Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Thu 25th Jun 2009 16:40 UTC
Legal Back in April after the four involved in the Pirate Bay scuffle were declared guilty of helping to break copyright law, the judge who gave the verdict, Thomas Norstrom, was found to probably be biased due to his involvement in several pro-copyright groups. After a long, cold, hard bout of deliberation, the Swedish Court of Appeals has actually found Norstrom unbiased, something rather surprising. This means that the charges against the guilty still stand.
Order by: Score:
I said as much...
by Tuishimi on Thu 25th Jun 2009 17:39 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...all of these Judges, lawyers, attorneys belong to a variety of organizations relating to law.

I never saw a problem with this Judge's professional associations - and there would be very few legal entities familiar with the topic that would NOT belong to such organizations.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I said as much...
by alexandru_lz on Thu 25th Jun 2009 20:58 UTC in reply to "I said as much..."
alexandru_lz Member since:
2007-02-11

And how can you be so sure that the verdict was based on the actual interpretation of the law and not on the interest of the organization he was part of?

As far as I understood, those organizations were not law-related as in "promoting law and equity", but rather as in protecting the interests of large distributors against consumers via legal means.

Edit: as jabote pointed out, the question is quite likely not to be based on the validity of the verdict itself. After all, helping people distribute illegal content should morally classify as an offense (and don't give me the "legitimate use for sharing open source content" excuse -- I think that makes like 1% of TPB). However, the fine is just too unbelievably high for anyone without heavy mental disturbances (i.e. not having studied Law), and what's funniest about it is that the people who actually committed the offense of sharing the copyrighted files did not actually get punished. I assume I'm not the only one who sees something wrong in this.

Edited 2009-06-25 21:02 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: I said as much...
by Tuishimi on Thu 25th Jun 2009 21:51 UTC in reply to "RE: I said as much..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I am not saying I agree or disagree with the Judge's verdict regarding the sharing... I am just saying I knew the Judge would not be removed and the verdict dismissed.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I said as much...
by uytvbn on Fri 26th Jun 2009 08:12 UTC in reply to "I said as much..."
uytvbn Member since:
2009-06-25

I beg to differ. There are other organizations dealing with similar issues, but from a different perspective, eg. EFF Europe, so I think his choice is significant.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I said as much...
by Tuishimi on Fri 26th Jun 2009 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE: I said as much..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I understand what you are saying, his choice of which groups to associate with has meaning as to his thoughts about a given topic.

Is that the ONLY related organization he belonged to or supported?

My point was, however, would you be able to find a judge familiar with the type of case being tried who does not belong to one organization or another?

Reply Score: 2

v Good
by ringham on Thu 25th Jun 2009 17:54 UTC
RE: Good
by sbergman27 on Thu 25th Jun 2009 18:04 UTC in reply to "Good"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Pirate Bay deserves what they got.

Yes. Internet search services are evil and wrong.

Edited 2009-06-25 18:04 UTC

Reply Score: 15

RE[2]: Good
by Adurbe on Thu 25th Jun 2009 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Good"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

damn them listing links to content that others could maybe view as breach of copyrightl!

I'm just glad google would never do such a thing! They do NO evil don't you know?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Good
by ringham on Thu 25th Jun 2009 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good"
ringham Member since:
2006-03-23

Google is a bit different, don't you think? Google doesn't actively support and promote piracy. Sure, it's a problem that copyrighted material is available on Google, I'm not denying that. I support efforts to remove access to copyrighted material on Google as well. Maybe Google should also be the target of a lawsuit. I don't know - the bottom line is I believe that piracy should be stopped, and convicting the assholes at the Pirate Bay is a good a place to start as any.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Good
by sbergman27 on Thu 25th Jun 2009 22:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Google is a bit different, don't you think? Google doesn't actively support and promote piracy. Sure, it's a problem that copyrighted material is available on Google, I'm not denying that.

Google hosts and makes available content in violation of copyright, via Youtube. Pirate Bay hosts no material which violates copyright. Want to try again?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Good
by ssa2204 on Thu 25th Jun 2009 23:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

"Google is a bit different, don't you think? Google doesn't actively support and promote piracy. Sure, it's a problem that copyrighted material is available on Google, I'm not denying that.

Google hosts and makes available content in violation of copyright, via Youtube. Pirate Bay hosts no material which violates copyright. Want to try again?
"

First do not be so disingenuous as to suggest that people use Google as a primary method for pirating, where as people use Pirate Bay to search for information. I would say it is beyond disingenuous as to suggest that Pirate Bay is anything more than a central location for the mass transit of copyrighted material.

Second, in your own statement mentioning Youtube is quite interesting in comparison to Pirate Bay. Pirate Bay is most infamous for posting their snarky replies to letters informing them to take down content. Youtube on the other hand has a system in place to allow for material to be removed. The difference is night and day, to which I am shocked you could try and compare the two.

I find the whole attitude that some take to be just so absolutely, amazingly idiotic. You have the same crowd that whines, complains, and screams about DRM and copy protection methods while at the same time actively promoted piracy. I mean it is simply incredible how short sighted and naive some can be. The grand irony of Pirate Bay is that they do more to actively promote the usage of copy protection schemes by being so blatantly obnoxious and open.

They have now succeeded in bringing the issue to the front page, which only will result in even more draconian methods in the future. It reminds of when New York Mafia boss Joe Colombo was assassinated back in the early 1970s, most presume this was a hit commissioned and approved by the other families. Why, because THEY had enough sense that when you are doing something illegal, you don't hold press conferences and rallies, you fly under the radar. Pirate Bay success was to push this issue into the mainstream and face a confrontation. A confrontation they may or may not personally lose, but all users regardless will lose thanks to them. Think DRM is harsh, well just wait until the next generation which will be worse (To which I think a law should be made that anyone who pirates and complains about copy protection should be shot on the street).

It is funny though how little known and protested Macrovision has been, yet that has been a pre-cursor to CSS and DRM for 20+ years prior.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Good
by dagw on Fri 26th Jun 2009 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Google hosts and makes available content in violation of copyright, via Youtube. Pirate Bay hosts no material which violates copyright. Want to try again?

The huge and vital difference between Google and TPB, which has been pointed out over and over again, is that Google will remove links if asked and TPB won't. A lawyer in the TPB case even said in an interview that if Google didn't have the policy to remove links when asked they would happily have sued Google as well.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Good
by sbergman27 on Fri 26th Jun 2009 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Good"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

The huge and vital difference between Google and TPB, which has been pointed out over and over again, is that Google will remove links if asked and TPB won't.


As I said, "Google hosts and makes available content in violation of copyright, via Youtube. Pirate Bay hosts no material which violates copyright.".

If Google, the distributor of the copyrighted content, did not remove the content when requested, that would clearly be infringement. However, torrent search engines merely tell you that someone else is serving up the generic content you request. If The People, en masse, have chosen to use bittorrent primarily to serve and consume *copyrighted* content, then that makes a very interesting and very relevant statement. But that statement is certainly not that the operators of torrent search engines should be fined and imprisoned.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Good
by dagw on Fri 26th Jun 2009 13:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Good"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Google also removes links to torrent files, copyrighted material and the likes if asked by the copyright holders

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Good
by Wrawrat on Fri 26th Jun 2009 02:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Sure, it's a problem that copyrighted material is available on Google, I'm not denying that. I support efforts to remove access to copyrighted material on Google as well. Maybe Google should also be the target of a lawsuit.


Yeah, that's the spirit. Of course, it's impossible for Google to prevent access to every bit of copyrighted material with their current technology (Web crawler), but why bother with such frivolous details?

But come to think of it, why not tackle the source of the problem? After all, it's not Google, the Pirate Bay or any random search engine that expose our dear children to piracy. It's their users. Let's learn from our Chinese friends and probe our electronic devices with morality rootkits. Sure, it might block other, non-pirated contents at the leisure of the rootkit owner, but why should we care? After all, it's for the children.

More seriously, I believe fighting piracy with lawsuits is a sure way to failure. It's just so easy to exchange information in our current age that it would be a losing battle. Bring one down, watch 10 new grow. That's what happened when Napster, Kazaa and Suprnova were brought down. Controlling the contents like it's done in many eastern countries could do the job, but it's not quite popular in democratic countries, let alone that workarounds will be found.

It doesn't mean that IP laws should be voided, but they should definitely be reviewed to reflect the situation of the new millennium. While I do not condone piracy, I believe the affected industries could survive with a little bit of adaptation and creativity.

BTW, for those who claim that TPB and Google don't compare, just take Google Images. It became so easy to find the picture you want... while completely ignoring the copyright. And I'm not even talking about Google Video/YouTube!

Reply Score: 4

v RE[2]: Good
by ringham on Thu 25th Jun 2009 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Good"
RE[3]: Good
by sbergman27 on Thu 25th Jun 2009 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

There is a bit of a difference between a standard search provider and the Pirate Bay. Don't kid yourself.

Yeah. It searches torrents. And, as it happens, most torrents are of copyrighted material. This fact is reflected by the nature of the search results.

Bram Cohen is the truly guilty party here. And it is Bram (and his immediate family) who should be fined and imprisoned.

Edited 2009-06-25 22:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good
by Nossie on Thu 25th Jun 2009 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Good"
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

down with google! down with bing!

burn!

/s ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Good - ruling maybe, punishment.. no
by jabbotts on Thu 25th Jun 2009 18:57 UTC in reply to "Good"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Have you actually thought this through or are you basing your opinion purely on what the media companies have told you?

Perhaps the guilty ruling is valid. The punishment far outweighs the alleged crime though. 2.5 million dollars in fines and a year in prison; for providing a search engine with no infringing content on there servers.

RIAA and similar organizations are well known for inflating the loss figures so they can market "poor us". The 2.5 million in fines is based on what they claim to be the losses based on those inflated figures. After all, it wouldn't make them look like nearly victims if they actually accounted for losses accurately now wood it.

So, perhaps the court's decision of guilt will stand but the absurd penalties should be seriously reconsidered.

Reply Score: 8

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

There is still a balance of crime and punishment though. What your suggesting as acceptable (the amount of fine and time served) is the equivalent of chopping off a hand or all out execution in response to a crime not justifying that outcome.

I do empathize with your loss through (let's use the correct terms) copyright infringement. But I think the punishment you demand far outweighs the crime. Try changing the little details and thinking it through so that your judgment is not effected by your bias regarding this topic.

Reply Score: 2

ringham Member since:
2006-03-23

Oh, no, I'm not saying chop off someone's hand for copyright infringement.

I can see in some ways $2.5 million being too harsh. I can. Maybe a longer prison term would have been appropriate (2-3 years, perhaps).

Reply Score: 0

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

See, that's all I'm getting at also. The punishment must fit the crime. Granted, a year in prison alone is an experience most people don't want to have. I also see a difference between the facilitation of information versus the people who are actually providing the material for download. But, this is more to do with the guilty verdict rather than punitive decision so I leave it outside the scope of discussion.

Reply Score: 2

ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

I actually do agree completely that the punishment for that girl in Minnesota to receive a fine totaling millions was excessive, especially when you compare this to fines that organized crime groups have gotten over the years for similar crimes. And of course I do think there is a distinction when considering intent (which of course does relate to the Pirate Bay vs Google; what is the intent of the service?). While I sympathize with this girl, I do not have empathy for those that provide the means such as PB.

People seem to think they have no impact, but in fact collectively there is an impact for everyone. Studios and distributors rely on the financial success of just a few movies to produce and distribute a whole range of films. Documentaries and independant films picked up at festivals are paid for often through the financial success of the larger production films. The release and control of DVDs for many TV series is vital to the life of many shows. Networks such as HBO and Showtime that have produced some of the best work in years such as Sopranos, Rome, and The Wire see no return for years on these investments. First off, some of these will not see syndication, others must wait for a total number of episodes (100) or seasons (5) before they can be sold to syndication. But for the most part these shows are reliant on DVD sales in order for the networks to continue producing more.

Any Scifi fans here in the U.S. this past Spring are maybe aware that FOX canceled the Terminator series, while keeping Dollhouse. FOX kept the show that had worse ratings and even worse reviews for one single reason. Warner Brothers, and not FOX owned the production of the Terminator series, thus FOX would receive no proceeds from DVD sales. The ONLY reason Battlestar Galactica was able to remain for it's (shortened) run was for one reason only; NBC studios produced and aired on NBC owned SciFi channel. The point here is simple; the finances come to a point now where every single download does have an impact. More and more networks are becoming reliant on DVD sales to make up for the loss in revenue airing a show. Ad revenue, which pays for this all, is down. There is more competition in content, yet the costs of production have risen. So of course the irony is that people who are actively downloading their favorite TV shows, in effect have an impact collectively on whether that show remains on the air. People downloading the DVD sets of Sopranos only insure that Showtime and HBO will be limited in the future on how many shows they can produce.

And no, you can not use the defense that THEY need to find another model. It is you that needs to create a new business model that shows first hand that it would be successful. It is downright idiotic to think that these industries should spend billions testing out a model that would pacify a percentage of people(that simply do not care to pay for something that requires payment to exist). It really is that bloody simple, yet for some god awful reason people make this distinction that bits and bytes are completely different that a physical object. Well not completely, you see when both require costs to produce, both then require payment.

Edited 2009-06-26 20:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

How does one convince the big businesses that there are other aproaches available. This is something that FOSS has been struggling against for years in the software market.

- The consumers are hear and asking for better hardware support

- The developers are literally begging for the minimum information needed to add hardware support

- The hardware manufacturers continue to ignore all but Windows market share

If you can suggest how one convinces big business that there is profit to be made without keeping drivers closed or blowing all the budget on a single platform, there are many hear that would like to listen.

Heck, the hardware manufacturer's gain budget and consumer markets by allowing other's to support there hardware through any platform developers write drivers for.

Regarding the media industries. We can look at both the consumer and the artists who are getting screwed. But factory produced pop music sells and the artists have little choice but to sign over ownership to the big business. More artists are going it alone and self publishing now that technology is catching up but it's a slow process. The conservatives in the boardroom have little interest in changing the status quo either. How do we go about convincing them that there are better ways to do business and maintain profits without screwing the artists and the consumers?

With movies, no one rational can suggest that there was a board meeting where they decided to leak the movie out the back door and it does cost more to produce film. Sadly, Hollywood is only interested in rewriting past successes. Great movies are few and far between these days. If you happen to be the theater showing the film, all ticket sales go to the production company. That's why confection prices are so high; it's the only income the theater gets. Regardless, one can't argue that leaked films are acceptably infringement. One can only hope that those who aquire a leaked movie copy buy the DVD when it becomes available to gain a license and replace the crapy theater cam version.

I understand that business is risk adverse and isn't going to change the strategy unless a business case shows more profit the other way; in a perfect world anyhow. We also have conservative management and other politics that conflict with change though; even when change is desperately needed by the company and staff. One can't say that the media companies are victims with no part in why the product is stolen.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Have you actually thought this through or are you basing your opinion purely on what the media companies have told you?

You are making an assumption that Ringham is not, himself, an agent of the media hegemony.

Reply Score: 2

ringham Member since:
2006-03-23

Wow. You caught me red-handed, sbergman27. Way to go.

How often do you go outside? You do realize there are people with opinions that are different from yours - and *GASP* - they aren't secret agents of the evil RIAA and the like.

It's not fair to assume that everyone who supports efforts to end piracy is automatically "an agent of the media hegemony".

Sorry, buddy, hate to break it to you - but there are normal people out there with a conscience who can see that piracy is wrong, and choose to stand against it.

Reply Score: 1

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

I find it hard to believe. Why would someone who is not paid by the MAFIAA would defend the MAFIAA? The MAFIAA is not some charity organization. The MAFIAA is a group of copyright holders who persecute people to get more and more money from their 'rents' with several arms in several countries. How can normal people sympathize with them?

There are 2 possibilities.
1/ That man has been raised in front of TV by the MAFIAA propaganda arm and that man would call that arm the 'Medias' and that would be the only informations he gets from the world. That could happen but I hope we are not there yet.
2/ That man is an agent of the MAFIAA. He fills his pockets from his rents and he tries to make a maximum number of people to believe the 'Medias' are the only source of informations and that the MAFIAA is the only way to go if you want to be safe. This is the most likely solution.

If you are in type 2, you've got to be more subtle. The people are not ready to swallow the snake just now. don't defend $2.5 million fines just yet. They will get used to it but it will take some time. For the moment, you should just tell people that copyright violation is theft and that jesus don't like it. Once they swallow that, you can go on and on until they think it is the worst crime and that they must pay for everything they think or say. You are too greedy, you are going too fast, you should not go out in the open just yet or it won't work at all.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Is it really so hard to believe? I grew up poor, I worked hard for what I have now (I'm a software engineer by profession - no, not for Microsoft or any other big name company that is involved with these cases), and I don't have a sense of entitlement to free software/music/tv shows/movies. I grew up learning to pay for what I consume.

Nice astroturfing boilerplate. The humble beginnings are a nice touch. So how much are they paying you? And how much training was required?

I didn't grow up poor. And I don't care about or watch TV at all. I don't care about or watch movies. I find that Magnatune has, in general, better quality works and more talented artists than anything I hear on radio. And I don't use any proprietary software. But as a third party observer, it's pretty obvious to me that you are just parroting the MPAA/RIAA official party line.

Edited 2009-06-26 13:28 UTC

Reply Score: 1

ringham Member since:
2006-03-23

Again, I'm caught red handed. Boy, you really know people. Do you get out much? Or do you spend all of your time playing WOW?

You don't use proprietary software - ah, okay, it makes sense now. You're a hardcore free software purist. You people, in my mind, are no different than early communists. You profess your views of a wonderful future where no one has to pay for software, everything is free, and you turn around and are bitter and hostile to anyone who is different than you. Can you sense the hypocrisy? You want to live in a world where everything is free, and you are handed everything for free, but you do your best to tear down people/companies who are making proprietary software. So much for a free world, eh?

So what if I agree with the MPAA/RIAA? I do. Does that make me an evil agent of theirs? Of course not. In your mind, of course it does. Anything that threatens your sense of entitlement is evil. Keep on telling yourself that.

You people just live for a crisis. It's a drug to you - OMG WE'RE BEING OPPRESSED - NEVERMIND THAT I DON'T REALLY NEED THAT SEASON OF FAMILY GUY TO SURVIVE, IT'S NOT AVAILABLE FOR FREE TO ME, THIS IS AN OUTRAGE.

Listen to yourselves.

Reply Score: 0

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

What the hell are you smocking? You think there is a link between the $billions we pay to the MAFIAA and the poor working man who get paid to feed his familly and pets?

Edited 2009-06-26 13:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

ringham Member since:
2006-03-23

Oh poor you. You have to pay money for something, at a price set by someone else. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's a free world, people can charge whatever the hell they want for what they produce/sell.

Do you really need that movie/tv show/cd to survive? Are you going to die without it?

Your sense of entitlement is unbelievable. You don't deserve ANYTHING for free. Learn to pay for it like the rest of us, or don't consume it. Don't steal it.

Oh wait, but "it's not theft, you can't steal bits". Yeah, yeah - stop giving us that bullshit line. It's something you didn't pay for, that normally costs money, that you acquired and used without paying money. That's theft in my eyes.

Reply Score: 0

cb_osn Member since:
2006-02-26


Sorry, buddy, hate to break it to you - but there are normal people out there with a conscience who can see that piracy is wrong, and choose to stand against it.

That's all well and good, but the tactics currently employed by the MPAA/RIAA will ultimately be ineffective in curbing piracy.

In the digital world, laws that attempt to control digital copying must be respected by the public in order to be effective because these laws can't realistically be enforced regardless of the punitive consequences applied to those who break them.

The only way to truly reduce piracy is to take a stand against current copyright law, work to get it changed to reflect its original intent, and then educate the public on the benefits of that intent.

Reply Score: 2

Pirate Bay not at fault
by cmost on Thu 25th Jun 2009 21:01 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

I'm sorry, but when you boil it down, people do the file sharing, not the services that make it easier. Similarly, prostitutes wouldn't stay in business without their customers and so it is with file sharing. If people didn't share files then Pirate Bay would be nothing but a useless domain name. Don't blame the prostitute, blame the customer!

Reply Score: 4

v "Found to probably be biased" - Uhm, nope.
by Fass on Thu 25th Jun 2009 21:11 UTC
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't support the laws they broke. But they did break them. And in a society built on laws, that has consequences.


I suppose that is part of the problem, and our "authorities" know it and use it. Many people don't support some of the incredibly stupid laws we have - but at the same time support other incredibly stupid ones - and in our media (thought) controlled society it is near impossible to do anything about those laws we don't agree with, because if it's what we are "supposed" to believe it must be true and right, and anyone who goes against it gets "what's coming to them" either in the courts or in the media...

Reply Score: 2

IP is invalid
by aeischeid on Thu 25th Jun 2009 21:34 UTC
aeischeid
Member since:
2009-05-25

Two books I would recommend to any one interested in this topic are "Against Intellectual Property", and "Against Intellectuall Monopoly". Together they deal with the topics on moral, legal, philosophical and practical grounds.

I recently encountered a web developer who released some of his work with this as the content of his license:
"Do not try and bend the license. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. That there is no license. Then you'll see, that it is not the license that bends, it is only yourself."

Reply Score: 2

RE: IP is invalid
by demetrioussharpe on Thu 25th Jun 2009 21:45 UTC in reply to "IP is invalid"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

I recently encountered a web developer who released some of his work with this as the content of his license:
"Do not try and bend the license. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. That there is no license. Then you'll see, that it is not the license that bends, it is only yourself."

I love this license. Does the developer have a name for this license (perhaps, The Matrix License)? I think I will start using this as my license. Considering that he bit this from the Matrix movie, I hope he doesn't object.


BTW, this isn't sarcasm, I'm dead serious!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: IP is invalid
by aeischeid on Thu 25th Jun 2009 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE: IP is invalid"
aeischeid Member since:
2009-05-25

I think that is a great name for it!

Not sure if I can post link to the site it came from...

http://hyper-metrix.com/misc/jai/

really cool HTML5 demo - scroll down for license

Reply Score: 1

Why defend the powerful?
by jacquouille on Thu 25th Jun 2009 22:38 UTC
jacquouille
Member since:
2006-01-02

Some facts:

* original copyright duration (when it was about encouraging creativity) was 15 years. Now it's 95 years in many countries.

* of course this legislation was literally paid for by media industrials (in the USA, where this form of corruption is called "lobbying", it is not even illegal and occurred all in the open).

* when law isn't legitimate anymore (as in, generated by a democratic process), it isn't morally bad to breach it. Actually, if law gets bad enough, it can be morally bad to obey it. Think of <enter your favorite dictatorship here>. If you can't accept that it's sometimes OK, even required, to breach the law, then you have never lived under a dictatorship.

What did the Pirate Bay do? They encouraged other people to break the law. Was it illegal? Perhaps, but that shouldn't matter to us, since that was just a purchased law, not a law originating in the democratic process. So regardless of whether that was illegal, that certainly wasn't morally wrong.

I regret just as much as you that copyright law was ridiculed to that extent, but it's not me or the Pirate Bay who's to blame, it's the lawmakers and ... their customers the media industrials.

What is REALLY wrong is to see people here siding with the judge and media industry. Do you always, out of habit, side with whomever looks stronger?

Edited 2009-06-25 22:39 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE: Why defend the powerful?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Thu 25th Jun 2009 23:04 UTC in reply to "Why defend the powerful?"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

Just wait until the secret ACTA treaty comes into force and then see the idiots defend it. Even though it is designed to bolster the outmoded business practices of corporations at the expense of the people and small innovative companies.

The morphing of copyright law (and patent law in many countries) is socially immoral. However, it is also immoral to download copyrighted content, so you have to refrain from that as well if you are to debate morality. Either don't get it or pay for the content (although you strengthen the corporations doing this).

I sympathise with the poster whose software is being pirated, but it isn't the Pirate Bays fault. They merely have a search service with cheeky branding (which should not be a crime in any country) and are no less culpable than Google or Microsoft (OMG, Microsoft develops software that hosts most malware and is used in the vast majority of case when copyrighted material is downloaded). See how ridiculous the argument is?

The Pirate Bay has been condemned based on their branding (which has been taken as intent, even though they did not say copyrighted material was explicitly allowed), not the fact they don't actually host illegal content themselves. That is not justice. Same as saying, "oh, it's ok to convict the scruffy unemployed but we'll let white collar criminals off because they didn't actually 'hurt' anyone (bulls!t, think of all the pensioners whose life saving are always affected)".

As the earlier poster said (+1 Insightful), it is the users of Pirate Bay who are committing the actual crime. They are the ones who register and download torrents.

Reply Score: 6

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 26th Jun 2009 13:29 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Its interesting how people are all fighting over Pirate Bay as if it were the lighting rod for all piracy on the internet. It reminds me of the 'hard on crime' politicians who talk about 'locking the crims up' but never asking why or how a person became a criminal. It may make the RIAA and other parasites happy seeing a solo mother of 4 getting sued for close to $2million but it doesn't address the why.

These media companies should ask themselves why people download off these websites; take New Zealand for example, huge numbers download Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad and other episodes because either what is provided on television stations in New Zealand is really out of date - or when one tries to purchase DVD's from Amazon the customer is told to 'piss off' because Amazon only ship in the US.

When you as a media company shut down all legal channels to obtaining a legal copy, refuse to allow international viewers to watch episodes on Hulu (or some other platform), and refuse to price your products according to what is reasonable and affordable - is there any wonder why people resort to piracy.

This isn't to excuse peoples behaviour but it is a reason why it happens; instead of spending millions chasing after Bill Bob the 19 year old University Student, or Mary Jane the 25 year old solo mum of 2, how about addressing the reasons.

Reply Score: 4

End of big corporation?
by Samick on Fri 26th Jun 2009 13:54 UTC
Samick
Member since:
2009-06-26

I guess it helps small artist to get more opularity and money.
I think the best solution for artist is to put up a website with their stuff for download. They then put a link : Give me some money if you loved what you just get for free via a paypal website like.
I don't understand why companies still want to sell cds. Sell the download stuff instead. People will give money to artist, not to big corporation.

Reply Score: 1

somebody has to be the victim...
by spinnekopje on Fri 26th Jun 2009 14:09 UTC
spinnekopje
Member since:
2008-11-29

The large companies still seem to think that they can scare people away from downloading content illegally with actions like these. They won't, they most probably will lose possible customers who don't agree with their way of working, so less profit.

I don't say the pirate bay doesn't give people a certain idea of what content can be searched for on their website, but they aren't the ones that should be convicted. It's not difficult to use google the same way, but google is google and not a small company with a good name to sue. I first found out about thepiratebay when google pointed me the correct page where I could download the torrent file...

People will always download a lot of stuff illegally, why not use that habit of users?
Most probably they would attract more users by offering users a free way of obtaining a free, but lower quality version via these channels?
There are a lot of people that actually buy the downloaded songs afterwards if they like them. It is also a way of introducing new artists.

I'll take my gps as an example: if garmin would offer me the possibility to obtain a free test map for my gps of a small region in my neighbourhood the chance that I'll actually buy the complete map will increase. If I can download and listen to a song and I really like that one I will most probably buy it.
That doesn't mean I buy everything I download, but the things I don't buy are most probably already deleted to save space.

If they want to convict somebody they should sue the users that download for their own profit. I knew a couple of people who always had the latest songs and sold! them for twice or three times the price of a cd. I have no contact with those people anymore but I guess there will still be lots of people like that. They should pay large fines for what they are doing.

Reply Score: 1