Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

At first I thought this must have been a joke. But then:

> While The Pirate Bay recognizes the irony of the case, they feel that they have to pursue this matter. ... “While The Pirate Bay may have a positive view on copying, it will not stand by and watch copyright enforcing organizations disrespect copyright,” Pirate Bay’s Winston says in a comment.

So basically, their stance is copying is good, unless it's done by a copyright organization? I mean, I guess I can see that, that they're anti-hypocrisy, not anti-copying, although it's a fine line.

What would their opinion be of a site copying their CSS or JS, which had nothing to do with anti-piracy -- I assume they would be fine with that then?

View on HN

It says that if they win, they'll donate the winnings to that 9 year old girl who had her Winnie the Pooh laptop taken and if they lose, it will reinforce the right to make parody websites, which is apparently in question under Finnish law due to issues over the author's moral rights.

This, too, a case where their moral rights come into play, because their design is being used to promote something they are strongly opposed to.

Ignoring the finer detail of Finnish law - I think The Pirate Bay have fallen into a PR trap.

From the perspective of the average man, I like parodies. Parodies are used to highlight an alternate point of view - often with damaging affect. In general, when someone complains that a parody is offensive, it simply makes the person complaining look bad.

The only other legal/moral argument relates to copying code. Winning that argument will make The Pirate Bay look like hypocrites. And I suspect that is the trap The Pirate Bay will fall into.

So who is the bigger hypocrite? It doesn't matter. The other side does not care about their PR image.

I think the correct response would have been to copy the other groups site right down to the CSS, and making the copy a torrent site. Then let the enemy initiate a lawsuit, and follow up with a counter lawsuit.

>I think the correct response would have been to copy the other groups site //

Disagree. This presupposes that they will get equal treatment under the law, that doesn't seem likely and I can't really see any external pressure being put on Finland to find in favour of TPB (but very much the other way).

By pressing the current suit they either get money and a PR win or they get a relaxation, via precedent, of copyright laws. Looks to me they win either way.

Reminds me of an idea in Schopenhauer's "The Art of Being Right".

He says that, when you argue against someone who is part of a cult, you can use his cult's beliefs in the argumentation against him (because he's supposed to admit them as truths). However, he cannot use his cult's beliefs in arguing against you.

So, TPB can reprimand a copyright organization for violating copyright, but it doesn't work the other way around. It's not hypocrisy.

It's hard to know what they think. Maybe they expect to lose, which would reinforce the right for parody websites.

That's the joke. They know they'll at least get a good laugh from using the same rhetorics as the anti-piracy groups use, even if they win or not.

Its a joke. One they are keen to take to the courts. It was clear with their original statement. Using their words against them. /popcorn

Anything that exposes the rampant hypocrisy of big media, I'm for in principle.

Also, reading through the first several child comments, I'm struck by the thought: A legitimate lawsuit (edit: or criminal prosecution, as the case may be) as parody. If that's what they're after (at least, in part), that's brilliant.

(Edit: That would be separate from the defense of parody directly described. As I read it, if this organization can copy TPB code for use in a site opposing TPB and contrary to TPB's moral sentiment, then examples of parody that do the same or similar things in other contexts should also be permissible/legal. And this circumstance would also potentially bolster current and/or proposed law that codifies this.)

Part of the longer term goal in all this is education. As people -- the public -- become more aware of and informed about how they are being screwed, pressure will build to correct, or at least improve, the underlying circumstances.

The ACTA protests, for example, did not happen in isolation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com