backtop


Print 99 comment(s) - last by badgood.. on Apr 30 at 1:10 PM

Pirate Bay admins' lawyer demands a retrial

Last week, the trial of four admins from The Pirate Bay, the world's largest torrent site, concluded.  The result was a stunning defeat for the pirates, with a guilty verdict and a sentence of over $3M USD in damages (to be paid to Warner Bros., Sony Music Entertainment, EMI and Columbia Pictures) and a year in jail.

Now new revelations have surfaced.  It turns out the judge presiding over the trial, Judge Tomas Norstrom, was a member of two Swedish copyright protection groups.  He confirmed his affiliation this week, which first surfaced in Swedish Radio reports.

The affiliation represents a relatively clear conflict of interest, given that the prosecution lawyers consisted of three lawyers of similar affiliations.  Peter Althin, who represented Pirate Bay spokesman Peter Sunde in the case, is demanding a retrial.  He states, "This is completely new to me. It is reasonable that we should have known about this before.  It is a clear case of bias."

After successful actions against Kazaa and Grokster, two popular P2P clients, copyright lawyers are eager to trying to take down The Pirate Bay, which boasts over 22 million users.  And it appears they had a fully loaded deck to do it with the trial of the administrators, as they had control of the Judge and the prosecution.

All four defendants will appeal the guilty verdict Friday.  It is likely that all of them will request a retrial as part of that appeal.

Judge Nordstrom, meanwhile, defends his record, claiming he was completely unbiased.  He admits he is a member of The Swedish Association for Copyright and Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property.  He also admits he worked with Monica Wadsted, who represented the American movie industry in the trial, in resolving internet domain name disputes.  Despite these close ties, though he insists the trial was clean.  He states, "I don't think there are any circumstances that have made me biased in this case."

Meanwhile, Pirate Bay ringleader Peter "brokep" Sunde was quick to poke fun at the judge's affiliation, calling it "quite remarkable".  He sums up the trial, in comments to the AP, in one word -- a "farce".



Comments     Threshold


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

retarded.
By Finnkc on 4/24/2009 10:24:44 AM , Rating: 5
People can use a PVR to record TV shows and movies, but as soon as someone puts a TV show or a movie on the internet for people to see it's illegal? I can understand some of the fine print involved and yea it is not black and white like I just laid it out to be but ultimately it sort of is.




RE: retarded.
By omnicronx on 4/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: retarded.
By Alexstarfire on 4/24/2009 11:28:30 AM , Rating: 2
And people have internet connections to download this stuff but not TV service? I find that hard to believe.


RE: retarded.
By DM0407 on 4/24/2009 11:40:34 AM , Rating: 5
A PVR is a way for the Cable company to charge you 9.99 a month to do the same thing you can do on your computer for free, but it's legal.

Do you think that 9.99 goes straight to the program producers or into the pockets of TWC and Comcast?


RE: retarded.
By callmeroy on 4/24/2009 12:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
I wish it was only 9.99, comcast (at least in my area) charges $15.99 a month for an HD DVR service...

BTW WTF is a PVR.....does the P stand for "Pay"?


RE: retarded.
By HolgerDK on 4/24/2009 1:06:49 PM , Rating: 3
Personal Video Recorder.


RE: retarded.
By aharris on 4/24/2009 1:53:31 PM , Rating: 4
Last I checked it was a DVR.

Never heard of a PVR.

Acronyms in IT are bad enough as is, let's not convolute it any more than necessary.


RE: retarded.
By mikeyD95125 on 4/24/2009 8:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
It is the same thing, just a different acronym. I guess personal is more correct because you obviously shouldn't be showing the recorded content to anyone else. As that would constitute a public performance. :p


RE: retarded.
By BailoutBenny on 4/27/2009 7:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
The official acronym is PVR. It is what is used in most specifications used for set tops. Check the GEM/DVB/MHP/OCAP specifications for verification.


RE: retarded.
By Noya on 4/24/2009 1:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
charges $15.99 a month for an HD DVR


Same here, on top of my already decent ($$) cable package, and the HD DVR is slow as hell. Oh, it also only outputs 1080i forcing my HDTV to do the deinterlacing. Or the extra $7-8 for a few more highly compressed HD channels.


RE: retarded.
By BailoutBenny on 4/27/2009 7:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
Comcast is charging for 2 services. One is the PVR aspect. The other is HD. Both on their own are about $10, so it seems they are offering a "package deal" when purchased together.


RE: retarded.
By feraltoad on 4/26/2009 12:16:20 AM , Rating: 3
A PVR's primary function is recording porno.


RE: retarded.
By elgoliath on 4/28/2009 3:10:06 PM , Rating: 3
Pornographic Video Recorder


RE: retarded.
By omnicronx on 4/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: retarded.
By Hyperion1400 on 4/24/2009 7:46:13 PM , Rating: 5
Fair Use no longer exists! The DMCA struck that down over a decade ago.


RE: retarded.
By BZDTemp on 4/25/2009 5:46:31 PM , Rating: 5
Why is that hard to believe?

For example I have about 40 channels to choose from but that still does not mean everything I am interest in is available.

For example lots US and Australian motor sport is covered badly if at all in European media. So without the internet I for example would not get to see Indy or ALMS. Except perhaps in short news segment simply showing who won and who crashed the biggest.

Also the internet lets me get at old stuff. Say you stumble upon an episode of a TV series you do not know then it is really nice to find previously aired episodes. Oh and places like Hulu? is not accessible outside the US just like a lot of other on-line stuff is not (Free or not).

In essence. I do not mind paying for stuff and I have the Blu ray/DVD/CD/LP/game collection to prove it but some things are just not available to be bought. Partly due to national boundaries and partly because the market may be to small.


RE: retarded.
By Devo2007 on 4/24/2009 3:15:49 PM , Rating: 4
What about OTA reception, combined with an HTPC that has DVR software? Aside from the hardware, you aren't paying for the signal.


RE: retarded.
By imperator3733 on 4/25/2009 3:29:16 PM , Rating: 4
Pay for TV? Over the air signals are free, and that's the only type of broadcast (i.e. not Internet) TV that I would ever consider using.

I do agree though that any recording or copy made for personal use should always be legal. Making copies of content available online is a bit of a gray area. If it was originally available for free I don't think it should be a big deal, but if you're supposed to pay for it in the first place that's illegal. This is just another reason all the networks should be putting all their TV shows online -- if it's available for free legally, who would bother downloading it illegally?


RE: retarded.
By foolsgambit11 on 4/25/2009 7:40:04 PM , Rating: 3
Just because it is available for free doesn't mean distribution is legal. For instance, I could record every episode of, say, 30 Rock, but making it available online would 'damage' DVD sales. Or maybe I'm not understanding your point clearly with online/OTA broadcasting?

Maybe you feel the law should be different, but I think offering a program OTA shouldn't mean you forfeit your copyrights. And if things worked that way, it would mean the end of scripted programming on OTA networks. So I'll cope with the way things are.

Now when it comes to copyright lengths, I think things are way out of hand. And the EU just approved longer protections for artists, bringing them in line with US limits. Boo!!!


RE: retarded.
By Alexstarfire on 4/26/2009 2:56:53 AM , Rating: 1
So if you acquire something for free then it's illegal to distribute it? If that is certainly the law then that needs to be changed ASAP, cause that just makes no sense. They obviously aren't making money off of it if they are literally giving it away for free. And as already pointed out it's not stealing since you are not depriving anyone of anything. I fail to see how it breaks any laws.


RE: retarded.
By Lerianis on 4/27/2009 12:58:44 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter if it 'damages' DVD sales: it is still BLATENTLY FAIR USE when something is available for free in the same or near same form as on the DVD.

That is the reason I have NO problems with people torrenting TV shows, music, etc.: most of this stuff is already available for free in some form.
Just because the ripped CD is 'higher quality' doesn't make it 'wrong' to torrent the stuff.


RE: retarded.
By foolsgambit11 on 4/27/2009 8:32:52 PM , Rating: 3
How is this confusing? It's put out during every major sporting event broadcast. A free distribution doesn't make MLB forfeit the right to their content. Just because a song is on the radio doesn't mean you can freely distribute copies of the single.


RE: retarded.
By mmntech on 4/24/2009 11:46:23 AM , Rating: 5
In Canada, it is technically illegal to record using a DVR. Canadian Minister of Heritage James Moore got into a bit of controversy a couple weeks ago while discussing Canada's role in new media. He admitted he likes to record TV shows on his DVR and puts them on his iPod, not realizing there was anything wrong with it. The hardware to record shows, just like console emulators, is legal but the act of recording isn't, regardless of whether it's for time shifting or not. It's one of the many parts of copyright law that's there but just isn't enforced.

What media cartels are doing is pushing for the strict enforcement of existing laws as well as their expansion. The Moore example exposes the huge problem with copyright law; in that everyone is technically a criminal without even knowing it. Forget about file sharers for a minute. How many ordinary people are clear about what they can and can't do with their media they legally purchased? Vary few I guarantee. Even I didn't know about the DVR thing until recently and I follow tech. Media groups have a right to protect their IP but I feel they've gone way to far in doing so. They broke the barrier of excess 11 years ago when the American DMCA was signed into law.

On Pirate Bay, I certainly think the case should be thrown out. If the judge belongs to the same industry organization as the plaintiffs, he has a clear steak in the trial's outcome. There is no way you could argue that there was no conflict of interest. I also believe that the case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution totally bungled it. I don't condone Pirate Bay's activities but they did receive an unfair trial. I'm not sure what legal system Sweden uses but there is no way you'd be able to get away with that here without at minimum a retrial.


RE: retarded.
By ggordonliddy on 4/24/2009 12:24:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
he has a clear steak


Huh?


RE: retarded.
By ClownPuncher on 4/24/2009 12:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
Clean underwear.


RE: retarded.
By ClownPuncher on 4/24/2009 1:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, I read that as "clear streak".


RE: retarded.
By Whaaambulance on 4/24/2009 12:42:22 PM , Rating: 1
Mmmmmm steak.

Someone pass the A-1 please.


RE: retarded.
By rcc on 4/24/2009 2:22:34 PM , Rating: 1
Dude, you need to buy better quality steak....... : )


RE: retarded.
By Hyperion1400 on 4/24/2009 7:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
Screw the steak; I drink A-1 straight out of the bottle!


RE: retarded.
By surt on 4/24/2009 1:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
He has a steak, made out of the same stuff they put into crystal pepsi. How hard is this to understand?


RE: retarded.
By geddarkstorm on 4/24/2009 3:53:44 PM , Rating: 5
Transparent Bovines. One of the great marvels of the genomic age. Each invisible mouthful explodes with mouth watering, intangible taste. Now, I must be off for a tea party.


RE: retarded.
By Piyono on 4/25/2009 3:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
he has a clear steak


I'm almost positive you mean 'stake'.


RE: retarded.
By plonk420 on 4/25/2009 2:04:31 PM , Rating: 2
sony vs universal studios establishes that you can record to betamax (as well as use other recording media) TV shows for your own consumption. you may not, however, share it with friends. i don't remember if that includes showing it to friends within your own house, but lending it to a friend is not allowed.

there was another case where format/timeshifting was established legal, but i don't remember what that was (possibly something that protected slingbox's ass).


RE: retarded.
By xmichaelx on 4/27/2009 3:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
Better comparison:
Legal: Go to library. Borrow DVD and watch it for free. Return movie.
Illegal: Go to PirateBay. Download movie and watch it for free. Delete movie.

From the consumer's perspective, the end result it the same: Watching the movie for free. The war has already been lost. Someone just needs to clue in the **AA.


How in the hell...
By Motoman on 4/24/2009 10:59:26 AM , Rating: 5
...does a conflict of interest like that not get vetted out before a trial begins?

And here I thought it was just the US judicial system that was corrupted to the core.




RE: How in the hell...
By DM0407 on 4/24/2009 11:43:21 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
...does a conflict of interest like that not get vetted out before a trial begins?


Second that.

I think TPB knew about his bias and waited to hear the ruling before firing that bullet. This now invalidates the results.


RE: How in the hell...
By Motoman on 4/24/2009 11:51:36 AM , Rating: 5
...that may have been a wise move on their part, but in general, what process happens to validate a trial judge for a given case anyway? I can't believe that this wasn't caught somewhere in the judicial system before that judge was ever assigned to the case.

It's like the farmer assigning the fox to preside over the chicken coop.


RE: How in the hell...
By MozeeToby on 4/24/2009 2:54:58 PM , Rating: 2
It's generally left up to the judge to be responsible and vet himself which apparently he failed to do in this case.

It's worth noting though the except for having the charges dropped as much as possible, TPB didn't really care about this trial. In Sweden, anything more than a traffic ticket routinely goes to the appeals court. The lower court is thought of more as a hurdle you have to get over before the real judges get involved. It's entirely possible that TPB's goal in all this is to have it sent all the way up to the supreme court and get a final ruling on the matter, rather than fight similar cases over and over again.


RE: How in the hell...
By Amiga500 on 4/24/2009 12:01:25 PM , Rating: 5
How in the hell can that judge keep his job?

He just wasted how much public money in the trial process which now has to be repeated!

I think my response would best be summed up in the words of Vincent Kennedy McMahon... "YOUR FIRED!"


RE: How in the hell...
By Dark Legion on 4/24/2009 2:30:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I think my response would best be summed up in the words of Vincent Kennedy McMahon... "YOUR FIRED!"


You now owe Trump $5


RE: How in the hell...
By Motoman on 4/24/2009 3:47:52 PM , Rating: 5
...and an apology to your English teacher.


RE: How in the hell...
By foolsgambit11 on 4/25/2009 7:44:31 PM , Rating: 5
What about my fired?


RE: How in the hell...
By HolgerDK on 4/24/2009 1:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
Usually it does, and the judge did actually remove a jury member from the jury for being member of some copyright protection groups...


RE: How in the hell...
By Motoman on 4/24/2009 1:59:52 PM , Rating: 5
Now that's funny.

"Kettle to pot...kettle to pot...thou art black...over."


RE: How in the hell...
By tastyratz on 4/24/2009 9:14:38 PM , Rating: 3
wow
It still boggles me that nobody caught this beforehand.

isn't it ironic, don't you think?


RE: How in the hell...
By SiliconDoc on 4/25/09, Rating: 0
RE: How in the hell...
By Motoman on 4/25/2009 5:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
Holy shit. Whatever you're on...please keep it away from me.


RE: How in the hell...
By MrPoletski on 4/27/2009 4:23:50 AM , Rating: 2
yeah how the hell did an article about swedish software pirates er cough website admins get into an Obama rant?


RE: How in the hell...
By lucre on 4/25/2009 10:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
SiliconDoc, I sincerely hope you cannot claim to be educated in America, and I very much hope you don't live in America.

The reason for this, quite ironically is that you are fatally biased.

I consider it below myself even to comment on the content of your posts.

I will however, show you your error.

You see, the logical steps in forming an opinion are
facts >> inference >> objective reasoning >> opinion.

For some reason you did this backwards, although I also noted the distinctive lack of objective thought as well.

The difference between you and a holy crusader, is, thank god, you can't burn anyone at the stake.


RE: How in the hell...
By Lerianis on 4/27/2009 1:04:41 AM , Rating: 1
Guy, I have to agree with you on everything but the Obama points. The fact is that government is corrupt to the core, to be blunt.

That's the main reason why I don't like the government: they are too interested in interfering in my personal life and sexual choices/choices of sexual partners and NOT interested enough in finding serial killers, forcible rapists (don't believe that statutory rape should be illegal, to be clear), etc.

They need to start repealing all of the laws that try to dictate what people put into their own bodies, who people sleep with (regardless of age), and only try to 'protect' people from having themselves cheated out of money or being physically attacked or killed by someone else.
That is the ONLY thing that laws should be doing: try to protect people from being scammed, having their property stolen, or being murderered/killed.


RE: How in the hell...
By MrPoletski on 4/27/2009 4:21:21 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
wow
It still boggles me that nobody caught this beforehand.

isn't it ironic, don't you think?


It's about as ironic as rain on your wedding day or a free ride when you've already paid.


RE: How in the hell...
By tastyratz on 4/27/2009 2:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's the good advice that you just didn't take
Who would've thought... it figures

Im glad SOMEONE caught that lol


RE: How in the hell...
By MrPoletski on 4/29/2009 6:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
The irony of the song being that not a single example she cites in her lyrics is an example of Irony.


File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By reader1 on 4/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By Bateluer on 4/24/2009 9:57:44 AM , Rating: 4
Disagree, adult sites are often filtered from search results too, but you can still get to them. Banner ads, word of mouth, etc will lead people there.


RE: File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By reader1 on 4/24/09, Rating: 0
By tastyratz on 4/27/2009 2:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
hardly,
you can find anything in a search engine if you look for it, they are just good at tailoring searches to the content your looking for. If they tried to start mass censorship of all content it would significantly impact their content management bottom line cost, and given the free nature of the internet someone who doesn't censor would spring up and people would flock to them. Loyalty to online services is hardly unbreakable.
Pages are up to interpretation. The word torrent in a blog, or a new linux distro torrent? maybe a legal bands mp3 posting? Algorithms improve but without a light touch you start weeding out things you just cant group without the human element.

The minute google started censoring my searches like the Chinese government is the minute I switch to a new engine. I don't think we will see anything happen to that caliber.


RE: File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/24/2009 10:12:25 AM , Rating: 1
How exactly do you propose such a scheme? Should fan pages about movies/tvs/music not be allowed? What about news columns? Or fan videos? How can you distinguish Podcasts about a copyrighted item (a review of a cd, for example) from the item itself? There's no way a search engine company (like Google) could be expected to do that -- its way to computationally intensive, and would require a ton of investment in custom software algorithms. In short -- its just not going to happen.

Sure, there will be industry technologies like DRM and watermarking, but ultimately such technologies interfere with customers making legal backups and come off as anticustomer. Ultimately, the industry will be forced to adopt a more customer friendly mentality and drop such efforts, I believe. The entertainment industry just doesn't have the money or legal resources to convince/bribe/sue everyone in the electronics and internet industries, the government, and the general public into their way of thinking.

They may have their victories, but its a war of attrition they will ultimately lose. Whatever your opinions on the topic are, its hard to argue that. The entertainment industry just doesn't have the funds to sue 22 million people, even if they'd love to.

Like I've said again and again, they should focus on making better content. The independent movie and music industry is flourishing, and is much less antipiracy-geared.


RE: File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By derwin on 4/24/2009 10:58:53 AM , Rating: 1
I think you missed the point. As search giants become more and more tied into the profits of online sales of music, movies, etc. it becomes a bottom line sort of issue as to whether or not torrents are searchable. It is not hard to do, and it is probably legally viable. How do you do it? The same way (as the original poster said) they filter child porongraphy. "But those are all just pictures, how do you know they won't filter a picture of my mother?" Well, they don't filter pictures of your mother, do they?

The argument that the quality of music and movies warrants stealing them is baloney. Granted, and I agree with you here, music now sucks, and so does the movies that are put out. And do you know what that does warrant? Not seeing them. Not listening to them. Not putting a penny in the pockets of those who produced these attrocious affronts to what used to be known as human artistic expression. However, it does not warrant stealing them.

This asside, the poster made a great point that when money is involved, profits win, and if it ever becomes profitable to not have torrents serachable, you can bet your behind that torrents will not be searchable.


RE: File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By DM0407 on 4/24/2009 11:37:26 AM , Rating: 3
There will always be underground sites, not everyone is out for money. An ISP pressuring search engines to filter results sounds a lot like Tiered internet service. Granted it starts off with good intentions, then suddenly you can't access Google without a $100 'Gold Package'.

Secondly, I don't want to open a can of worms, but I think we need to drop the word 'stealing'. Its copying, if you steal you are physically removing property from someone else. If I stole a movie, then I have the only copy and it can not be distributed. If I copy a movie, then I am only effecting the people who see my copy....

Its like the Credit Crisis Bubble: You can not speculate how much money a product would have made had every pirated copy been paid for. The figures are severely inflated, stop acting like its lost money.

At most, maybe %10 of the pirated copies would have been bought, but who knows how many people went out and bought the product because they enjoyed what they copied (guilty of this).

To all those that are against piracy, make sure when you watch TV that you sit through all the commercials, those commercials paid for you to be able to view this copy protected show, so you best not be cheating the system!


RE: File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By ClownPuncher on 4/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By Pudro on 4/24/2009 1:52:17 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think you understand what that word means.

Oh, and by the way, the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.


By Motoman on 4/24/2009 3:52:08 PM , Rating: 3
This is the same industry who had an officer of one company or another (forgive me, I don't remember which one) who said in court that if a user makes a .mp3 from a CD they legally purchased themselves, for their own use, that they just "stole" that song.


RE: File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By ClownPuncher on 4/24/2009 5:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
If taking something that is sold for money and not paying for it isn't stealing, you're right, I don't know what it means. If you're backing up software or making a backup copy of a CD or a movie, then thats not stealing. But once you start distributing it, or start downloading it from someone else, you are stealing.


By ClownPuncher on 4/24/2009 6:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
But I don't consider Pirate Bay criminal, they provide a service where other people can do illegal file sharing. Saying that is illegal is like taking Blizzard to court because people playing WoW were conspiring to commit a crime.


RE: File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By mindless1 on 4/24/2009 6:51:04 PM , Rating: 1
Ah, but it is not "taking something that is sold for money".

It is "copying something where the original is being offered for money, where the original is still available for purchase".


RE: File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By ClownPuncher on 4/24/2009 7:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well then I am glad, it means my 3dsmax copy won't land me jail time or fines :)


RE: File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By DM0407 on 4/24/2009 8:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
Worms!

"Taking without paying"

Like when you saw that movie at your friends house. Did you pay admission that was then passed on to the creators?

You should have to pay royalties on those memories.

Lets be clear: Even the loudest supporters of TPB understand that effects of piratism (new word!). We all understand that the Creative developers deserve to be paid for their hard work. We need a fundamental change in the way software, music and movies are made.

In the mean time I will not give my money to the circle jerking execs who have inflated their companies to the point where they can not survive without inflated prices. I only have so much disposable income, I will spend it where I feel it is deserved.


By badgood on 4/30/2009 1:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
should add piratism (new word!) to wikipedia. j/k


By foolsgambit11 on 4/25/2009 7:59:56 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, it could get you a hefty fine for 'copyright infringement'. That's the crime/civil infraction you mistook for stealing. I think the value of the pirated material determines whether it's a civil or criminal violation - although it might have something to do with distribution. I'm not sure off the top of my head. But yeah, for the reason stated above, it's not theft - theft requires that you deprive the rightful owner of the use or possession of their property, rather than only depriving them of royalties resulting from that property. Perhaps it's a subtle difference, but it is important.


RE: File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By ThePooBurner on 4/28/2009 1:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But once you start distributing it, or start downloading it from someone else , you are stealing.

The bolded part is where you are not correct. If i own a legal copy, and have rights to have a backup of said copy, where i obtain that legal backup copy is of no consequence. Someone else just provided the service of making the back up for me. If i own a CD, but i'm to lazy to rip it myself, i consider myself 100% in the clear to download as many copies of it off the net as i care to. It's not different than ripping myself and hitting copy and paste 100 times in various backup archive folders etc.. The act of downloading should not be automatically equated with stealing or illegality.


By ClownPuncher on 4/28/2009 7:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
That is assuming you own a legal copy. The point is, very few people downloading software, music, and movies own an actual copy. I would hazard a guess that the majority of torrents are of the not so legal nature.

As for copyright infringement, yes I know exactly what it is, I work in the industry.

I still equate copyright infringement to stealing, "I'm not stealing, I'm just taking something that doesn't belong to me!"


By cessation on 4/25/2009 12:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
Meh saying only 10% would've bought it is just as bad as the RIAA and others saying it would've been 100%. Funny how that goes both ways.

Jon stewart said it best the other day... Sense pirates are back now, online pirates will have to go back to their old name, THIEVES.

I don't understand why people have to make themselves feel better about doing something wrong. Pirates try to make it sound like it's not a big deal. If I do something I shouldn't at least I have the balls to admit and call it what it is. I guess whatever helps ya sleep at night.


By crimson117 on 4/24/2009 11:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The argument that the quality of music and movies warrants stealing them is baloney.

Agreed... but Jason didn't make that argument.

He just said "they should focus on making better content".

I'd argue that it'd be more profitable to put your funds toward producing and selling movies/music than getting all hung up on small-time not-for-profit piracy.


RE: File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By rcc on 4/24/2009 2:26:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Like I've said again and again, they should focus on making better content.


And what exactly is the incentive here? If you are of the opinion that people will suddenly start paying for things they've been stealing just because the quality is better you are in for a grave disappointment.

IMNSHO, of course.


RE: File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By LumbergTech on 4/24/2009 4:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
I think a better way to put it would be if the price reflects the quality of the content.


RE: File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By rcc on 4/24/2009 5:23:10 PM , Rating: 3
Same, same. People will still download/infringe/steal if they can. They want free, they have found the way to free. They are not going to stop just because the quality is better. That would take a paradigm shift in society at this point. Dumping the entitlement mentality and reasserting a set of morals. Frankly, I'm not holding my breath.


RE: File sharing sites will be filtered out.
By SiliconDoc on 4/25/2009 5:58:56 AM , Rating: 1
But the very same powers that be stole trillions with the internet in the computer connected wall street scandals that congress backed and supported for two decades, then when they wre caught, they screamed it's all coming down and used the internet and wall street and the fed (totally online connected to the markets) to steal TRILLIONS more.
Then Congress loooked at us all blank faced and claimed "we don;t know what just happened, or how this happened" - then we found out they were lying through their teeth - from Dodd to Barney to Gorelick to Geithner and all the rest of them including the appointed tax cheats.
So my friend, you may be correct about entitlement mentality - but to even propose it's jhonny 2 bucks and susie curlers on mommies computer is INSANE.
The very overlords making the laws and trying to make sure they are enforced are the biggest set of robber barrons and collusionists the entire world has ever seen, with the biggest internet superhighway connected robbery scam the world has ever known.
I cannot even begin to support this, since every single one of the master, gigantic, huge moneied, congresscritter enabled thieving beasts is more or less retained, off the handle, scott free, and just fired up ROUND 3 in the massive ripoff. Very few exceptions to that - Maddoff and very few others.
Sorry, they can all go to hell. A bullet awaits them as far as I'm concerned.
They tauight jhonny 2 bucks and susie curlers everything they need to know and then some.
Time THEY PAY -
Then we can talk about jhonny and susies punishment.


By rcc on 4/29/2009 11:38:39 AM , Rating: 2
Skipped the meds again did you?

I'm not even sure what you were responding to. But I'll leave you with an old classic based on your diatribe. It's not very popular anymore, but who cares anyway.

Two wrongs don't make a right. : )


By AEvangel on 4/27/2009 9:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah just like Radiohead proved right??

quote:
But Gigwise's anonymous source may not have meant that all 1.2 million people who downloaded the album in the first three days Radiohead's site paid for it. ComScore said 60 percent of downloaders didn't pay, which could bring that revenue figure down to $2.4 million. http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2007/10/estima...


2.4 million seems like a good deal for a band specially if you can keep the cut the execs would have gotten.


By sans2212 on 4/24/2009 12:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
I think Pirate Bay is legal as long as the user did not use them to get pirated digital content. Although, many people prefer illegal material that is more cheaper than buy or rent them. This is usual human behavior.




By lucre on 4/25/2009 10:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
TPB is legal. Period.

Saying that TPB is illegal is comparable to saying the mail is illegal because people commit mail fraud.

Does the postman know its happening? Yes. Is it the postman's responsibility to sit down, read the mail, and look for mail fraud? Is it the postman's responsibility to stop it? No. He acknoledges it, but the day TPB has to enforce IP law enfractions is the day I hop over the counter and cook my own damn steak.

If the companies don't want people distributing "illegal copies" of IP, and they get the government to go along with it, good for them. But attack the people breaking the laws, not the forum in which they are broken.

TPB is legal regardless of the content distributed there, insofar as they are reasonably objective with regard to the types content they provide the means to distribute.


By MrPoletski on 4/27/2009 4:26:51 AM , Rating: 2
that and you can't always get ahold of the stuff you want legally, beause it is old and no longer in any shops.


Don't underestimate...
By AntiM on 4/24/2009 10:22:34 AM , Rating: 5
Do not underestimate the international political power of the media companies. This trial is a case in point. As I remarked in an earlier post a while back, the outcome of this trial was etched in stone before it ever started. The media companines are making obscene amounts of money, and continue to do so, even while crying all the way to the bank.

Also, Obama has already appointed 5 RIAA lawyers to the Justice Dept.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/04/obama-tap...

There is much treachery afoot, and I think has less to do with mere file sharing and P2P and more to do with control and monitoring. Or, maybe it's just like everything else on this planet, it's all about the money.




RE: Don't underestimate...
By SiliconDoc on 4/25/09, Rating: 0
By nah on 4/24/2009 10:53:33 AM , Rating: 5
Ah, I see




In other late breaking news....
By rcc on 4/24/2009 2:29:00 PM , Rating: 1
It has been discovered that Judges are expected to follow the written law. Evidently this automatically biases them against criminals.

Go figure.




RE: In other late breaking news....
By Alexstarfire on 4/26/2009 2:39:48 AM , Rating: 2
While this is true maybe things in law are not black and white, actually most things aren't. As a result the laws are up to interpretation. And who interprets them? The judge. He's not there just for looks you know.


By Lerianis on 4/27/2009 12:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
And he is supposed to be NEUTRAL and decide whether the laws in themselves are wrong and should be declared unconstitutional or whatever they call it in Sweden.


Nothing to see here
By wolfwood on 4/24/2009 11:00:40 AM , Rating: 4
Baghdad Bob better watch out. The "Honorable" Tomas Norstrom is gunning for his job.




Judge's perspective...
By WoWCow on 4/24/2009 10:27:57 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Despite these close ties, though he insists the trial was clean. He states, "I don't think there are any circumstances that have made me biased in this case."


Sadly, because the judge has never worked with Pirate bay, he has failed to see the other perspective on the laws that are still open to interpretation and enforcements. This case is going to set the precedent to future cases and I sincerely hope this case in dispute will be solved appropriately.

He may not necessarily have a "bias", but was simply educated or indoctrinated by the copyrights organizations rather than by the common end user.




By SiliconDoc on 4/25/2009 5:24:35 AM , Rating: 3
This is just unbelievable - we find out right after the case that Jerkoff Nordstrom is aligned with the prosecutions conglomeration.
Just put the judge and the 3 lying perp prosecutors in PRISON, and forever ban the licenses and any money they have coming to them. You can send in your cia over there to get the confessions and future plots from them as well.
So, after they get SCREWED in a trial, they have to beg for another one, and then comes the do-over.
I for one am pretty SICK of government do-overs after we find out they are worse than those they are prosecuting.
Tell me if we didn't find out who the really giant internet criminals are very recently !
Oh yes we did...
The FINANCIAL masters and all their government legislations slaves, and they robbed TRILLIONS from everyone on the face of the earth with the computer internet connected money management COMPUTER TERMINALS - jacked into the net at the highest of packet priorities, then after getting CAUGHT in their scandalously massive decades plus long crime spree of NEVER BEFORE SEEN proportions, they used their wily con powers they developed over th decade plus to pull THE SECOND RAPE JOB ! And TRILLIONS flowed out the wires over the internet at to the BANKS and INVESTMENT institutions all over the WORLD...
Sorry there corrupt judges and prosecutors and masters of the internet....you are epic corruption and epic fail.
I see, the little people, johnny 2 bucks and susie hair curlers, sitting in the basement in their PJ's or on mommies 5 year old dell - are supposed to be the criminals the giant worldwide media and government go after...
NO WAY YOU VILE SKUMLORDS
We see, the trillion dollar internet pipe robbery masters have ALL walked out scott free- and many have been RETAINED by the government and it's arms of power and prosecutorial discretion - to KEEP THE THIEVING ALIVE...
Sorry, not like song stealing should be legal, but we have a GIGANTIC CRATER for the memory hole here, and those a hundred thousand times worse are NEVER TOUCHED.
Sorry, CAN NO LONGER SUPPORT YOUR ASININE LYING PROSECUTION WITH YOUR CORRUPT JUDGE AND PROSECUTORS. GO TO HELL, GO TO PRISON, AND GET WHAT YOU REALLY DESERVE, YOU SLAVES OF HYPOCRISY AND THIEVERY.




Yep...
By blueboy09 on 4/26/2009 3:50:57 AM , Rating: 3
They caught the poor schmuck with his pants down!! He should've been un-biased but like anything in this day and age, persuasion is a powerful tool that can be used for good/evil. Hope that the PB guys get a retrial though, mainly cause the arrogance/guilt of the judge's part admitting he was on one side to begin with. - BLUEBOY




Wow...
By Bender 123 on 4/24/2009 9:46:39 AM , Rating: 2
Thats a shocker!!!
(Sarcasm\off)

FAIL!!!




Speaking of judges
By corduroygt on 4/24/2009 1:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
Q: What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
A: Your honor




Sweden: The new Illinois
By tjr508 on 4/24/2009 2:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, the first trial had a prosecutor on the IFPI payroll and now we have a judge with a clear conflict of interest. Corruption is alive and well in Sweden it seems. I doubt any action will be taken as there is too much money involved.




Congrats Sweden
By omgwtf8888 on 4/24/2009 2:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
Seems you are prosecuting the wrong Pirates... I think the guy that should go to jail is the Judge. By the way if your prosecutors have some time left over they can prosecute Sony for assisting in the theft of copyrited materials. Yes while their media division goes about suing for copyrite protection, their electronics division is busy selling MP3 players and CDs. Notice that their players don't require DRMs. So if they know people are stealing their property and they are facilitating its use, they are guilty!




Wise move.
By wsc on 4/26/2009 10:06:54 AM , Rating: 2
Wise move. Now IFPI and their US allies know everything that defence used and are ready for retrial. And they are preparing for coming soon litigations against other major players who assist in commiting piracy by pointing at "source of illegal content".




By Lerianis on 4/27/2009 12:54:18 AM , Rating: 2
So how in the world did this judge think that he was going to get away with this? Sheer stupidity on the part of the judge, and more evidence that this was a 'rigged' trial that wasn't really a trial, but a lynching!

Yeah, the Pirate Bay is doing stuff that by Swedish law NOW is supposedly illegal.... but the laws that were in place back when the things the Pirate Bay was being tried for happened did NOT make this illegal.




"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)














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