backtop


Print 53 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Dec 1 at 5:39 PM


Fredrik Neij (right) and Peter Sunde (center) fought the law, but the law won. The pair have been sentenced to prison time by a Swedish appeals court for their role in creating the immensely popular site, The Pirate Bay.  (Source: Reuters)

The Pirate Bay remains one of the world's top torrent sites and is as active as ever, despite the media prosecutors' efforts.
To the brig, with ya, matie!

The bid by administrators of the world's largest torrent site, The Pirate Bay, to escape time in Swedish prison is at an end.  An appeals court delivered a new ruling that is seen as largely unfavorable for the group and guarantees that they will serve prison time, if they stay in Sweden.

The ruling comes after nearly two years of legal conflict, which began when prosecutors filed charges against Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm, and Peter Sunde, who ran the site; and Carl Lundström, a Swedish businessman who through his businesses sold services to the site.  The men were charged with promoting massive copyright infringement and crime, much as their site's name might suggest.

At the trial the group put up a spirited defense, but eventually were defeated in a court ruling.  The results were unsurprising, given information that would later come to light.  The presiding judge in the case was a former member of a copyright protection organization and reportedly receiving compensation in the past from media organizations.

With the judge firmly in their pocket, the plaintiffs -- Swedish subsidiaries of leading music and film companies, including Sony BMG, Universal Music, EMI and Warner Brothers; and international copyright attack-dog the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) (the parent of America's RIAA) -- secured a guilty verdict.  The accused were sentenced to a year in prison each and ordered to repay 32 million crowns ($4.57M USD).

The Pirate Bay leaders scoffed at the charges, saying that even considering the net value of their servers, that they had nowhere near the amount demanded.  They quick appealed, on the grounds that the judge in the case had an inappropriate conflict of interest.

A Swedish Court of Appeals finally reached a ruling last Friday and delivered a relatively harsh final sentence against The Pirate Bay creators.  It stated, "The appeals court, like the district court, finds that the service Pirate Bay has facilitated illegal file sharing in a way which is punishable for those who carried out the service."

The sentences of two of the admins and the site's financier were all reduced.  Fredrik Neij's prison time was cut to 10 months, Peter Sunde's to 8 months, and Carl Lundstrom's was cut to four months.  However, their fines were raised even higher to 46 million crowns ($6.57M USD).  Like the recent verdict against U.S. citizen Jammie Thomas-Rassert, that punitive judgment virtually ensures that the accused will live in poverty for much of the remainder of their lives, if they remain within the nation (the exception being Lundstrom, who has substantial wealth).

The IFPI's battle against The Pirate Bay in Sweden closely mirrors its battle (via the RIAA) against Limewire in the U.S.  In October a U.S. court ordered Limewire be permanently taken offline.

If there's a bit of good news for supporters of The Pirate Bay, it's that the verdict has seemingly done little to achieve the prosecutors' goal of damaging the site.  The site is still online and is as active as ever.  It is now registered in the Seychelles, an island nation known for its lose copyright laws.  And rather than a small set of individuals, which could be prosecuted, the site is now run by a larger organization.

The leadership of Europe's Pirate Party, which supports loosening copyright laws, mocked the verdict.  Pirate Party leader Rick Falkvinge while implying court corruption said that the ruling would do little to stop piracy.  He states, "This case was politically motivated from the start and (the problem) must be solved politically.  This doesn't mean anything for The Pirate Bay and it doesn't mean anything for similar sites. File sharing is increasing every day and the only thing this means is that more and more people will try to hide what they are doing on the Internet."

And recent data on piracy worldwide indicates that he's right.

In short, big media may get to chuckle at the misfortune of the piracy ringleaders who will soon be in the brig, but at the end of the day it's the millions of pirates worldwide who are enjoying the last laugh.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By Shig on 11/29/2010 11:47:19 AM , Rating: 5
That's the point, people who pirate are saying they don't want to pay that much anymore. The multi-million dollar generating machine that is Hollywood is dying.

Moore's law / bandwidth and the web 2.0 are enabling regular people like you and I to create content that is on par with content that apparently costs millions to make.

Hell there are some artists on youtube channels that I would consider better than a good chunk of mainstream artists now.

Why would you even want to pay actors millions anymore when you could cheaply create a digital avatar with a synthetic voice, have it say the lines YOU wrote, and create high end special effects on the cheap with the growing power of the GPU.

We're in the paradigm shift now, but it's hard for a lot of people to see it because we're all so used to Hollywood and the RIAA running our lives. They spend millions upon millions to keep us thinking that way and blocking all competition.


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By Shig on 11/29/2010 11:49:34 AM , Rating: 2
I think what you meant was whether that is a good thing or not.

Probably not considering all the jobs that will probably be lost, but it's somewhat apparent that it now cannot be stopped.


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By Kurz on 11/29/2010 1:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
Meh... Media is going to be forced to become more efficient, more consumer friendly, inorder to stay alive.

Those jobs maybe lost, but if you think about it all those creative people can move on to other industries. Industries that require their particular skills.


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By Spivonious on 11/29/2010 12:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
I can make a nice sounding album on my PC, sure. But what you pay for by renting a studio and paying the engineer and producer is experience. They hear something wrong and fix it in ten minutes. I hear something wrong, take a week to find out why it's wrong, another week to find out how to fix it, and then an hour fixing it.

And then how do I distribute it? Put it on iTunes and hope people find it?

Record companies exist for more than recording and printing CDs. Marketing, distribution, concerts, merchandise, etc.

And to say that I can make a movie as visually stunning as Avatar (too bad the story was forgettable) on my PC is ridiculous. First I'd need the artistic skills and imagination to create the art, and then I'd need expensive software and monster processing power to render it. Maybe in 10-15 years, but definitely not now.

And there are still movies that are better in the theater than in my home (although increasingly few).


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By invidious on 11/29/2010 1:04:39 PM , Rating: 3
If the recording industry can't make a product that people want for a price people are willing to pay then they are doomed. Raising the prices only serves to reduce their audience.

As the OP described, there is no reason a show with low production value but high content value couldn't be indipendantly made and hosted on a private website. Technical issues as those you described could be solved by contractors and instead of doing it for an up front fee they could instead take a stake in the earnings of the show.

There are plenty of non RIAA options out there and any capitalist american should be able to see that.


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By Spivonious on 11/29/2010 2:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, that's a basic tenet of the free market system.

But apparently people are still buying the songs. Things have shifted from an album-oriented view (CD sales) to a single-oriented view (iTunes sales), but sales continue.


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By rcc on 11/29/2010 3:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
that's one of the slippery slopes that pirates use to justify their efforts. The music/movie/etc. isn't any good so I pirate it.

So, if it's no good, wtf are you bothering to pirate it.

So far it's a crime of convenience. I can, there is little chance of being caught at the moment, therefore I will.

If it were really the content problem they claim, they wouldn't be pirating, they'd be creating.


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By cmdrdredd on 11/29/2010 4:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
that's one of the slippery slopes that pirates use to justify their efforts. The music/movie/etc. isn't any good so I pirate it. So, if it's no good, wtf are you bothering to pirate it.


I think the real point that you missed is. It isn't good when you want $12.99 for it because there's only 3 songs that are worth a crap, and I do not want $.99 DRM laden substandard quality versions and I refuse to pay $1.99 for a DRM free version that still is substandard quality.


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By cmdrdredd on 11/29/2010 4:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
To elaborate...

I would be happy to pay $.99 per song for a DRM free digital version that I could play on my iPod, Zune, PC, Xbox, PS3, Wii, DSi, PSP, Car radio, or any other basic digital music player from walmart if it were the same quality as a CD. In other words, the industry should compress the files into a format that is lossless and make that a standard that all media players can understand. MP3 is convenient, but even at 256kbps it's not 100% CD quality.


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By rcc on 11/29/2010 4:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds good to me.

So, gather your consortium, develop this lossless format, sell it to the music industry and the hardware folks and you'll have a winner. Then you can sell them for whatever you like.


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By Reclaimer77 on 11/29/2010 5:11:15 PM , Rating: 3
FLAC?

Even a high bitrate MP3 would work.

The problem is, in their minds, that any digital format would most likely end up being shared anyway. So selling DRM free digital media is not in their best interests.

Not saying I agree, mind you. That's just their rationale.


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By Solandri on 11/29/2010 5:30:37 PM , Rating: 1
Lossless formats like FLAC are only necessary if you're doing editing and mixing on the files. For simple playback, lossy formats are just fine.

Heck, the photos I sell get printed from a very-high quality JPEG. I've compared prints of the JPEG vs. a 10x bigger lossless TIFF side by side. The differences are so subtle that they are indistinguishable to the human eye, even with a magnifying glass. But all my editing is done in lossless formats to avoid minuscule errors multiplying and building up with each edit I do.


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By FaceMaster on 11/30/2010 8:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
I was having this debate with my housemates, saying that if they were to provide an easily storable, non-DRM versions of a films for people to download for, say, £1 or so, then people would buy it that way.

My housemates laughed at me, then returned to their PCs to download the latest films for free. That sure showed me!

Things will ultimately shift to free. It's definitely the 'future', I just wish that large corporations would play ball and accept that their strategy doesn't work any more... instead of trying to strip us of the internet and everything else that conflicts with their current business model.


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By The0ne on 11/29/2010 1:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
The problem really is that the person thinking they could do it themselves really just think too highly of themselves. They "think" they know it all and there's rarely anyone in the entire world that can actually claim this and show it. The problem with "Artists" is that they will suck in sales and marketing, producing, securing investments, etc etc.

But hey, if one think they are all there is needed to get the job done I'm all for it!

On the other hand you have hundreds of people you see on the credit list and think to yourself how FCK UP can all these people do to a project. Case in point, The Last Airbender movie. I read the reviews, avoided it and then began to question them UNTIL the family saw the movie. Kids cried, ran away and we adults can't stop laughing at this joke of a movie.


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By walk2k on 11/29/2010 2:15:52 PM , Rating: 1
LOL so how much do the pirates "want to pay"??

$0? that's gonna be pretty hard price to beat, don't you think?

point is pirates just want to steal stuff.. say whatever they want, that's all they do.

these guys wouldn't even be in jail right now if they weren't so brazen.. they fully admit what they were doing is illegal, they just thought the laws in Sweden were lax.. WHOOPS guess they're not as lax as they though huh?


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By Belard on 11/29/2010 2:50:30 PM , Rating: 1
Most people who pirate are just that.

Come on, go to a REDBOX pay $1 to rent the movie and be done with it.

DVDs are about $15 new, $10 in 6 months. Many at wallmart are under $10 (over a year old). Whole box sets go for $20 or less. Buy them used.

I'm not against file-sharing, it has its uses. But really? A person can spend $1000+ on the computer, all the drives, 56" LCD screen etc... but a $10 DVD or $15 blu-ray disc is going to break them?

And yes, the RIAA / MPAA both suck balls and they hurt artist more than help. Anyone with half a brain knew that this wouldn't stop Pirate Bay or anyone else. What about servers in China, etc?


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By walk2k on 11/29/2010 3:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah and Netflix ix $9/mo for 2 DVDs and unlimited streaming.. if you watch 2 movies a day (or equiv. TV episodes/etc) that's 15 cents each... This stuff is NOT expensive, some people just like to steal things. A lot of them are just hoarders, probably never even watch half the stuff they DL.


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By Reclaimer77 on 11/29/2010 3:47:11 PM , Rating: 4
It's not theft. I'm really tired of this mentality, criminalizing the other side. Come on, that's just cheap.

It's called IP Infringement. Nobody has ever been accused of or tried on a theft charge when it comes to digital rights. It's not like walking into a store and snagging DVD's, not even close.

Intellectual Property is a bunch of made up money grubbing bullcrap that most people don't understand in the first place, so no wonder file sharing isn't considered a "big deal".


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By eagleon on 11/29/2010 11:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
Say you were a furniture maker. A rich one. Everyone wants and loves furniture, and everyone loves you for providing it. You are creative, your craftsmanship is excellent, and your contributions to the art are heralded in bold in Rolling Stool Magazine.

Now say that one day, someone makes a machine to make your furniture in quantities no one could possibly need, for free. Ridiculous amounts of well-crafted chairs, tables, toilets, couches, and recliners, everywhere, in every home, at minimal cost. There's nothing you can do to stop people from picking it up and using it. You can try to complain to the law that your designs are being copied, but the machine is so prolific that the amount you claim is being stolen exceeds the GPD of your home nation ten-thousandfold or more. In a word, you're screwed. So is every furniture maker you know, and so are their families and pets.

Now, at this point, does it really make sense for someone making minimum wage to throw out their recliner? Or, for that matter, for law enforcement to waste their time on fruitless witchhunts for chair-pirates? By this point, fighting the chair-virus is just flailing against a tidal wave. It's sad that people are being hurt by it, but it's ridiculous to think that everyone will just go back to the way things were. Everyone likes having extra money. Not everyone considers a couch a vital necessity, like water, and a lot of people seriously have more important things to spend their money on, like kids and bills. So no one will buy a couch if one is available for free.

This is internet piracy. If you can figure out how to stop it in a sensible, sane manner, a lot of people will consider you a genius. But you won't. It's impossible without destroying the internet. Music and film will survive this, though - people don't always make art for money, you know? The best music has always come from the most passionate - I see this as thinning the stock so that they can shine through all the better.


RE: Moore's Law and Piracy
By Reclaimer77 on 11/29/2010 3:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Moore's law / bandwidth and the web 2.0 are enabling regular people like you and I to create content that is on par with content that apparently costs millions to make.


I think that's stretching things a little bit. While I enjoy "viral" video, Youtube artists, and other stuff. I sure as hell wouldn't pay 12 bucks and take my girlfriend to see Fred or Star Wars Kid on the big screen. And $20 for a Tila Tequila CD? I think not lol.

quote:
The multi-million dollar generating machine that is Hollywood is dying.


Sadly, no. 2008 and 2009 were record years for the music and motion picture industries.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki