Print 92 comment(s) - last by kiwik.. on Feb 8 at 1:23 AM

The front image for The Pirate Bay was redecorated in celebration of the site's victory, which its administrators feel is inevitable.  (Source: The Pirate Bay)
Site’s admins denounce accusations as idiotic

Making good on a promise tendered last week, the country of Sweden pressed charges against four administrators, accusing them of conspiring to break Swedish copyright law.

According to prosecutor Håkan Roswall, the BitTorrent supersite commercially exploits copyright-protected works through ad revenues, of which it nets over $3 million annually.  The four men charged include The Pirate Bay co-founder Peter “Brokep” Sunde, administrators Gottfrid Svartholm and Fredrik Neij, and businessman/entrepreneur Carl Lundström, whose company once provided hosting for the site. Authorities specifically named 33 different copyrighted works, comprising of 20 songs, nine films and four computer games for which The Pirate Bay made torrents available illegally.

Roswall says that the four should be made to pay at least $188,000, which the indictment says is the minimum profit that The Pirate Bay made from its activities. If convicted, they could face up to two years in prison.

IFPI chairman John Kennedy says The Pirate Bay is primarily interested in “making money, not music” and that the site turned Sweden, which is “normally the most law abiding of EU countries,” into a copyright charlatan, with “intellectual property laws on par with Russia.”

Despite the accusations, The Pirate Bay seems unfazed. “In case we lose the pending trial (yeah right) there will still not be any changes to the site. The Pirate Bay will keep operating just as always. We've been here for years and we will be here many more,” writes an unnamed administrator on the site’s official blog, before pointing out that Swedish police could have “saved a hell of a lot of trees” by posting the 4,620 pages of legal documents against Sunde and friends – available for approximately $1000 USD – in a PDF torrent on the site.

The Pirate Bay says that it hosts close to a million torrents, which point to files on users’ computers that are distributed across the BitTorrent network. The site maintains that it does not host nor trade in infringing material, an accusation that Sunde dismissed as “idiotic” in an interview with Reuters conducted earlier last January.

BBC’s blogger Darren Waters believes The Pirate Bay – as opposed to other torrent supersites – was targeted because of its openly defiant attitude and historic resilience to legal threats; the site keeps an online graveyard of sorts littered with takedown notices and administrators’ sarcastic responses. The Pirate Bay’s adversaries include almost every major copyright organization on the planet, as well as numerous artists, software developers, and filmmakers.

Thus far – with one exception, due to a police raid in May 2006 that knocked the site offline for a few days – The Pirate Bay continues to operate unrestricted.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Humane Laws
By Samus on 2/2/2008 1:42:38 AM , Rating: 5
TPB doesn't promote or involve themselves with "stealing a large-scale developer's work (i.e. Crytek's CRYSIS), support the hacking of it, and disperse it, along with child pron and others."

They are a search engine for torrents. The owners of the torrents are responsible for said tasks. I guess you are going to attack YouTube for having a 25 year old episode of the Smurfs someone uploaded too?

You're dumb.

RE: Humane Laws
By lompocus on 2/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Humane Laws
By lompocus on 2/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Humane Laws
By lompocus on 2/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Humane Laws
By straycat74 on 2/2/2008 10:51:28 AM , Rating: 3
i don't get it.

RE: Humane Laws
By StevoLincolnite on 2/2/2008 1:37:05 PM , Rating: 1
Why a Nuke? Nukes haven't been used in years, Nor will they be because of the devastating after affects, Seriously lets all run around in a field of daisy's and start singing the Smurfs theme song and get along with one another.

RE: Humane Laws
By superkdogg on 2/4/2008 10:46:55 AM , Rating: 3
If we're all running in a field of daisies, we're in a public place and RIAA is entitled to royalties if we sing a previously copyrighted song.


RE: Humane Laws
By mindless1 on 2/2/2008 5:03:29 PM , Rating: 1
It's strange how personally involved you seem to feel. Whose puppet are you?

We already know TPB is not one physical location, but rather a symptom of the mindset a younger (than I) generation has about whether they accept the current market and IP law.

Yes in many circumstances it is illegal, but frankly it seems those in power who made the law are a minority compared to those infringing. Where is democracy? Perhaps it reallyl is a majority who are opposed to infringement but so far the only direct evidence is a few vs the masses.

What is the answer? Give the masses what they want. There are millions of people who would buy multimedia content, applications, etc, if it were priced a lot lower. Even at the seemingly ridiculous price of $4, that's 4 millions of dollars, even more if support was an addt'l fee. There is money to be made in the future but clearly clinging to the past market model is not working and wishing death upon a few people won't change that.

RE: Humane Laws
By Pr1m on 2/3/2008 1:26:20 PM , Rating: 1
You have deep problems. You are so misguided in your self-righteous, holier-than-thou distorted point of view that, I'm afraid, the only solution for you is a lobotomy.

RE: Humane Laws
By Samus on 2/3/2008 5:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't really bother reading his rant, I'm sure it's as pointless as his first post...

RE: Humane Laws
By comc49 on 2/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Humane Laws
By Rockjock51 on 2/2/2008 2:35:09 AM , Rating: 3
How about all the videos on YouTube that are on there without consent from their copyright holders? Any video with NFL footage is technically illegal. I love how you praise IsoHunt and condemn TPB.

RE: Humane Laws
By lompocus on 2/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: Humane Laws
By mindless1 on 2/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Humane Laws
By lompocus on 2/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Humane Laws
By damncrackmonkey on 2/3/2008 4:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
I am now dumber for having read his posts.

There is no sane way you can praise IsoHunt and YouTube for giving you "expensive products for free at a quick rate with no hassle or downtime or even the need to pay" while claiming The Pirate Bay is nothing but a bunch of child porn whose owners should be nuked.

"I've yet to see any centralized problem like this appear on the U.S., so why not nuke everyone else?"

The vast majority of these 'centralized problems' started in the US. Of course, as a fan of IsoHunt and YouTube, you should have already known that.

RE: Humane Laws
By kiwik on 2/8/2008 1:23:52 AM , Rating: 1
It would be a lot better for the rest of the planet if you leave the Internet now and just forget about using it ever again. Seriously.

And I'm writing a letter to the president requesting a nuclear strike on your house.


RE: Humane Laws
By Rockjock51 on 2/5/2008 6:54:47 PM , Rating: 1
Where did I claim that writing a speech is taking a copyright from someone or that saying negative things is illegal? I did say that using copyrighted footage is illegal. Which it is. I also never said it is illegal to sell things. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Do I really need to link to you the millions of illegal torrents on IsoHunt? Go there and search for "Axxo" and tell me what you find. I guarantee you theres no attempts to distinguish what steps over any lines going on at IsoHunt other than whats required by law. That is, they're not taking anything down unless served with a take-down request by the original copyright owners. You use the common sense you so dearly love. IsoHunt is no better than TPB. A significant amount of money is lost by large-scale companies EVERY DAY as the DIRECT result of IsoHunt's existance.

RE: Humane Laws
By wackie999 on 2/6/2008 12:28:31 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Humane Laws
By Gatos7 on 2/2/2008 4:26:49 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, I will attack youtube for having a 25 year old copy of the Smurfs on its servers, or a LINK to a copy of it that is freely available for FREE if that episode is still under some sort of copyright by the original or by a new owner. That's how the world works, and that's how we're not in teh stone age. The alternative is communism, and we all know how that turned out.

Yes yes we all know how that turned out cause we were told by the media. And now lets go to the free world with the right idealists (like yourself who says abortion should be illegal) and see what wonders the free trade gives us.

I'm gonna take a very nice example to prove my point.
Aids treatment drugs.

Pharmaceutical company Novartis is taking the Indian government to court. If the company wins, millions of people across the globe could have their sources of affordable medicines dry up.


Yes !!! Hurray for capitalism and free trade ! This is how we should live. Profits over human lives.
Everyone knows that today product prices are not fixed by the production cost but by the amount of money ppl are willing to pay for the product. And in this case ppl will pay huge amounts in order to stay alive. So we will have insane prices to maximize our profits and if some ppl cant pay up well its their fault. They should die. We are acting within the letter of the law.

If you think this is progress and if things were different we would still be in the stone age well what can I say.

Imagine if the ancient greeks had patents over their mathematical formulas and that goes for the rest civilization.

Progress my friend comes through the FREE exchange of knowledge. Therefore patents are the worst enemy of progress.

RE: Humane Laws
By xsilver on 2/2/2008 10:21:54 AM , Rating: 2
viva la revolution?

I hope its clear to you that the richest nations in the world are capitalist though right?

RE: Humane Laws
By Kaleid on 2/6/2008 10:21:17 AM , Rating: 2
No they're not. They're socialliberal mixed economies, there are many many things even in USA which are publicly funded for everyone as they should be.

RE: Humane Laws
By masher2 on 2/2/2008 12:12:04 PM , Rating: 5
> "patents are the worst enemy of progress. "

Nothing could be further from the truth. Patents are the strongest mechanism we have to aid progress and innovation.

Patents reward people for putting their ideas into the public domain. It's a simple exchange-- you agree not only to make your idea public, but write it up in full detail, so that anyone "reasonably skilled in the art" can duplicate it, ensuring that idea is preserved.

In exchange, you're given a (very) brief period of legal protection, in which no one else can use our idea: 14-20 years, depending on patent type. What's that, compared to the hundreds of years people will benefit from it? Nothing.

The alternative to patents is frightening. Companies could only protect their advances by by trade secret, which risks them being lost, and also forces all companies in a particular field to duplicate work. If Company A creates a better product, Companies B, C, D, E, and F all must each and invidually reverse-engineer it, to copy it themselves.

But much worse is the effect on R&D. Nearly all research becomes unprofitable-- which means it won't be done. Why spend $100M to develop a new drug, when it means you're giving it to all your competitors for free? Why spend years to design a better circuit-- if you can simply wait till your competitors bring one out, and steal it from them instead? The most profitable companies won't be the ones with the biggest research budget-- they'll be the ones with the best spies.

The age of patent protection has spurred the greatest period of technological advance ever known to man. Why? Because it ensures that ideas are profitable to develop and, once developed, they're made public. Permanently.

You have some wildly romantic ideas about the ancient Greeks. Their period lasted some 600 years (over twice as long as our Industrial revolution has), and in that vast period, their all their developments in math, astronomy, philosophy, etc, didn't translate into one ounce of technological progress. That's the role of patents-- you can't patent an equation or a can only patent a practical use of it.

Still worse, those groundbreaking ideas of the Greeks were lost for over a thousand years, all the way up to the Renaissance. For centuries, no one read those ideas, no one built upon them and used them to better society and the life of mankind.

Patents, and the protection of intellectual property are truly one of the greatest assets our civilization has.

RE: Humane Laws
By xsilver on 2/2/2008 1:46:27 PM , Rating: 3
all valid points masher, but I think it fundamentally comes down to either
a) you view people as fundamentally good and willing to freely share
b) fundamentally bad, willing to profit from the suffering of others and in your example, spy.

In our hearts I think each of us would like to think we are option A but in our minds we know better and realize that some people are going to be option B
So does that mean we've become a society that tolerates the suffering of others based solely on economic status?

I mean, its not great when pharm companies are clamoring for loopholes to extend their patents in order to make some billionares, multibillionares.
Conversely I'm not naive enough to think that if everything was freely shared some of us wouldnt take advantage and progress would stagnate.

Do you think the patent office needs to take a harder stance on blatant cash grabs? I do.

RE: Humane Laws
By dever on 2/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Humane Laws
By jtemplin on 2/2/2008 3:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
On what basis are you making these wild assumptions about his inner motivations. I think he raises an interesting philosophical question.

RE: Humane Laws
By mindless1 on 2/2/2008 5:15:44 PM , Rating: 3
You are clearly deluded if you think those who make the most money do so becaues they produce superior goods and services.

It's usually the opposite, those with the most study their market, make cost concessions, advertise, and directly combat their competition in an effort to beat the competition to take more profit, not to produce superior goods.

Others voluntarily reward them? Nonsense, when you or I go to a store to buy something we are not thinking "reward", rather than choosing what best meets all our needs based on what is available. The availability factor is the problem, that there's more to what products and services are available and presented than simply what is superior. The idea you have of an economically free environment ignores practially all the things required to succeed in such an environment as it exists today.

RE: Humane Laws
By jconan on 2/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Humane Laws
By Keeir on 2/2/2008 9:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
So does that mean we've become a society that tolerates the suffering of others based solely on economic status?

Since when are people entitled to share in every advancement or nearly free supplies of medicine? At most people are entitled to live with as little laws or constrictions on their personally choices as be made without the destruction of others' freedom of choices.

all valid points masher, but I think it fundamentally comes down to either
a) you view people as fundamentally good and willing to freely share
b) fundamentally bad, willing to profit from the suffering of others and in your example, spy.

You left out a bit
- Addition to a) - and will continue to innovate and perfect products, ideas, and methods with no tangible reward

c) fundamentally lazy, and will only work hard to better their own life or position relative to other humans

RE: Humane Laws
By JustTom on 2/2/2008 4:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
Their period lasted some 600 years (over twice as long as our Industrial revolution has), and in that vast period, their all their developments in math, astronomy, philosophy, etc, didn't translate into one ounce of technological progress.

Now, that is just not correct. There certainly was technological innovation in ancient Greek civilization. The pace of such innovation certainly was slower than today but it did exist. The Archimedes screw pump is a good example of such technological innovation.

RE: Humane Laws
By masher2 on 2/2/2008 7:00:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "The Archimedes screw pump is a good example of such technological innovation"

We're not even sure Archimedes invented the screw pump; there's evidence it was used in Assyria much earlier. The screw took hundreds of years to proliferate, and it's therefore an excellent example of why patents are neccesary. Good ideas tended to be kept secret; there was no profit motive in publicising an advance....quite the opposite in fact.

Take the innovation of Greek fire as another example. It was kept secret, in fact, that we're not even sure how the formula for it was today. The same is true for most of the Greek advances. We know of most today only after they were uncovered during the Renaissance (or later). They had very little real effect on technological progress before then.

Fast forward to the Middle Ages, and the critical (and highly secretive) cloth industry. Techniques for weaving, spinning, carding, dying-- all were closely guarded trade secrets. Even a master only knew a few of the many steps required to turn wool into cloth, and he told no one, other than his few apprentices, who themselves were disinclined to share. That kept the industry a very small, enormously profitable monopoly, and any new advance could take a century or more before it was widely known to all.

This allowed places like Flanders to monopolize the industry for centuries, and forced other nations to engage in industrial espionage to try to break the strangehold.

Contrast that to the patent system. Any advance is immediately made public and fully disseminated. When the brief protection period expires, the innovation is available to any and all. The medieval system of trade secrets and spy networks is short-circuited, and progress is far faster.

RE: Humane Laws
By JustTom on 2/2/2008 10:49:46 PM , Rating: 1
Their period lasted some 600 years (over twice as long as our Industrial revolution has), and in that vast period, their all their developments in math, astronomy, philosophy, etc, didn't translate into one ounce of technological progress.

That was your quote, and it certainly is demonstrably false. You did not say that the Greek era was deficient in technological progress you said it did not exist. I was not arguing the merits of the patent system, I was making a simple declarative statement that the quoted statement is incorrect. Is it really your belief that there was not a single technological innovation during that period? Or was your statement mere hyperbole?

RE: Humane Laws
By masher2 on 2/3/2008 12:55:20 PM , Rating: 3
> " You did not say that the Greek era was deficient in technological progress you said it did not exist"

Scientific advances were made, but that doesn't equate to technological progress. Technology is the application of science to practical uses.

The life of an ancient Greek from 150 BC was essentially identical to one from 750 BC. Farming, weaving, carving, quarrying, mining, smelting -- all were unchanged. Other than some advances in architecture, technology was essentially static.

Today, our lives change much more in five years than theirs did in five centuries. Was the rate of progress exactly equal to zero? No of course not...but it certainly was infinitesimal.

You meantion the Archimedes screw. A major advance indeed...and yet 300 years after its invention, it was still a curiosity, unknown outside a few royal palaces. It wasn't until the 3rd century BC that it began to see widespread use in Greek agriculture...and it took more than 100 years after that to spread throughout the Mediterranean.

RE: Humane Laws
By JustTom on 2/4/2008 10:14:01 AM , Rating: 2
Even Finley, who is very much known for his view of lack of technological progress made by the Greeks, would not claim that there was NO such progress. And there is copious recent research indicating Finley at the very least severely underestimated both the scope of such innovation but its use.
I never argued that prior systems disseminated technology quicker, or encouraged such innovation; my sole statement was on your incorrect. Arguing that modern patents systems are superior to previous systems not only avoids my problem with your post it is very much preaching to the choir.

RE: Humane Laws
By masher2 on 2/4/2008 11:30:56 AM , Rating: 2
Fair enough. Please consider my statement amended from "none" to "infinitesimal" progress during the period.

RE: Humane Laws
By SYR on 2/4/2008 4:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
The real point to be made here is that, while patent law has remained relatively sane, copyright law has been hijacked by corporate interests. A patent holder is legally protected and enabled to profit from an invention for a limited period of time after the invention is registered. A copyright holder, at least under American law, now has essentially perpetual rights to invented material. Clearly this does not encourage the highest rate of artistic innovation. Instead, an artist (or whatever entity may have acquired the artist's rights) need only work until a single popular item is produced, then bring in the lawyers to sue anyone ever daring to reproduce the invention -- even long after the original inventor has returned to dust. Roll back copyright law to the original time periods and, while a few corporate interests will likely die away, you'll get an incredible explosion of new and high-quality art from people with incentive to keep working instead of attempting to milk the past.

RE: Humane Laws
By masher2 on 2/4/2008 6:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "The real point to be made here is that, while patent law has remained relatively sane, copyright law has been hijacked by corporate interests."

I couldn't agree more. Having up to a 120-year lifespan on copyrights is patent pun intended.

RE: Humane Laws
By NinjaJedi on 2/2/2008 10:26:08 AM , Rating: 3
wow is the smurfs really 25 years old. lol Makes me feel old.

RE: Humane Laws
By Samus on 2/3/2008 5:24:52 PM , Rating: 2

"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki