Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 17th Feb 2009 14:53 UTC
Legal Practically before the trial is up and running, The Pirate Bay has achieved a major victory over the entertainment industry. On day two, the prosecutor has dropped half of the charges against the bittorrent website. The remaining charges are much lighter than the ones that have been dropped.
Order by: Score:
waste of time
by TechGeek on Tue 17th Feb 2009 15:39 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Its a waste of time. TPB only hosts trackers. Which aren't copyright themselves. While you could say that its providing the tools for piracy, so are ISP's and Mozilla for that matter.

Reply Score: 9

RE: waste of time - quiet you
by jabbotts on Tue 17th Feb 2009 17:54 UTC in reply to "waste of time"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

The recording industry know no limits. If they can make a case for browsers and network providers, it'll happen.

Reply Score: 5

RE: waste of time
by Liquidator on Tue 17th Feb 2009 19:35 UTC in reply to "waste of time"
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

I see your point, however, the name "Pirate Bay" sort of reminds piracy ;)

eBay has been condamned and fined for hosting pages that sold copycats. This could be the same for TPB and piracy.

F#CK THE RIAA!! ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: waste of time
by TechGeek on Tue 17th Feb 2009 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE: waste of time"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Actually, this is more like Craig's list posting ads that are for stolen merchandise or prostitution. In those cases Craig's list didn't do anything illegal, although you could say they were facilitating the transaction.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: waste of time
by Mellin on Tue 17th Feb 2009 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: waste of time"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

so everything with the name pirate is illegal ?

Edited 2009-02-17 21:36 UTC

Reply Score: 4

google next?
by Adurbe on Tue 17th Feb 2009 15:54 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

If they cant effectivly link to the location of copyright material then can Google?

I hope TPB win this case.

p.s. if they do win then there will be more pressure on isps to heavily 'manage' traffic over bittorrent, wether the use is is legitimate (linux distro) or not

Reply Score: 2

Sad state of affairs
by rexstuff on Tue 17th Feb 2009 16:22 UTC
rexstuff
Member since:
2007-04-06

It became clear during the proceedings that the prosecutors had little understanding of how bittorrent technology works.


That really is the sad state of affairs when it comes to any legal system and technology. A piss-poor understanding of why conventional notions of property and law don't always apply directly to the virtual world.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by merkoth
by merkoth on Tue 17th Feb 2009 16:47 UTC
merkoth
Member since:
2006-09-22

I know this is serious bussiness and all, but I can't help to find this extremely amusing. Just to imagine the embarrassment of the prosecutor when he found out that he had completely messed up makes me giggle...

This is why traditional media distributors are dying: The world evolved around them so much they don't understand it anymore. They're so pissed off that the way they used to make money doesn't work anymore that they can't even realize that they can actually embrace these technologies to make money in a different way. I think BitTorrent could prove like a very useful way to distribute _legal_ digital media, reducing production costs dramatically!

Unfortunately, behemots like these tend to make a lot of noise and mess when they fall down. It's just a matter of time, though.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by merkoth
by WorknMan on Tue 17th Feb 2009 17:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by merkoth"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

This is why traditional media distributors are dying: The world evolved around them so much they don't understand it anymore. They're so pissed off that the way they used to make money doesn't work anymore that they can't even realize that they can actually embrace these technologies to make money in a different way. I think BitTorrent could prove like a very useful way to distribute _legal_ digital media, reducing production costs dramatically!


Possibly, but what incentive are people going to have to use the legal services when they can still use the illegal ones and get the content for free?

It's kind of hard to create a business model around a product that your customers are demanding for $0.

Maybe they could sell t-shirts or coffee mugs? ;)

Edited 2009-02-17 17:58 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by merkoth
by RawMustard on Wed 18th Feb 2009 09:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by merkoth"
RawMustard Member since:
2005-10-10

It's entertainment, it does not contribute in a meaningful way to humanity surviving. Ask a starving African if he gives a damn about commercial music or movies. It's been overpriced for decades and it's about time the reality stick hit them! People can make their own music and listen to already made works for free.

The Entertainment industry was never responsible for driving civilization and never will be. And they certainly didn't need to make insane profits all those millennia ago to enjoy it either!

They remind me of monsanto complaining about their bullshit seeds growing in some poor farmers paddock!
HELLO! This is planet earth and seeds and music thrive "without" control or money!

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by merkoth
by siraf72 on Wed 18th Feb 2009 10:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by merkoth"
siraf72 Member since:
2006-02-22

"Possibly, but what incentive are people going to have to use the legal services when they can still use the illegal ones and get the content for free? "

Not sure that's true. I am certain (yes hardly scientific, i know) that alot of iTunes users are former napster users (or Gnutella,etc). People will pay if they think its worth it. IMHO, most people would rather do something legally than illegally. Again, I think the iTunes music store proves this clearly. All those users still have the option to download music illegally.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by merkoth
by gustl on Thu 19th Feb 2009 11:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by merkoth"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

What does a Business need to provide do be successful?

Simple: A product which offers a better price/value ratio than all other players in the market.

Let's compare pirated vs. legal downloadable music:

Pirated comes for free, legal costs a lot
Pirated comes unrestricted, legal is locked into DRM
Pirated might bring you in trouble, legal won't

The key to make more money, would be to increase the product value and reduce the price:
1) Reduce the price by 50%.
2) Provide just plain mp3, no DRM files.
3) Provide high bandwidth.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by merkoth
by John Nilsson on Thu 19th Feb 2009 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by merkoth"
John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, it must be hard. Sombody should tell that Google guys that it's never going to fly. How are they ever going to get revenue from a search service people are demanding for free....

Oh wait, they are doing quite good, aren't they?

Reply Score: 2

samw
Member since:
2008-12-12

I'm no lawyer, but I know it takes very little research to work out TPB doesn't host content. This just shows a ridiculous incompetence on the part of the prosecutors.

It also works vastly in TPB's favour. The tech world and a fair percentage of the music and film world too, is watching as the prosecutors make total asses of themselves. It's laughable really.

I hope TPB does win this case. I don't know about everybody else but I certainly don't see copyright (and patents for that matter) as a good, honest and decent part of modern society.

I wish the pirates the best of luck.

Sam

Reply Score: 5

UglyKidBill Member since:
2005-07-27

I doubt they are _that_ incompetent...

I think this and all the DRM methods they implement knowing they will be craked sooner rather than later are just means to
- A) create as much fear of punishment as they can, and
- B) buy themselves some time while they try to figure out some way to rule the digital age of entertainment as they were used to.

Reply Score: 2

v Doh
by J.R. on Tue 17th Feb 2009 17:10 UTC
RE: Doh ('freedom of speech'???)
by samw on Tue 17th Feb 2009 17:17 UTC in reply to "Doh"
samw Member since:
2008-12-12

This, as far as I can see, is nothing to do with freedom of speech, but is strongly related to freedom of information. Enlighten me please?

Sam

Reply Score: 4

RE: Doh
by clivecrous on Tue 17th Feb 2009 18:18 UTC in reply to "Doh"
clivecrous Member since:
2009-02-14

... speaking of not understanding before prosecuting ...

Reply Score: 3

Comment by tryfan
by tryfan on Tue 17th Feb 2009 17:43 UTC
tryfan
Member since:
2006-12-16

Dropping one of the charges may not necessarily mean that much, since the maximum sentence can the same for both crimes (2 years in prison).
I suspect that the prosecutor has done this to simplify the case.
In fact, it will be easier, since he won't have to go in the technical niceties. All he has do do is to prove that TPB has made it easier for its users to share files, That shouldn't be too hard.
Now, it's up to the court to decide whether this is actually illegal or not.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by tryfan - normal practice
by jabbotts on Tue 17th Feb 2009 17:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by tryfan"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

It's a pretty common practice to go to court with a long list of charges and related parties. Many of the charges will be found to not apply and parties will be found to be unrelated. Problem is, if they don't call all parties and complaints off the start, they have a much harder time adding them in later.

It's a bit of a "grab anything possible and see what sticks where" process.

Reply Score: 3

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Problem is, if they don't call all parties and complaints off the start, they have a much harder time adding them in later.


That's because taking someone to court just cuz you don't like what they're doing, and feel it's hurting your business is not actually just cause for taking them to court in the first place. They abuse the process by citing as many possible possible crimes so that they can hope *something* will stick as you mentioned.

It's quite abusive IMO - the justice systems have become breeding ground for revenge on people and businesses who just happened to find a way to hurt another's monetary business revenue, even if it's indirect.

Anyhow, I hope it's proven that the services TPB provides are not actually criminal, and they're simply being abused by the real "criminals" - the consumers themselves who have no respect for copyrights and are willing to share copyrighted works freely without any permission or regrets.

Now, on the other hand, I'm of the opinion that copyright laws should not be as strong as they are now - I even recently started putting together some questions to ask people to find where people draw the line between criminal copyright infringement, and fair use... I should publish that sometime ;)

Reply Score: 7

Comment by satan666
by satan666 on Tue 17th Feb 2009 18:00 UTC
satan666
Member since:
2008-04-18

There is a very simple solution. Sell those damn CDs or DVDs at 5 dollars or less. A CD with cover costs roughly 50 cents. Sell it for 5 dollars and people will use torrents less. When one buys it from the store one gets a nice cover, good quality tracks and no viruses. The same goes for movies or software (except for the price, of course).

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by satan666
by wanker90210 on Tue 17th Feb 2009 18:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by satan666"
wanker90210 Member since:
2007-10-26

Yeah, let's create some 21th century Al Capones.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by satan666
by Al2001 on Wed 18th Feb 2009 06:19 UTC in reply to "Comment by satan666"
Al2001 Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree with this "Added Value" is the key to selling more CD's. Being the middle aged fella that I am I still remember with great fondness opening up gatefold sleeve LP's, CD's today are packaged in such a sterile manor and the compression used when mastering is so bad you may as well just stick with your MP3's.

Bring the price down make the product worth buying and your back in business!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by l3v1 on Wed 18th Feb 2009 12:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree with this "Added Value" is the key


I can also agree with "added value", what I can't agree with is "added price".

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by satan666
by gustl on Thu 19th Feb 2009 13:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by satan666"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Much easier:

Stream the songs for a flatrate, with a button "buy this album as CD/DVD" always available.

That's what the Monty Python's are doing regarding YouTube. And it generating a huge stream of sales on Amazon for them.

People will buy it, if they appreciate it enough. Those who don't, would never have bought it. But they pirate it, because pirating it costs them nothing.
So the question is: How do I get more money? Making myself known to an audience of 1 billion, which generates maybe 1 Million sales, or do I make myself known to an Audience of 1000000, where I get 100000 sales from.

Reply Score: 2

The cae I'd like to see
by sbergman27 on Tue 17th Feb 2009 18:30 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

The case I would really like to see is the one where the starving artists rise up and show that these companies have rigged the game so that it is virtually impossible to get into the industry without their help, consequently getting to harvest the fruits of the artists' talent for practically nothing, using the proceeds to press legal suits claiming that the general public is stealing from them.

I don't support capitol punishment for mere murder. But I might make an exception in the case of senior executives in the recording industry.

Edited 2009-02-17 18:39 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Comment by vitae
by vitae on Tue 17th Feb 2009 19:05 UTC
vitae
Member since:
2006-02-20

...and pay record executives less. Same goes for studio execs in Hollywood.

Reply Score: 2

olefiver
Member since:
2008-04-04

Norwegian lawer Magnus Stray Vyrje, which defended napster.no when that case went before norwegian supreme court, isn't ruling out that the procecutor is dropping half of the charges is just a tactical move.

Stray Vyrje says:
"By dropping some of the charges they may add focus to the parts of the charges where the procecution has a chance of winning"
He also feels that who the torrent system works is going to be central.


Bad translation by me, probably. sorry
I couldn't find an english version of this.
Link to article in norwegian:
http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/02/17/kultur/fildeling/the_pirate_bay/...

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Norwegian lawer Magnus Stray Vyrje, which defended napster.no when that case went before norwegian supreme court, isn't ruling out that the procecutor is dropping half of the charges is just a tactical move.

Well, of course it is a tactical move. They wouldn't do it if they didn't see it as a tactical move.

Now, assuming the original idea was to focus upon what they thought, at the time, they could win, why did they include the other charges in the first place?

What they think they might win now is substantially less than what they thought they might win going into it. This is good news no matter how you slice it.

Edited 2009-02-17 21:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

From the swedish news...
by abstraction on Tue 17th Feb 2009 21:46 UTC
abstraction
Member since:
2008-11-27

I watched the swedish news today and the prosecutor said something that might be of importance. TPB does remove unwanted .torrents like child porn and snuff movies and the like. This means that they do deside what is ok and not. I dont know if this changes anything.

Reply Score: 2

RE: From the swedish news...
by sbergman27 on Tue 17th Feb 2009 22:04 UTC in reply to "From the swedish news..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I watched the swedish news today and the prosecutor said something that might be of importance. TPB does remove unwanted .torrents like child porn and snuff movies and the like.

It is ironic that leaving the child porn in might have been better for TPB. Perhaps future sites which help people trade information will learn from that and simply let the data-flow do what it may. Thanks, RIAA, for your valuable contribution to basic decency in this world!

Reply Score: 2

RE: From the swedish news...
by sagum on Wed 18th Feb 2009 07:52 UTC in reply to "From the swedish news..."
sagum Member since:
2006-01-23

I watched the swedish news today and the prosecutor said something that might be of importance. TPB does remove unwanted .torrents like child porn and snuff movies and the like. This means that they do deside what is ok and not. I dont know if this changes anything.


You can say they do decide what is OK and not to be on their website, and they're perfectly legally allowed to do so. It doesn't change anything.

They're legally allowed to provide torrent files for any tracker they want within the law. This is what they're in court for now.

However, I don't think any law allows the index of child porn or snuff content so they do have, if not at least a legal requirement, a moral one to abide by.

Edited 2009-02-18 07:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: From the swedish news...
by John Nilsson on Thu 19th Feb 2009 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE: From the swedish news..."
John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, the defense referenced a law stating that network service providers cannot be helt responsible for what is communicated through the service provieded some prerequisits are true.

There was three things IIRC that was required.

* That the service provider does not initiate the transactions

* That the information is not selected by the service provider

* That the information is not modified by the service provider


By removing torrents I would say the prosecutor could claim that the two latter requirements are not fullfilled and thus the law is not applicable.

Reply Score: 2

Damages
by Parry Hotter on Wed 18th Feb 2009 01:03 UTC
Parry Hotter
Member since:
2007-07-20

The copyright industry is seeking compensatory damages in the region of $15M from TPB. Just as a comparison, the parents of two little kids that were brutally beaten to death by a psycho with a hammer were awarded $10k each in compensatory damages yesterday in a Swedish court.

Reply Score: 4

You just don't get it!
by tryfan on Wed 18th Feb 2009 20:56 UTC
tryfan
Member since:
2006-12-16

I can hardly believe the naivety in most of the postings I see here about this case.
It's not about fairness or technology - it's the first real test of what the current Swedish intellectual property laws means.
Laws are political, since it's the parliament who decides upon them - hopefully, in line with what the majority of the people believe. This makes the TPB case a political trial - does the law hold up to what the parliament has decided (and do the parliament interpret the views of the people in the right way)?
No matter if the TPB people get away with it or not, this will be decided in higher courts. If they are freed in the highest court, the law will probably get rewritten. (Or EU law will have to be rewritten - which will take some time; time is the only thing to hope for, if you want the copyright laws to catch up with reality).

Reply Score: 1

RE: You just don't get it!
by sbergman27 on Wed 18th Feb 2009 21:27 UTC in reply to "You just don't get it!"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

No matter if the TPB people get away with it or not...

Clearly, you are keeping an open mind, and not coming into this with any prejudices.

CNN, your trusted news source, awaits word of whether the murderer will be convicted or freed. ;-)

Edited 2009-02-18 21:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2