money!"
------
quote:Not to me. We didn't make them sign a contract like that, nor are we responsible for the consequences.
We're not responsible for the consequences...if we take action that directly results in those consequences? I'm afraid that doesn't make much sense to me, Kwea.
quote:Then again I once paid my rent to a bad landlord in unrolled pennies, then took a picture of him kicking me out of his office. When he took me to court the pictures proved he was lying. Not only was the debt wipe off, but he was found guilty of lying to the court.. [Big Grin]
That's not really similar at all.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
i think its hilarious.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It is clever and amusing. I just happen to also think it's wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: How does electronically transferring money involve the destruction of property?
It's not a perfect analogy, but what is?
Knowingly sending money in such a way that it costs the recipient more money than the transfer doesn't seem very different from throwing through a window half the cost of repairing it.
I think rivka's analogy is pretty sound. Or, if you deposited payments on the top of Mt. Everest, used PayPal+ which required an exorbitant downpayment to receive sent funds.
I'll be honest, I like rivka's version best.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think it's hilarious too, but that doesn't make it right. I think "the Man" is kinda stupid in the way they try to prevent internet piracy (the specific demographic they're trying to beat is the EXACT kind of person who loves solving puzzles, preferably with ironic solutions). But while I admit I have "acquired" some things less than legally, I have sympathy for the people that do so without shame.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It seems like the bank could just automatically refuse all transfers below a certain amount.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Yeah I was actually kinda wondering about that.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Except that this activity, if it goes as planned, isn't a matter of 'could possibly' interfere or harm the business. If this goes as planned, it certainly will cause harm.
True- but frankly, I doubt it will come to that. It's the sort of thing a customer in good standing could warn a bank about and have the bank either forbid all electronic transactions for a time, limit the minimum deposit to above the transaction fee, or move all funds to a different account. And most banks wouldn't want to allow their customers to be vulnerable to such an attack- it would gain them a small profit in the short term, but harm account-holder confidence in the long run.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Then again I once paid my rent to a bad landlord in unrolled pennies, then took a picture of him kicking me out of his office.
Man. What did he do that caused you to do that?
I own a triplex, and rent out the two units I'm not living in. I'm really not sure what I'd do if one of my tenants were to pay me in pennies. It would take hours to roll the things, and the automatic change counters all charge a percentage, which would be significant with this munch money. I wonder if my bank would count them for free if I were depositing them into my account.
Maybe I should specify a minimum denomination for cash rent payments the next time I have to draw up a lease.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This isn't going to work.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I wonder if my bank would count them for free if I were depositing them into my account.
Chevy Chase bank will change coins to dollars with no fee, and with no proof of investment in the bank.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Interesting. I don't think that there are any Chevy Chase branches around here, but I'll have to see if any of the area banks do offer this service.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Wait a second. Sending them money is vandalism?
In much the same way that throwing a purse full of quarters through my window would be.
Part of the mismatch is that a window is not designed to accept purses of quarters in any way. A bank account is designed to accept money, just not in this form. I think thats why some people are not too keen on the usage of the word vandalism, its an imperfect "real-world" analogy to a more abstract problem.
quote:I wonder if my bank would count them for free if I were depositing them into my account.
Chevy Chase bank will change coins to dollars with no fee, and with no proof of investment in the bank.
Is there also a John Belushi bank?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Then again I once paid my rent to a bad landlord in unrolled pennies, then took a picture of him kicking me out of his office.
Man. What did he do that caused you to do that?
I own a triplex, and rent out the two units I'm not living in. I'm really not sure what I'd do if one of my tenants were to pay me in pennies. It would take hours to roll the things, and the automatic change counters all charge a percentage, which would be significant with this munch money. I wonder if my bank would count them for free if I were depositing them into my account.
Maybe I should specify a minimum denomination for cash rent payments the next time I have to draw up a lease.
I asked him to fix my sink 4 times over 3 weeks, and he never did. I withheld rent (50% I believe, for 2 months), as allowed by law, until he did so, but I didn't use certified mail for the last notification. He claimed I never informed him. He locked me out illegally so that I had to break in to my own apartment.
I waited until he was manning the front desk at the office, while his secretary was on lunch, and came in with an army duffel and a hand duffel filled with pennies. I had to have help carrying them in, it was pretty funny.
The counter was really high, and he was on the phone so he didn't know what I was doing until I dumped all $300 (or so) on to his lap, over the counter.
I had a friend filming the whole thing, because I knew with his temper he would blow up and come after me. Funny thing is all he had to do was tell me they needed to be rolled coins and I would have had to sit there, in front of him, and roll them again (I got them rolled from the bank, and had to unwrap them....too all night).
He blew up, came after me, and I got it all on film. He took me to court, not realizing my friend had been filming though the glass doors of his office, and claimed I had never paid him a dime.
I stood up and said I never gave him a dime, but I gave him $400 worth of pennies, which are legal tender. The judge didn't believe me, so I offered the tape proving I had paid him, however unconventionally.
He got fined and cited for lying, and I got off. The judge said it was the most creative thing he had seen in all his years as a housing judge. He also said that I would have had to wrap them if my landlord had asked me to, and the only reason I got away with it was my landlord was on tape threatening me and ordering me off his property. Then he said my landlord was an idiot. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I wonder if my bank would count them for free if I were depositing them into my account.
Chevy Chase bank will change coins to dollars with no fee, and with no proof of investment in the bank.
Is there also a John Belushi bank?
I'd prefer a Dan Ackroyd's bank personally.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I've never done anything like that, but lord knows I've wanted to.
University of Miami once almost threatened to cancel my semester of classes (worth $8K at the time) because I was short $0.04 in my payments. They sent me six letters by mail (do the math on postage) notifying me of it.
I wrote them a check for the amount.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I also had the receipt from the bank proving I had gotten $400 (I think it may have been less than that, but my rent was $425 for an efficiency, so that's the number I am using....it's been almost 15 years since this happened...lol) from the bank, in case he wanted to claim I was short. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
:: laugh :: You know, now that you relate the story, I think I remember your having posted about it before. That's pretty damned funny (and it sounds like he deserved it).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Part of the mismatch is that a window is not designed to accept purses of quarters in any way. A bank account is designed to accept money, just not in this form. I think thats why some people are not too keen on the usage of the word vandalism, its an imperfect "real-world" analogy to a more abstract problem.
Exploit lacks the connotative ring that vandalism or theft has, though.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I waited until he was manning the front desk at the office, while his secretary was on lunch, and came in with an army duffel and a hand duffel filled with pennies. I had to have help carrying them in, it was pretty funny.
The counter was really high, and he was on the phone so he didn't know what I was doing until I dumped all $300 (or so) on to his lap, over the counter.
Wow. Accord to my calculations, given the average mass of a penny (pre- 1982 mint is 3.1 grams, post 82 is 2.5 grams, and pennies have a half life of between 25 and 50 years) those bags weighed anywhere between 180 and 280 pounds- probably around 240 at least. That's insane.
I believe in many countries small currency exploits are illegal for these reasons.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
The bank was fine with giving you that many pennies? Sweet.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
40,000 pennies... O_o That reminds me of penny drives we'd do as a kid at our church - over a summer we raised over $1,000. (100,000 pennies) That was a sight to see.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
There was an article on NPR this morning that the mint is cutting back on producing 2009 coins. (collectors grab them now--they will be valuable due to their relative scarcity).
The reason...
Two things are happening during the recession. A) Not as many people are passing currency around. B) Very many people are taking those old jars of loose coins and putting them back in circulation. They assume its because in tight times people need every penny. I believe its because of troublemakers like you and your 40,000 pennies.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My husband and I have a change jar. We roll the coins ourselves. The change jar is for whatever games he wants to buy. The store owner gives him a really hard time when he comes in with a hundred dollars in change.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I can't see why, especially if he goes to the trouble of rolling them. That just saves the store manager the trip to the bank for change. People can be such dicks even when you're being helpful.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Orincoro is in a mood.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
YOUR IN A MOOD!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's also now officially day three without any cigarettes. Give a a guy a break. I'm gonna go chew a nicorrete and have a good cry.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That's an amount of pennies that you really could swim in like a dolphin - dig through like a mole - throw up in the air and let them rain down over you.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
But it always occurred to me watching Duck Tales, that if Uncle Scrooge actually swam in those coins, he would first die by landing on them head first, and then be crushed by their weight as he swam through them. I was possibly morbid as a child.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The secret to the money swim is having your vault equipped with a powerful upward air flow that slightly separates and elevates the coins as it blows through, and a vibration generator that simulates earthquake liquefaction. It becomes no more difficult or dangerous than swimming through greased ball bearings.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: How does electronically transferring money involve the destruction of property?
It's not a perfect analogy, but what is?
Knowingly sending money in such a way that it costs the recipient more money than the transfer doesn't seem very different from throwing through a window half the cost of repairing it.
I've been thinking about this. Under this definition, I think just about anyone who's charged a small purchase (a few dollars or less) on a credit card is quite probably guilty of vandalism.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
Which is why many small stores require minimum purchase amounts when using a card... and some even charge $0.50 if you use a card for your transaction.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Magson: Which is why many small stores require minimum purchase amounts when using a card... and some even charge $0.50 if you use a card for your transaction.
If they accept Visa and Mastercard, those stores are almost certainly violating terms of service. A condition of accepting those cards is not to set a minimum transaction amount and surcharges are almost never OK. I see places getting away with it, and usually comply with the merchant's wishes without complaint, but it's still against the rules set by the card issuers. You're not supposed to accept those cards if the benefit from additional sales volume doesn't offset the losses at the individual small transaction level.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: But it always occurred to me watching Duck Tales, that if Uncle Scrooge actually swam in those coins, he would first die by landing on them head first, and then be crushed by their weight as he swam through them. I was possibly morbid as a child.
Well, if you had gone to the original sources and not wasted your time with the degenerate descendants of once-mighty franchises, you would know that there is a trick to it, which only Scrooge knows.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Magson: Which is why many small stores require minimum purchase amounts when using a card... and some even charge $0.50 if you use a card for your transaction.
Aside from what scifibum said, it is also illegal to do so in WA state, where I reside.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I can't see why, especially if he goes to the trouble of rolling them. That just saves the store manager the trip to the bank for change. People can be such dicks even when you're being helpful.
Because he has no way of knowing if you really put the right amount of money in each roll, or if the middle of the roll is filled with something other than coins. Believe me, people do try this. Giving a store rolled coins is not being helpful, it is a hassle.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: The bank was fine with giving you that many pennies? Sweet.
Yeah...I had to give them 5 business days notice. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Magson: Which is why many small stores require minimum purchase amounts when using a card... and some even charge $0.50 if you use a card for your transaction.
And THAT is illegal and in violation with the contract each store has with every major credit card company. It happens, but when it does THEY are breaking the law.their contract.
The "minimum purchase" thing, that is...I know, we had a rep come in to a business I worked at once and threaten to pull out machine if we continued to do it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lupus:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I can't see why, especially if he goes to the trouble of rolling them. That just saves the store manager the trip to the bank for change. People can be such dicks even when you're being helpful.
Because he has no way of knowing if you really put the right amount of money in each roll, or if the middle of the roll is filled with something other than coins. Believe me, people do try this. Giving a store rolled coins is not being helpful, it is a hassle.
Not true at all, it depends on the store. B$N LOVED it when people did....and a small scale which could weigh the rolls along with a list of allowable variances for each denomination make checking them almost foolproof.
It's called LEGAL TENDER for a reason.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Exploit lacks the connotative ring that vandalism or theft has, though.
*shrug* I'm OK with that since exploit seems more accurate. It seems to characterize the credit card minimum purchase issue better too.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by Magson: Which is why many small stores require minimum purchase amounts when using a card... and some even charge $0.50 if you use a card for your transaction.
If they accept Visa and Mastercard, those stores are almost certainly violating terms of service. A condition of accepting those cards is not to set a minimum transaction amount and surcharges are almost never OK. I see places getting away with it, and usually comply with the merchant's wishes without complaint, but it's still against the rules set by the card issuers. You're not supposed to accept those cards if the benefit from additional sales volume doesn't offset the losses at the individual small transaction level.
I've seen chains as large as Dollar Tree do this (minimum purchase, that is), so... I don't know. Case by case exceptions? At any rate, it's a stupidly easy rule to weasel out of; I've seen plenty of places, including one I used to work for, that offered a discount for people paying variously in cash, with debit cards, and/or with checks (and likely hiking their prices the equivalent percentage.)
I can't say I sympathize with the card companies in this regard. It sounds an awful like "Rule #1, we get to hit you. Rule #2, if you try to prevent us from hitting you, we get to hit you."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Nope...it's pretty much against policy regardless. It isn't always illegal, although in most states it is as well.
It's to protect the consumer, so that they will always be able to use their cards.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
[ May 13, 2009, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:I can't say I sympathize with the card companies in this regard. It sounds an awful like "Rule #1, we get to hit you. Rule #2, if you try to prevent us from hitting you, we get to hit you."
I do sympathize with the merchants. The ones that do a lot of small transactions and almost no big ones, like the sandwich shop in the building next door. They can't make money as a cash-only place, because not enough people carry cash. Accepting credit cards forced them to raise prices, which makes them less attractive to everyone. They struggle. (It's only my belief that nobody owes them a successful sandwich shop that keeps me from shedding a tear.)
But it's right there in the agreement when they sign up to accept the credit cards. *shrug*
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I know a computer place which does this allowed thing from the second article. I wish more places did it instead of making minimum purchase limits.
quote:Discount for cash transaction: Merchants can offer this discount as long as the information is clearly disclosed to customers and the cash price is presented as a discount from the standard price charged for all other forms of payment.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:I've been thinking about this. Under this definition, I think just about anyone who's charged a small purchase (a few dollars or less) on a credit card is quite probably guilty of vandalism.
Intent matters; someone who *purposely* bought a pack of gum with a credit every day to intentionally screw over a business by making them lose money on credit card fees would be a scumbag, in my opinion.
Someone that doesn't know about the fees, or regretfully doesn't have any cash... that's a different story.
Me, I generally try not to use credit cards for small amounts; at big chains like Target I might anyway, if I have no cash; at the local produce store, I'll drive a mile to an ATM and get cash before I try to buy three oranges with a credit card though.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, I don't do that, but in the PB situation I think it is creative, and completely justified. I may be donating myself, just because they made me laugh. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Well, I don't do that, but in the PB situation I think it is creative, and completely justified. I may be donating myself, just because they made me laugh. [Big Grin]
It's certainly creative, but in what way is it justified?
"Courts ruled against me...take action to cost my opponent money." That seems to be the reasoning. Oh, and not liking the opponent.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
Just because the court ruled against them doesn't mean they were at fault, and I bet they disagree vehemently that they were doing anything wrong .
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Just because the court ruled against them doesn't mean they were at fault, and I bet they disagree vehemently that they were doing anything wrong .
Neither of those have anything to do with the question I asked.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Riiiight.
Don't wait for me to answer, assign a stupid, irrational reason and claim it to be mine. Assign a stupid rationale that I never said. It's soooo much easier that way.
It is legal. It meets the standard put forth by the courts, and doing it in this way is a creative form of non-violent objection to the ruling. It highlights both the absurd decision, and the fact that they still disagree with the ruling....and they do so by breaking no rules or laws.
A lot of these people/companies have used the "letter of the law" to increase the duration of copyright laws to absurd amounts, cover things that may or may not have been intended to be covered in the first place, and to prosecute people who do little more than compile lists of independent websites.
I find this to be a completely justified way of showing how little sense some laws make, and to announce what a lot of people thing of this ruling. Civil disobedience in the digital age...using the same "letter of the law" worldview....
It's freaking brilliant!
If they don't like it, they can change banks. Better hurry though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kwea,
quote:Don't wait for me to answer, assign a stupid, irrational reason and claim it to be mine. Assign a stupid rationale that I never said. It's soooo much easier that way.
I did wait for you to answer. 'Seems to be', you'll recall. I didn't say, "This is what you think." That would've been easier, but then so would reading my reply have been easier:)
quote: It is legal. It meets the standard put forth by the courts, and doing it in this way is a creative form of non-violent objection to the ruling. It highlights both the absurd decision, and the fact that they still disagree with the ruling....and they do so by breaking no rules or laws.
I'm perfectly aware that this is legal. That is not and has never been the point I was making.
quote:A lot of these people/companies have used the "letter of the law" to increase the duration of copyright laws to absurd amounts, cover things that may or may not have been intended to be covered in the first place, and to prosecute people who do little more than compile lists of independent websites.
And so, in response to the perceived injustice of this 'letter of the law' style of rulings, it's good to...use precisely the same style of reasoning? That doesn't follow.
quote:I find this to be a completely justified way of showing how little sense some laws make, and to announce what a lot of people thing of this ruling. Civil disobedience in the digital age...using the same "letter of the law" worldview....
It's a pretty cheap form of civil disobedience - pun intended - that poses no danger and costs next to nothing to those participating.
PS 'Compile lists of independent websites' indeed *rolleyes* I don't believe it should be illegal to do so, but let's not beat around the bush.
Edit: Now that I think about it, though, your reasoning doesn't appear much different than what I thought it seemed like. There's just an added layer of poetic justice tacked on, really.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Sorry man, I am sick as a dog AND it was late, way later than I should have been up....and I was grumpy.
I think it DOES follow, and that it highlights the fact that just because something is illegal under current law doesn't make it as cut and dried as some people would like it to seem. I think it IS good to use this to highlight disagreement.
You point may not have been about the legal aspects of it, but part of why I like it is the fact that it is legal. As a matter of fact, to me it's central to why it is brilliant rather than just an exploit, or a regular DOS attack.
It helps that the target is the very law firm that used legalities to win this case too, although that isn't a major reason. I realize that as bad as this ruling is, the law is a very important tool, and lawyers are a necessary evil of it. Not that lawyers are evil, but the fact that the law is so obscure that regular citizens are unable to navigate it without assistance is not good.
I download a lot of content off of a tracker that draws torrents off of PB....and 99% of what I download is legal content, either out of copyright or things that artists release via torrents for publicity. The other 1% would have been legal if copyright had not been extended to an absurd length.
I can find those torrents using Google almost as easily, but you don't see THEM being sued. You may think it a ridiculous concept, but a lot of people don't And not everyone making that argument is lying about what they download either.
I won a copy of MS Office, legally bought, but after going around and around with them about getting a free copy to reinstall on a computer that crashed I finally gave up and downloaded a crack. I don't feel bad about it at all, nor will I ever. If I had an option I would not do business with MS again because of the outcome, but I have to....and I HAD already bought it once before, less then a year later.
Not every person using these trackers are downloading movies or video games.
I have always been a fan of poetic justice, though.
[ May 14, 2009, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I can find those torrents using Google almost as easily, but you don't see THEM being sued.
...Yet.
Which is part of the reason the ruling makes me nervous.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I can find those torrents using Google almost as easily, but you don't see THEM being sued.
...Yet.
Which is part of the reason the ruling makes me nervous.
This strikes me as the inevitable next step. Either there has to be a clear ruling in support of consumer freedom, or I don't know what happens- but then, there is the ruling in favor of video recorders way back in the 80's that defined our attitudes toward set top boxes up to the present day- you never really know how it will all shake out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So going to repeat what I said: This isn't going to work.
For either party, no less. by all means, hit a torrent site. hit it as hard as you can. watch it metastasize and evolve an immunity to your best efforts and legal options. watch your efforts merely turn the industry into more of an unrepetant, 'black' industry. continue beating back ocean with broom.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)