backtop


Print 131 comment(s) - last by .. on Mar 6 at 8:59 AM

Prosecution struggles to pin guilt on The Pirate Bay administrators

The Pirate Bay spokesman Peter Sunde wrapped up the first week of his famous civil/criminal trial with a bombshell. An internal survey, he says, revealed that 80% of 1000 torrents observed are, in fact, legal.

Sunde shares the criminal charges of assisting others in copyright infringement with fellow Pirate Bay figures Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm, and Carl Lundström.

Pressed by prosecutor Hakan Roswall and lawyers from the media industry, Sunde explained that while he was aware that the site does indeed host links to copyright material, The Pirate Bay was built as a tool for its users to post content – some of which might be legal, some not. Therefore, if copyright owners want to take down content, they should approach the individual that uploaded the torrent in question, rather than The Pirate Bay.

In fact, said Sunde, his survey reveals that there is a larger proportion of copyright-infringing material on YouTube.

While Sunde’s exact methodology for the survey is unclear, he testified that he gathered the 1,000 torrents at random and, with the help of some users in a chat room, examined their legality without downloading them.

TorrentFreak notes the trial also featured a clumsy attempt by Roswall to display geek prowess:

“When did you meet [Gottfrid] for the first time IRL?” asked the Prosecutor. “We do not use the expression IRL,” said Peter, “We use AFK.”

“IRL?” questioned the judge. “In Real Life,” the Prosecutor [explained].

“We do not use that expression,” Peter noted. “Everything is in real life. We use AFK - Away From Keyboard.”

“Well,” said Roswall. “It seems I am a little bit out of date.”

Spectators noted that the trial seems to be taking a disturbingly political tone – at one point, after being asked questions on his opinion of copyright law, issues, and previous remarks on his blog, Sunde shot back with questions of his own:

“That is a political issue,” he said. “Is this a political trial or a legal trial?”

IFPI lawyer Peter Danowsky continued with his question, but Sunde cut him off.

 “I want an answer from the lawyer Danowsky. Is this a political trial? Can I get a reply?”

Over the past few days, prosecutors have struggled to understand The Pirate Bay’s “anarchistic” organizational structure. In Thursday’s trial, prosecutors pressed Neij for details, essentially fishing for any hints that The Pirate Bay staff ran under a traditional hierarchy – to which Neij replied that nearly every aspect of the site was run in a haphazard fashion.

“Someone must ultimately decide whether to put up a certain text or graphic,” asked Roswall.

“No,” Neij replied. “Why? If someone believes a new text is needed, he just inputs it. Or if a graphic is ugly, someone makes a better one. The one who wants to do something just does it.”

Neijs’ responses followed a general pattern that is proving to be consistent throughout the entire trial: when presented with damning evidence, the defendants simply defer responsibility to someone not directly involved in the proceeding – a fiery speech that Niej read outside Swedish parliament days after the site’s May 2006 brush with the law, for example, was claimed to be penned by Pirate Bureau ideologue Tobias Andersson, and read at the Bureau’s request.

Friday evening the defendants threw a 200-person party broadcasted live on The Pirate Bay’s Spectrial website, the tickets of which quickly sold out. Trial is set to resume Tuesday, and will feature testimony from a number of figures from the entertainment and content industry.



Comments     Threshold


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

...
By Tsuwamono on 2/22/2009 10:07:44 AM , Rating: 4
LawL... Even on trial they are defiant. <333




RE: ...
By mmntech on 2/22/2009 10:34:17 AM , Rating: 4
Gotta love someone with a big pair like that. lol


RE: ...
By quiksilvr on 2/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Motoman on 2/22/2009 12:28:56 PM , Rating: 4
No...it means that they understand the nature of their operation, which is to allow people around the world to share whatever content they want...legal or illegal. TPB isn't making any decisions about what is or isn't posted...in exactly the same manner that Google doesn't make decisions (well, other than in China...cue human rights viloation sympathizer rant) about what comes up when you search for something.

The problem the RIAA et al has is that TPB and other torrent/sharing sites are ruled by the mob...TPB themselves is not really in control of anything. TPB was right to point out that if copyright holders want something taken down, they should contact the people seeding the torrent.

The bigger problem is that, by extension, if TPB can be held accountable for what people do with it's software, then so can Google and Yahoo. And then, maybe Microsoft can be held accountable for what people do with Word. I can go to a photography website and "steal" a screencap of a photograph that I *should* have paid for, paste the screencap into Word, and email the Word document around. Is that Microsoft's fault that I did that? If I'm the content owner on that photo, would it make more sense to go after Microsoft to recall all Word licenses to make sure it isn't used to violate copyrights, or does it make more sense to find the guy who actually did the infringing and prosecute him?

Ultimately, this boils down to the same arguements behind gun control. Guns don't kill people...people do. TPB doesn't violate any copyrights...people do. Word doesn't violate any copyrights...people do. When your loony Uncle Jimbo goes postal and stabs his neighbor with a plastic fork...plastic forks don't kill people...lonny Uncle Jimbo does.

You can point your finger at essentially anything, and say that "this here thing can be used for ill!" Anything. I could pick up my keyboard and bash you over the head with it. Should we ban keyboards? In fact, it is quite a bit easier for me to bash you with my keyboard than it is to set up a torrent to share a copyrighted movie. Does that mean that keyboards are *more* dangerous than TPB? Should we fix the savage keyboard-bashing problem as a priority over solving copyright infringement issues? What if I punch you in the face with my fist? Should we lop off everyone's hands? Could still bap you with the end of my arm. Or kick you. Or bite you. Turns out, the only way to make sure no one attacks anyone else, or infringes anyones copyright, is to amputate all limbs and remove everyone's teeth.

Then, finally, we will be safe.


RE: ...
By aston12 on 2/22/2009 12:58:06 PM , Rating: 4
I agree. They should only go after scene groups who violate the copyright. TPB is indeed basically the same as an organized search engine.


RE: ...
By omnicronx on 2/23/2009 10:08:56 AM , Rating: 2
I've been saying this for years. They tried this 8-9 years ago and it seemed to work pretty well. Scene groups locked out everyone from their IRC groups and many release groups stopped releasing entirely for fear that an inside man had masqueraded as a member. This resulted in many low quality rips from users around the internet, instead of high quality video and audio being ripped with professional tools. When this happens, people are more likely to go out and buy the real material.

I still can't figure out why they stopped . Probably because it was much cheaper to sue a few unsuspecting limewire users than it was to pay for the law enforcement to go after release groups.


RE: ...
By Alexstarfire on 2/22/2009 1:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
From what I know though, TPB doesn't have it's own software.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 2/22/2009 1:58:38 PM , Rating: 4
Makes no difference to the fundamental arguement. They do *something* that others do *something* with. What others do with their *something* is not their responsibility.


RE: ...
By Alexstarfire on 2/23/2009 8:54:00 AM , Rating: 2
Umm, actually it does make a difference. That means TPB only offers a service and no actual product. So you can't even say that people are using their products to do illegal things. This makes a difference because products that are used for illegal purposes, like cracking DVD encryption, are illegal. I can't say if that translates into things that can be used for legal/illegal things, like uTorrent, but that certainly wouldn't look good for TPB.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 2/23/2009 12:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not even sure that DVD-cracking software is illegal...it's not infeasible that you might need it for your own legitimate uses, or as purely a research tool.

Again, the tool itself isn't causing the infraction...it's what you do with it. And that's regardless of whether you're providing a service or a product. If you go to any web phonebook, like DexKnows or Switchboard, and look up someone's address, you're using their service...and if you then go to that address and kill someone, it's not that service's fault that you did that. They are not complicit in your crime. Even if you had a locally-installed software, like the old Delorme mapping stuff, that you used to print out directions to someone's house, then drove their and killed them - the fact that you used Delorme's product, as opposed to MapQuest's service, makes no difference. You committed the crime...the product/service you used to help plan your crime is not complicit. If they were, by your arguement, the Delorme mapping software would be illegal, because it could be used for illegal purposes...as could Word. Or even Windows, Linux, or whatever OS itself. The minute you try to attribute responsibility to the product/service, you are not just stepping onto a slippery slope...it's much worse than that:

Any conviction of any computing service/product in this light, as being held responsible for the illegal actions of the people who use it, would set a precedent that would signal the end of the information age. Because the very first time a court rules that any product/service can be held accountable for what users do with it, you can then use that ruling to outlaw *every* computing technology across the board, because there is not a single piece of computing technology, whether product or service, that can't be used for ill of some kind.

For that reason, not only does your arguement fail, but all arguements against computing products/services fail, and must fail, because if they were ever to be held up in a court of law and used to prosecute against a product/service, then the era of computing is over.


RE: ...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2009 5:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any conviction of any computing service/product in this light, as being held responsible for the illegal actions of the people who use it, would set a precedent that would signal the end of the information age. Because the very first time a court rules that any product/service can be held accountable for what users do with it, you can then use that ruling to outlaw *every* computing technology across the board, because there is not a single piece of computing technology, whether product or service, that can't be used for ill of some kind. For that reason, not only does your arguement fail, but all arguements against computing products/services fail, and must fail, because if they were ever to be held up in a court of law and used to prosecute against a product/service, then the era of computing is over.


Game, set, match.

I just read this, and I gotta say, your dead on. Game over man, game over.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 2/23/2009 6:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
[elvis]

TY, TYVM

[/elvis]


RE: ...
By dxf2891 on 2/27/2009 10:22:19 AM , Rating: 2
Next up: The trials of all the movie, music and video game companies that are accused of being duplicit in the murders, robberies, rapes, arson and other acts of mayhem that people say they were inspired to do because of their media. Why stop at TPB? Why not go after the hosting sight, the web browser companies that you use to surf TPB and the ISPs? Where does it end?


RE: ...
By on 3/6/2009 8:57:52 AM , Rating: 2
Will you just be quiet


RE: ...
By crleap on 2/22/2009 2:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
That was such a great post. Well said Motoman!


RE: ...
By walk2k on 2/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By Quiescent on 2/22/2009 2:50:26 PM , Rating: 5
So if I want to make a torrent of the music I make in FLS and upload it to TPB, it suddenly becomes illegal?

The whole point of a website such as TPB is to SHARE. This could mean legally or illegally.

TPB also does not actively encourage people to post illegal content. They are encouraging to share. It's only people who take it into context that it is a website to go get that cracked copy of Fruity Loops Studio who use it for illegal reasons and not legal reasons.

Google got sued one time for their images part of their website, because APPARENTLY they were COPYRIGHT INFRINGING, because they had their serves make thumbnail versions of the images and thus THATS COPYRIGHT INFRINGING.

And Google links to all pirate websites, including the ones that might infect your computer. They will also link to phishing sites, scam sites, and everything else.

It is only up to you to decide whether you want to view/use/download/upload the content before you.

So his analogies are right.


RE: ...
By omnicronx on 2/23/2009 10:14:03 AM , Rating: 1
While I agree with you in principle, trying to make it out as though TPB does not actively encourage illegal file sharing is kind of naive. Their name is The Pirate Bay, thats like having a website named 'NEO-NAZIS-FOREVER.COM' and saying you are not advocating antisemitism.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 2/23/2009 12:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
...a rose by any other name...

...so your arguement is that TPB should just change their name to "Bob's Torrent Thing" and it would all be good? Or maybe "Hey-Please-Don't-Torrent-Copyrighted-Stuff-Here.co m?"

Get a grip.


RE: ...
By omnicronx on 2/23/2009 1:26:55 PM , Rating: 1
No, I'm implying that having 'Pirate' in the name is self incrementing. If the Pirate bay did not want to associate themselves with piracy via torrents, they should not have named their site as such.

I just wonder, are you dense? Or do you think quoting Shakespeare somehow makes you correct?


RE: ...
By Motoman on 2/23/2009 1:54:14 PM , Rating: 4
...I'm wondering if you're dense enough to believe your own BS. What you name yourself, your organization, your company, whatever, makes no difference to anything.

Coca-Cola still bears the name it originally had, when it included actual cocaine. Shouldn't they change that name, since cocaine is now illegal, and by virtue of the fact that they have "coca" in their name they are encouraging people to smoke crack?

How about when Chevy had a car called the "Beretta" - were they encouraging people to use sidearms to commit murder?

On the topic of pirates, how about the Olds Cutlass? As you know, pirates prefer the cutlass as their weapon of choice. Was Oldsmobile inspiring a new generation of young pirates to go to Somalia and take up the trade?

...does Firefox entice our youth to set small canids aflame? Does CarSoup make it's users want to gnaw on a tire? Does Hotwire prompt impressionable youths to steal cars?

Just. Stop.


RE: ...
By omnicronx on 2/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By mindless1 on 2/25/2009 3:16:27 AM , Rating: 1
You must be kidding. I suppose you're the type who needs proof the sun is in the sky too.


RE: ...
By on 3/6/2009 8:59:13 AM , Rating: 1
I don't know, I kind of see his point on some of this stuff.


RE: ...
By dresche2 on 2/22/2009 2:55:33 PM , Rating: 5
First... If I go into Best Buy and buy something, it MUST be the best deal because it says BEST in the name, right? No. The name doesn't mean squat. Even if it did, unless you are a mind reader, you cannot honestly tell me that you KNOW that The Pirate Bay was intended to mean pirate as in illegally obtain. In fact, it makes much more sense analyzing the full name that it is referring to pirates as the water bound fiends, hence The Pirate BAY. In watching The Pirates of the Caribbean, does the title mean that the movie is about individuals illegally distributing content? No.

Second.... They are like Google, Yahoo, and the phone book. The automatically obtain information and display it in a easily readable/searchable format. Period. You can submit DCMA notices to Google, but it makes more sense to submit them to the offending websites, same with TPB.

Third.... TPB does not ENCOURAGE pirating material. I have never once been on their site and gotten a message saying "Hey you should upload illegal stuff here...", nor have I gotten an email, nor text message, or phone call, or physical mail. So you cannot say that they ENCOURAGE pirating. IF you are referring to encouraging through inaction, then there are a whole new host of sources that are just as liable. Google doesn't hand comb its results either...


RE: ...
By Alexstarfire on 2/23/2009 8:59:24 AM , Rating: 2
I actually wouldn't equate TPB to a search engine like Yahoo or Google, though they are quite similar. Search engines actively go out and find new information, like new web sites, but TPB does not. I would equate TPB to the Yellow Pages. It's an index of companies that people wanted to be put in there, like how people upload torrents to TPB. TPB does not go look around the internet for new torrents like a search engine would.

Similar, but very distinct.


RE: ...
By Hieyeck on 2/23/2009 10:55:59 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Prostitution is illegal in many places, but you can still crack open the Yellow Pages and flip to "Escort Services". This trial is like suing the Yellow Pages for providing illegal services.


RE: ...
By walk2k on 2/23/2009 4:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
Sure that's a decent analogy, the problem is they don't accept listings that say "sex for money here!!", they say "escort" *wink wink*. Then if the police tell them to remove one of those "escort" listings because they are known to be illegal prostitutes, they will do it.

It would be more like if I called my gun store "MURDER WEAPONS" and was known to be a place that willingly sold guns to known gang members or other people who they KNEW intended to commit crimes with them.

If you knowingly help a criminal commit a crime you are just as guilty, it's called aiding and abetting.

Try it some time. Walk into a (legal, licensed) gun store and tell the clerk "I caught my wife cheating, what's the best gun to murder her with? oh and I need a silencer too so I don't get caught by the police".

See how far that gets you....


RE: ...
By mindless1 on 2/25/2009 3:18:42 AM , Rating: 2
... and they don't call their escort service The Prostitute Bay.


RE: ...
By TSS on 2/22/2009 3:25:11 PM , Rating: 4
i've downloaded loads of illigal material and i've never used the pirate bay for it.

his point is choice. i choose to find illigal torrents on google. what my reasons are to make that choice, or what their reason is to create a torrent search engine, are irrelivant.

the pirate bay wouldn't have any illigal torrents if people didn't CHOOSE to CREATE AND UPLOAD those torrents. and considering 20% of a frickload of torrents is illigal i wouldn't be inclined to start removing them either. it's fighting symptoms, not causes.

and a name is just a name. if you've been on the internet long enough you'll eventually run into a pirates vs ninja's debate. doesn't mean "the ninja bay" is a secret assasination society run by geeks.


RE: ...
By DM0407 on 2/22/2009 3:40:16 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
What horrible analogies, all of them. First of all, keyboards are not designed to be used as weapons. The Pirate Bay is designed for one thing only, to PIRATE things. Hello, it isn't called the "Shareware Bay". Stop comparing them to Google too people.



Google this:
"(insert favorite movie here) torrent " - How is this different from the pirate bay? Lets shut down Google!

For the record it isn't called stolenmaterialbay.com either. Why does it have to be a literal translation... Does youtube only have videos of "you"?

Maybe they originally planned on making a site where people could plunder booty, but realized that the word pirate is now synonymous with illegal software sharing and felt obligated to offer illegal material.


RE: ...
By Tsuwamono on 2/22/2009 7:42:50 PM , Rating: 5
really so google removes links to illegal material? I wasnt aware of this since 20 minutes ago when i searched P90X work out system DVDs as a torrent...

http://www.google.ca/search?q=crysis+torrent&ie=ut...

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=...

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=...

Ya you cant find anything illegal on google... right..


RE: ...
By Pjotr on 2/23/2009 7:20:52 AM , Rating: 4
OMG, now you made www.dailytech.com illegal by posting links to illegal content on it, sue DailyTech now!


RE: ...
By scrapsma54 on 2/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By michael67 on 2/22/2009 3:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
You make you argument very well, but i think your argument is a bit flawed.

Lets take the gun argument a little further, why are (and i take US law as a example) full automatic guns illegal, and even guns that can be converted to be full auto are getting band in lots of state's now.
The argument is still the same, guns don't kill people, but these guns are not made for sport/hunting but to kill people, not all people how buy a gun like that do, but the one's that wane kill do use them more.

Same go's for the TPB yeah not all users com to download illegal content but most do.

PS. I have no problem using TPB i use it my self for series as its one of the best place to get them.
Other stuff i get from 0day servers ware i had access to sins i got ADSL
And i don't have a 12TB home-server just to save every version of Linux that comes out
http://www.hardware.info/nl-NL/usersys/cmpxYp1lk2i...


RE: ...
By jiteo on 2/22/2009 3:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
Did someone forget to close an emphasis tag? Let's see if me closing it now </em> will work. Also, DT needs better input sanitizing for the comments :)


RE: ...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2009 4:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lets take the gun argument a little further, why are (and i take US law as a example) full automatic guns illegal


Politics.

Bush allowed Clinton's "assault rifle" ban to expire. Did we see a sharp increase in assault rifle related gun violence ?

quote:
The argument is still the same, guns don't kill people, but these guns are not made for sport/hunting but to kill people, not all people how buy a gun like that do, but the one's that wane kill do use them more.


It's really hard to tell what your trying to say because of all the misplaced words and errors, but are you honestly trying to say people buy assault rifles just to kill other people ?

I don't even know what to say to that. I could bring up statistics but I won't bother, because that is just an outlandish claim not even worth being dignified with a counterpoint.


RE: ...
By Etsp on 2/22/2009 4:56:01 PM , Rating: 3
Woah, you broke the site. you put </em> inside of your link rather than at the end of your comment, so that now everyone's post after yours is in italics.


RE: ...
By Etsp on 2/22/2009 4:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
Test


RE: ...
By Etsp on 2/22/2009 4:58:23 PM , Rating: 5
Fixed it!.


RE: ...
By johnbuk on 2/23/2009 9:17:16 AM , Rating: 3
-Fully automatic firearms are not illegal. They require a special permit.
-The reason that the law was written that requires that permit had nothing to do with the firearms themselves- it was written because the gov't was having a tough time making cases against gangsters who they believed were committing crimes but were having a tough time convicting them. Extortion requires a lot of evidence and work to make a case. Catching someone with an illegal automatic weapon doesn't require nearly as much work on the part of law enforcement.
-That's also the reason that the penalties for simply owning an unpermitted automatic weapon are so tough. The reasoning was that if you owned said weapon, you must be committing other crimes and therefore should be punished harshly for the one thing that could be proved.


RE: ...
By DASQ on 2/23/2009 11:21:38 AM , Rating: 2
Your argument is AT BEST merely baseless and flawed.

Gun's don't kill people. Firearms do not CONTAIN intent. A gun is not a WEAPON until it is used with intent. Know the difference. It is a tool. It has many uses. It happens to be pretty good at killing people in certain situations. The same can be said for gasoline, or fertilizer, or the paring knife in my drawer.

The automatic weapons ban was such a farce. They banned bayonet lugs. BAYONETS. For Christ's sake, this isn't the 1800's! No one is going to fix bayonets and charge a fortified college classroom rife with trenchfoot and Manhattan sized rats. The types of weapons banned were also pretty ridiculous. Oh it's used in Hollywood. Arnold can shoot it one handed. Better ban it, because action flicks are pretty much TRAINING people to kill other people.


RE: ...
By phxfreddy on 2/22/2009 6:20:08 PM , Rating: 3
Here here MotorMan....the only difference between google and pirate bay is that pirate bay chose a name with "pirate" in it and thus the golums of the recording industry set upon them thinking they will get an easy win.
.......My suspicion is that these swedish meatballs are going to win by dint of their public relations.


RE: ...
By dever on 2/23/2009 12:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
Give this man a 6!


RE: ...
By Belard on 2/25/2009 6:39:02 AM , Rating: 2
A big difference would be if a site/person/group running a site or street operation selling pirated DVDs / CDs / whatever. They are purposely profiting off the work of others.

I know that quite a large number of people use torrents to get legit items or rare stuff that is not available.

I myself do not use torrents anymore, and I still buy DVDs for my players.

TPB is looking pretty good and I hope they win. By your examples, even Microsoft can be SUED for providing a web-browser that can GO to TPB website. Yeah, why didn't they block TPB? Is it in their power?


RE: ...
By Teh Interwebz on 2/27/2009 12:43:56 PM , Rating: 3
I see what youre saying here but there are logical (and sensationalized) arguments on both sides.

What if I bought a house in your neigherborhood and just allowed anyone to come in and sell things there. Fine and dandy until some guy shows up to sell bootlegged CDs, drugs, or even kiddy porn. Is it your/the cops' responsibility to aprehend each individually or is my responsiblity to make sure illegal activity is not occuring on my property?

I'm on the fence with this issue. I'm a big believer in free flow of information but I dont agree with the wild west attitude.

I do not see what is wrong with a setup like youtube where copyrighted content is removed after being reported. Its not the sites responsibility to prevent such postings but it is their responsibility to remove them when found.


RE: ...
By michael67 on 2/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By walk2k on 2/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By twhittet on 2/22/2009 2:26:59 PM , Rating: 3
Wow......your analogy is terrible. Seriously. I don't need to think of a new one, because your analogy is that incredibly bad. Really? Wow. I am impressed.


RE: ...
By Motoman on 2/22/2009 3:23:48 PM , Rating: 4
Your analogy started off OK, but ended wrong. In this case, the RIAA is suing the bank, where 20 people got robbed. Go after the robber, not the venue in which the robbing happened. The bank did not cause the offense...in this case, it's primary function was as a place where people can gather.

You can therefore make the same argument for, say, Central Park in NYC. I have no idea how many crimes happen there every year, but I would hazard to guess that it's a lot. Victims of those crimes can't sue Central Park, or the NYC Park Commission, or NYC itself, NY State, etc. for their loss. They weren't resposible. The mugger/whatever that robbed/whatever you is responsible. You sue him/her. Not the park.


RE: ...
By DM0407 on 2/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2009 1:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Great defense. But your honor, there were 100 people in the bank and I only robbed 20 of them!


Oh my god people, please stop with these horribly emo bad file sharing analogies !!

Good job Walk. Because shoving a gun in someones face and stealing from them is CLEARLY the same as sitting your ass in front of a PC and double clicking.

quote:
. I'd feel sorry for them if they weren't so defiant about breaking the law .


It's my understanding that in Sweden there IS no law they have broken.

This is a political show trial, nothing more. Even this Sunde guy sees right through it and had the balls to bring it up point blank.


RE: ...
By omnicronx on 2/23/2009 3:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's my understanding that in Sweden there IS no law they have broken. This is a political show trial, nothing more.

Even this Sunde guy sees right through it and had the balls to bring it up point blank.
Finally someone with some common sense. I get the feeling people here think what TPB is doing is not illegal pretty much anywhere else in the world. This is nothing more than a political show BECAUSE IT IS LOCATED IN SWEDEN. If this was an American site, they would have been ordered to take the site down, or they would have been be sued or charged.

I think its great that he is standing up to the government, (and more or less the rest of the world, as I have the feeling the government is just bowing to international pressures) but as it stands sites like these are illegal in most other countries.


RE: ...
By walk2k on 2/23/2009 4:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
That's not what people are arguing though. Look around, people are trying to say they are doing nothing illegal because they only host .torrent files and not the actual files themselves.

It's only "legal" (if in fact it is, I guess this is what this trial will determine) because it's in Sweden where the laws are weak. Why else would they even move to Sweden?


RE: ...
By Penti on 2/24/2009 10:09:51 AM , Rating: 2
The Netherlands are a much bigger cluster of warez and torrent sites.

And they didn't move to Sweden, they are swedes!

The laws are actually more stringent here then in the US, Google and Youtube wouldn't really be legal here as your not granted immunity from liability on the content users post here. Also you are not granted any kind of fair use of say music here. So all user contributed material would pretty much be illegal here, both for the user and the site owner.


rolf
By incarnaterage on 2/22/2009 3:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
You all seem to miss a fundamental point.

The question is whether its legal to post information.

Yes, the Pirate Bay has the word Pirate in it. This doesn't mean anything, its not suddenly illegal to name children Charles Manson because of a historical figure.

Yes, the Pirate Bay links to illegal information, the quantity is irrelevant.

Is a shooting instructor guilty of murder because a man he taught to shoot went out and commited homicide?

Are college proffessors guilty now because their students can use the knowledge gained to commit potentiall illegal and dangerous acts?

It is entirely irrelevant whether content is legal or otherwise. If you want to think of it this way, then DailyTech is a criminal website for writing about TPB trial because they are linking indirectly to the site itself which links to copyrighted material.

In fact you yourself are guilty because you know where to find illegal material.

I KNOW WHERE I CAN BUY DRUGS THEREFORE I AM GUILTY OF POSSESSION




RE: rolf
By incarnaterage on 2/22/2009 3:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
Ill play my own devil's advocate.

Its pretty clear that free filesharing hurts media producing companies. Why would someone pay for a game or a movie or a song if they can just download it. But technically this exposes the material to more individuals some of whom do end up buying it.

Its also not clear whether someone who downloaded something would have purchased it given the opportunity to. Its certainly easy to download a movie, but paying for a DVD at the rate of 20$ a pop certainly breaks your wallet fast.

Id like to point that all the stealing analogies are plain wrong.

I went to the louvre, and took a high quality digital image of the Mona Lisa (as has been done millions of times by tourists). According to laws these days, we have all infringed on the artists right by reproducing the picture.

Metaphors dont hold well here if you dont think about them.


RE: rolf
By eldakka on 2/22/2009 10:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its pretty clear that free filesharing hurts media producing companies.


Thats an unproven assumption you are making there.

quote:
I went to the louvre, and took a high quality digital image of the Mona Lisa (as has been done millions of times by tourists). According to laws these days, we have all infringed on the artists right by reproducing the picture.


wow, which country is it that has a copyright term of over 500 years?


RE: rolf
By Alexstarfire on 2/23/2009 9:13:49 AM , Rating: 2
So you're going to tell me that electronic data transfers don't hurt companies that make CDs and DVDs? That's what I thought of when he said media companies anyways. If that's what he meant then you sir must be crazy to say otherwise.


RE: rolf
By eldakka on 2/23/2009 10:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
There are many assumptions in the statement.

To show that filesharing hurts media companies, you first have to prove that people who download copies of files would have purchased the content downloaded if it wasn't available online.

You also have to show that those who do download also do not purchase the product after trialling it from the download.

There is no reliable proof that shows definitively that 'piracy' is a factor, let alone a significant factor, in the economic performance of media publishers. All the figures that record companies and movie studios bandy around are unsubstantiated guesses.

I am not saying that it does not hurt them, I am saying that at the moment that it is merely an allegation, an assertion, not a substantiated fact.


RE: rolf
By Motoman on 2/23/2009 11:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
There is great truth in them thar words.

Look at any college campus. As an example, let's see how many illicit copies of Adobe PhotoShop are installed. PhotoShop costs, what, $500? If 1,000 students at the college have illicit copies of PS, did Adobe lose out on $500,000?

In a word, no. Maybe barely a handful of those students would have coughed up the big coin for a legitimate copy of PS had it not been available illegaly. The vast, vast majority of them (if indeed not all of them) would have gone without. Used Gimp or something else. The "cost" to Adobe is at best irrelevant...and very likely zero.

It works on the bottom end of the $ spectrum too. Maybe there's 1,000 illicit copies of "The Love Guru" floating around the same college. It costs $15 at Wal-Mart. Did the studio lose out on $15k? No...a great deal of people download stuff they would not ever have any intention of paying even a dollar for, just because they can. Had "The Love Guru" not been available as an illegal download, they would have quite happily lived out their lives without ever having seen it.

And for an individual .mp3 - I know a great many people will listen to an illicit .mp3, and later buy the CD. And the same rule applies as above for the movie.

The stark reality is that illegal filesharing honestly costs the content publishers essentially nothing, and may actually generate revenue as a net effect by getting people to try something they might not have otherwise, who then went on to buy legitimate copies.

The flipside is that illegal filesharing is used as a protest for poor behavior on the publisher's part - such as the DRM on Spore. The DRM EA put on Spore may have cost them millions in lost sales, as would-be legitimate buyers either went without, or turned to the better option of using an illegal download. I have not the slightest sympathy for EA in that case - they made their bed. I persionally don't promote pirating anything, and although I wanted so very badly to play Spore, I not only didn't buy it when I learned of the DRM, but I also didn't illegally download it either.

Big Content is, essentially, full of it. Unfortunatley, they are also a permanent fixture in the pockets of our lawmakers. So there you have it.


RE: rolf
By Teh Interwebz on 2/27/2009 4:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
Your argument is valid but you dont explore it far enough. It is the classic free rider problem from philosophy 101. Sure most of the college kids who downloaded PhotoShop would have done without. Problem is the guys who did pay look at the situation and say why should I pay if they arent and a cascade starts. The only thing that prevents the system from fully collapsing is that businesses usually will not risk trying to pirate software because its not worth the reward to them. That check does not fully apply to entertainment intellectual property however because the primary buyers of entertainment is the private sector and they are not regulated like a business to ensure proper licensing.


RE: rolf
By Pjotr on 2/23/2009 7:29:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I went to the louvre, and took a high quality digital image of the Mona Lisa (as has been done millions of times by tourists). According to laws these days, we have all infringed on the artists right by reproducing the picture.


It appears you know little of Copyright laws. Last I checked, the most common time period for a Copyright was 75 years after the artist death. This is why older classical music is not Copyrighted, it can be recorded and made money on by anyone. Same for Mona Lisa. Soon the older Hollywood movies will not be Copyrighted...


RE: rolf
By kelmon on 2/23/2009 3:29:39 AM , Rating: 1
I think the most telling thing is the "Legal" page that they are so proud of (I'm not linking to their site). Not only are they notified that their site contains links to copyrighted material but they then proceed to mock the originator of the letter. Quite clearly they are not "Google" since Google does not knowingly make available links to copyrighted materials and they will remove them if asked.

Their site links to copyrighted material, they know it, they're proud of it, and how they have any defense is quite amazing. If they manage to get the charges dropped then I think that's more of a damning indictment of the prosecution's abilities than of defendant's innocence.


RE: rolf
By PhoetuS on 2/23/2009 9:19:59 AM , Rating: 2
As far as I am aware, most, if not all, of the letters they mock originate from lawyers/businesses outside of Sweden, many of them citing US copyright law as if it applies outside of the US.

TPB mocks them because:
1) US Law does not apply to Sweden
2) TPB linking to Copyrighted material is NOT illegal in Sweden.

quote:
Their site links to copyrighted material, they know it, they're proud of it, and how they have any defense is quite amazing. If they manage to get the charges dropped then I think that's more of a damning indictment of the prosecution's abilities than of defendant's innocence.


Their defense is that what they do is not illegal in their country. Pretty simple really. It is the reason they have lasted as long as they have.

As it has already been stated a million times before, TPB does NOT host any illegal content, they only link to files. This is why Google & Yahoo are so often mentioned in the same argument - Just like Google, TPB doesn't host any files, just links to files.


RE: rolf
By kelmon on 2/23/2009 1:07:54 PM , Rating: 1
The whole thing is just such unbelievable bullshit. What needs to happen is that the laws are updated to make hosting links to Torrents and we can finally shut this stupid site down.

The comparisons between Google and The Pirate Bay is again nonsense. Google, for example, will take down links to copyrighted information when asked. The Pirate Bay, on the other hand, will simply add you to their "Legal" page and make fun of you. If they actually respected the copyright holder's request to remove the Torrent link then I'd have much less of a problem with them.

Why anyone defends this practice is beyond me, aside from using the site to get free stuff.


RE: rolf
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2009 1:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The comparisons between Google and The Pirate Bay is again nonsense.


It's a hell of a lot better comparison than the idiots on here comparing the Pirate Bay to rape, robbery, shootings, high sees hijacking and sexual assault.


RE: rolf
By omnicronx on 2/23/2009 2:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's a hell of a lot better comparison than the idiots on here comparing the Pirate Bay to rape, robbery, shootings, high sees hijacking and sexual assault.
I assume you are talking to me, and as I have explained in my other post, I am not comparing the two directly. It is the extent in which the illegal act is performed, not the fact the act has been committed.

I think my car ticket analogy pretty much dead on. You will not lose your license for one unpaid ticket, but you surely will for 500. There has to be a point in which crimes like these ARE compared to other heinous crimes.

Believe it or not, sites like the pirate bay DO cause massive damages in lost sales. Of course the RIAA and CO go way overboard on what they think they are owed, I always say just because I've downloaded something does not mean I would have bought it. BUT.. there is no doubt in my mind that sites like TPB cause millions upon millions of dollars in REAL damages a.k.a I would have bought the product had I not been able to download it for free. If we are sending our CEO's to jail for fraud for a few million, why on earth should TPB be allowed to do so freely?

The lack of income for these sites owners shouldn't mean anything either, any way you put it they are making money, it was their choice to put it back into the site. If you think this should fly, maybe I should become a drug dealer, and put all the money I make back into the business, because that's not illegal right? (I've already come up with a defense, I was not doing it to make money, it was all for the street cred')


RE: rolf
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2009 4:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I assume you are talking to me,


???

No. Every single time this topic comes up, dozens of people rush to make illogical and completely emotional stupid analogies using rape, violence, theft etc etc being likened to file sharing. It's stupid.

quote:
BUT.. there is no doubt in my mind that sites like TPB cause millions upon millions of dollars in REAL damages a.k.a I would have bought the product had I not been able to download it for free.


Well thank god this case isn't based on what's in your mind. It sounds like the issue here is with the BIT TORRENT technology, not those who implement it. Why aren't we taking the guy who invented Bit Torrent to court ? Why aren't we suing people who made the guns that shot someone ? Why aren't we castrating lock makers because they couldn't keep the junkie from kicking your door in ?

How many sites like PB have been shut down ? Is this the plan, keep turning a blind eye to the larger issue while shutting down site after site only to have 3 more replace each one ?

quote:
If we are sending our CEO's to jail for fraud for a few million, why on earth should TPB be allowed to do so freely?


OUR CEO's aren't working in Sweden maybe ?

quote:
If you think this should fly, maybe I should become a drug dealer, and put all the money I make back into the business, because that's not illegal right?


The coupe de graz... you end your ran with yet ANOTHER bad freaking analogy !! Drug dealing is a major felony, a criminal act. We're talking about piddly IP infringement here. Do you guys think by comparing it to totally horribly things like rape and drug dealing that it gives your opinion more weight or something ???


RE: rolf
By kelmon on 2/24/2009 4:22:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It sounds like the issue here is with the BIT TORRENT technology, not those who implement it. Why aren't we taking the guy who invented Bit Torrent to court ?


It's an interesting question and depends on whether it can be proven that the inventor(s) created it with the express purpose of aiding piracy. I tend to think that it was not and that it's original purpose was to aid in the efficient delivery of data in general. If this is the case then you cannot hold the inventor(s) liable otherwise you might as well take Sir Tim Berners-Lee to court as well, or perhaps the US Department of Defense for the ARPANET.

However, this doesn't get around the fact that The Pirate Bay is using this technology to aid piracy and that they should have a very heavy book thrown at them. Sites that deliberately aid piracy should be shutdown and, frankly, I don't see much alternative to this. Combine this with sufficient punishment and be seen to be enforcing it then perhaps fewer sites will spring up to replace those that are taken down. Certainly doing nothing should not be an option.


RE: rolf
By walk2k on 2/23/2009 4:11:22 PM , Rating: 2
If the shooting instructor's student came to him and said "I want to learn to shoot so I can hole up in a bell tower and kill a bunch of innocent people for fun".. then yes he would be guilty of aiding and abetting.

If the college professor's students came up to him and said "teach me to build a nuclear bomb because I want to blow up the governement" then yes, he would be guilty of aiding and abetting.

Clearly the PIRATE bay is guilty of aiding and abetting PIRATES to steal music/movies/etc.

And YES I know the strict, legal definition of "theft" so spare me the argument over semantics.

'm using the layman's term, alright? Taking something without paying for it is STEALING, period.


RE: rolf
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2009 4:46:46 PM , Rating: 3
" Aiding and abetting " Copyright infringement ? That's a new one. Tell me, is there even such a thing in Sweden or did you just make that up ?

I just re-read the article, and I can't find the part where it says they are charged with 'aiding and abetting' IP theft. Help please ?


RE: rolf
By walk2k on 2/23/2009 5:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
Um, yes.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/159519/pirate_bay_t...
quote:
The four, who could end up in jail, are charged with facilitating and aiding copyright infringement.

Common sense please?


RE: rolf
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2009 5:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
Except they aren't. No more than Google helps people find child porn and online gambling.


RE: rolf
By walk2k on 2/24/2009 1:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
God you are a dumbass.

You asked what they are being CHARGED with.

They are being charged with aiding copyright infrigement.

The TRIAL will determine whether they are guilty or not.

That's why you have a trial.

The opinion of all the self-appointed arm-chair lawyers on the interweb don't count for sh1t, but thanks for sharing.


See what he's doing ?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2009 10:56:48 AM , Rating: 5
Don't you guys see what Pirate Bay is doing ?

Peter Sunde, by remaining defiant and forcing them to bring him to court, is forcing THEM to make a technically sound and complete case against him. None of this RIAA big brother whitewash 'your guilty cause we said so' guilty until proven innocent business.

quote:
“Well,” said Roswall. “It seems I am a little bit out of date.”


The ENTIRE legal system is out of date when it comes to digital media and file sharing.

Peter Sunde, you are a hero. And yes, like other posters have stated, you have quite a pair on you.

Sir, I salute you.




RE: See what he's doing ?
By SpaceRanger on 2/22/2009 1:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
+6 Material..


RE: See what he's doing ?
By walk2k on 2/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: See what he's doing ?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2009 4:26:07 PM , Rating: 4
Nobody has ever been tried, or accused of, stealing when it came to file sharing. It falls under the purview of Copyright Infringment of IP.

No matter what side of the fence you are on, calling file sharing theft is wrong. Both technically and fundamentally.

quote:
Not to mention these Pirate bay folks make HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS on ad revenue running their site.


So do scat porn and bestiality sites. Your point ? Ad revenue is completely legal, and running high traffic websites doesn't come cheap.


RE: See what he's doing ?
By BZDTemp on 2/23/2009 4:18:42 AM , Rating: 1
Seems you have not been paying attention to the information revealed at court. No one makes money out of TPB except the companies selling them the infrastructure foundation (bandwidth, servers, power...). Money made from advertising goes to funding the TPB not to make someone rich.

In fact in the beginning one of the guys worked as a CTO for an IT company for something like a third of normal pay plus bandwidth and place to put the servers. In other words he was putting money into TPB just the most of us put money into our hobbies.

Also I've heard the guys comment the money they get from the state to compensate for their court days are actually more than their regular income except the one guy which is an IT millionaire (not due to TPB).


RE: See what he's doing ?
By omnicronx on 2/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: See what he's doing ?
By rdeegvainl on 2/23/2009 12:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Furthermore this should be calculated based on ratios depending on how many people are seeding and downloading certain torrents.

Why? It's not done from TPB's servers.

quote:
As for Google, it is a search engine, that indiscriminately caches everything, they do not specifically look for pirated material like TDB does.

What did TPB look for? Can you name something that TPB sought out, or are you just presuming they are the ones making all these torrents? TPB indiscriminately lists torrents, which in and of themselves are COMPLETELY legal.


RE: See what he's doing ?
By omnicronx on 2/23/2009 1:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you name something that TPB sought out, or are you just presuming they are the ones making all these torrents?
My previous statement was not worded very well. TPB is not a webcrawler, torrents are uploaded by its users. They are indiscriminately letting anyone post whatever torrent they feel like, without any screening process.

quote:
TPB indiscriminately lists torrents, which in and of themselves are COMPLETELY legal.
Wrong! Its no more legal than me posting child porn on a completely legitimate site. It does not matter that the site in question indiscriminately lets people post what they want, if they do not remove the content they will have charges filled against them.

Sites like TPB have been shutdown in the US, and other places around the world, so don't make it out as though Sweden, in which this entire topic is grey area and far from legal is the rest of the world.

I would also like to point out, TDB and almost all other torrent sites DO post the nfo file on the torrent. Many times this lists the serial keys and crack information which is ALSO illegal.

I'm not advocating anything here, I too download torrents. But at least I have the common sense to realize what I am doing, (and the site in which I am retrieving this info from) is illegal.


RE: See what he's doing ?
By rdeegvainl on 2/23/2009 3:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong! Its no more legal than me posting child porn on a completely legitimate site.

No, you are wrong, the torrent is not the infringing material. It is a link. Their is no infringement of copyrights in a torrent, cause there is NO copyrighted material in it. Torrents are legal, 100%.
I find your comparison to child porn very disingenuous also. A torrent is in no way like child porn, and the comparison will only muddies that actual facts.


RE: See what he's doing ?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2009 4:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm done wasting my time with Omni and I suggest you do the same.

Remember, if you download a song, you have just raped a small little girl apparently. It makes sense...


RE: See what he's doing ?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2009 1:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
"Right" and "wrong" in most legal matters depends on who's point of view you happen to side with.

quote:
You guys are kidding yourselves. What Pirate Bay does is illegal!


It should be obvious to anyone that at this point the legal system simply isn't qualified or informed enough on digital medium, and the way file sharing technologies work, to make that judgment. It is also clear to me, at least, that billion dollar special interest groups like the RIAA has poisoned the legal process. Justice shouldn't be something that can be bought or traded or lobbied for.

quote:
If they do get off the hook, its not because they did nothing wrong, its because the prosecution is going to have a hard time separating the blame as there was nobody really in charge (which is ingenious if you think about it).


Such is the same with all court cases honestly. And I'm frankly shocked that you would accept less. It's not enough to "know" if someone is guilty or innocent. If you KNOW they are, then you shouldn't have that much trouble proving it should you ? Beyond the shadow of a doubt I might add. We're talking about someones life here after all.

quote:
Just imagine if we had a 'The Diddler Bay', or 'The Rape Bay', in which they hosted links to other sites relating to the name of the site. These people would be thrown in jail without remource pretty much anywhere. The excuse of, well we hosted nothing would not stand, why should it in this case?


Is that really the same ? I grow tired of bad biased file sharing analogies. Especially ones involving assault, felonies, or murder. Or in this case, rape. Come off it already. We're talking about copies of music and DVD's, ripped by god knows who, and shared by god knows how many. NOBODY is being assaulted, stolen from, or being raped.


RE: See what he's doing ?
By omnicronx on 2/23/2009 2:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is also clear to me, at least, that billion dollar special interest groups like the RIAA has poisoned the legal process. Justice shouldn't be something that can be bought or traded or lobbied for.
For once, the RIAA has a case here .TDB is an acting supplier for all intents and purposes. We are not talking about some dead grandma getting sued over a few songs in her sharedfolder (that consequently did not exist)
quote:
It's not enough to "know" if someone is guilty or innocent. If you KNOW they are, then you shouldn't have that much trouble proving it should you ? Beyond the shadow of a doubt I might add. We're talking about someones life here after all.
I am not saying the law should be circumvented in any way. It seems the guys at pirate bay have found a loophole in the system and are taking advantage of it. If the prosecution cannot gather enough hard evidance, they should be let free. But the fact remains this case really has nothing to do with whether or not TPB is illegal, I think if given the time this could be proven, even in Swedan. I think the lawyers are essentially saying even if this is true, nobody was really in charge, and there was no sure leader, and thus how can you say with 100% accuracy that their clients are guilty for the charges in question. I really don't think these guys will get charged for anything, and if they do, it will be a slap on the wrist.
quote:
Is that really the same ? I grow tired of bad biased file sharing analogies. Especially ones involving assault, felonies, or murder. Or in this case, rape. Come off it already. We're talking about copies of music and DVD's, ripped by god knows who, and shared by god knows how many. NOBODY is being assaulted, stolen from, or being raped.
Illegal is illegal is illegal. It all depends to what extent your actions take you. I am going to lose my license over one unpaid parking ticket? Probably not, but if I had 500 parking tickets over a few years, I surely would. The extent in which TPB is operating puts it into the category of an extreme offense.


Typo alurt!
By mechBgon on 2/22/2009 10:28:28 AM , Rating: 5
Someone at DailyTech please correct the article's title.




RE: Typo alurt!
By ksherman on 2/22/2009 11:41:45 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the "through" which should be "threw" in the articles final paragraph. Come'on guys, the mice wont wait all day!


RE: Typo alurt!
By SpaceRanger on 2/22/2009 1:06:14 PM , Rating: 4
All your torrents are belong to us!


RE: Typo alurt!
By sh3rules on 2/22/2009 1:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
How expensive must it be to hire someone to proofread?


RE: Typo alurt!
By TomCorelis on 2/22/09, Rating: 0
Not that anyone would believe a lying criminal...
By Beenthere on 2/22/09, Rating: 0
By Cogman on 2/22/2009 2:03:35 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a good question for you. Who links more illegal material (And not just copy righted material mind you). Google or TPB? Heck, I can almost guarantee I could find some illegal material faster with google then I could with TPB. So lets shut down google! After all, it provides links to ALL these illegal torrenting sites!

They didn't break the law, they provide a search engine. That's it.


By cessation on 2/22/2009 7:29:28 PM , Rating: 2
Just because google links to websites full of pirated/illegal stuff doesn't make it ok. It just means they got the money and lawyers to back them up. That's why they get away with it. Funny people are saying it's ok for them to do when in fact they remove sites that violates someones copyrighted material when it's reported.

http://www.google.com/dmca.html

The problem is no one wants to hunt down and report everytime their content gets used illegaly. Honestly they shouldn't have to but that's how it works now. When kids these days grow up and figure out what real work is they might actually get it.


By Penti on 2/23/2009 6:46:37 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously Google lies under US law and are granted freedom from liability by the CDA, the Swedish equivalent doesn't grant freedom from liability when you don't remove or block content that violates the law. There is no need to fax/mail in a signature to be held liable here. Google shouldn't however have to remove any content, they are just playing nice. It only applies when they act as a publisher. And they don't remove sites when some idiots just yelled at them in a email. Moreover there is no such thing as fair use in Sweden, you have to license all content such as music, youtube wouldn't really be legal here.

However the lawyers and IFPI/MPA people are just retarded and have to break the copyright law just to produce "screenshot evidence". They don't really pursue it via the law that says your liable for the content either. They are trying to pursue them as if they where a site like allofmp3 where they would have to pay a license fee. Which is kinda odd for accessory.


RE: Not that anyone would believe a lying criminal...
By Pjotr on 2/23/2009 7:32:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
by cessation on February 22, 2009 at 7:29 PM Just because google links to websites full of pirated/illegal stuff doesn't make it ok. It just means they got the money and lawyers to back them up. That's why they get away with it.


In Sweden the defence gets lawyers paid by the state, it kinda helps to maintain a state of law so people can't just be run over by money.


By Pjotr on 2/24/2009 4:06:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not to mention it's a clear conflict of interest. How hard, exactly, are you going to work to help your client BEAT the people who sign your paychecks ?


The lawyer is picked by the client. Should the state not fund the lawyer, the client might not have afforded one and given in to the procecutors before trial. Works fine.

Besides, all lawyers are bound by the code of conduct or whatever its called. If there is any doubt they do not do their job (as defined by the independant lawyer boards), the lawyer will lose his licence to practice. The lawyer is not hired by the state, they are your everday "street" lawyer.

In this case the defendants lawyer is one of the absolute top lawyers in Sweden.


daily update
By aston12 on 2/22/2009 12:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
If you would like to get daily trial updates:
http://torrentfreak.com/




RE: daily update
By incarnaterage on 2/22/2009 3:23:21 PM , Rating: 5
careful youre linking to content that links to content that links to illegal content.

Next itll be your head on the chopping block.


Just a question...
By Oralen on 2/22/2009 11:22:11 AM , Rating: 5
I read all this in much more details on ArsTechnica this week... And I have noticed this tendency to increase over the last few months:

Dailytech only seems to post rehash of old stories, and Anandtech seems to place just one new article a week at best, nowadays...

Are the sites dying?
No more money, or something?

Anandtech used to post a long, interesting article or review every other day, and you could often find a documented post on Dailytech before you read about it somewhere else... Not one week after.

I am not criticizing the author of this particular post, or looking for a flame war, but I am genuinely worried.

I love Anandtech and Dailytech, and in the present economic situation, I am concerned about what is happening to them.

In one word... How are you doing, right now? Is something wrong?




RE: Just a question...
By Bruneauinfo on 2/22/09, Rating: 0
Legality
By ice456789 on 2/22/2009 3:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
I just don't see a case against TPB. Here is a non-technical parallel:
Lets say that these uploaded movies are jewels.
A thief steals the jewels and puts them on a table at a train station with a sign that reads "Take One". As the day goes on, people that walk by the table occasionally take a jewel as they pass by.
Who should be prosecuted?
In this example, TPB is the train station. What did the train station do wrong?




RE: Legality
By incarnaterage on 2/22/2009 3:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite the same, but well meant none-the-less.

The jewels were actually lost by someone, and are now being given away for free.

Think of it instead, as a bunch of guys holding signs in front of a building that say "theres media content --------------->".

Those guys are the piratebay :D


The prosecutor's name is Roswall.
By jiteo on 2/22/2009 1:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
The quote from TorrentFreak got it right. Ars Technica reported that Roswell is 'an intentional misspelling, since no one "seems to understand or know what is really there."'




Good thing...
By CyberHawk on 2/22/2009 3:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
.... trial is not taking place in US ... oh, wait ... just money goes there.

I hope they (PirateBay) win - prosecutor doesn't have a clue what he is talking about :D




huh?
By zolo111 on 2/22/2009 7:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's like saying Dailytech should be shut down because people like Pirks post false info, for example: crappy overpriced junk = a Ferrari car :D




TPB
By spathotan on 2/23/2009 12:04:14 AM , Rating: 2
Too bad the pirate bay dosent actually have any torrents worth downloading, or a working search for that matter. ISO hunt is far better.




Enough with Google.
By kyleb2112 on 2/23/2009 2:27:41 AM , Rating: 2
Google actually clones protected material with the understanding that you can ask them to remove it and they will comply. TPB never clones anything, but tells people who complain to F-off. I think prosecuting people for hosting .torrent files is a joke, but find better analogies already.




Mistake
By Hyraxxx on 2/23/2009 4:14:03 AM , Rating: 2
An internal survey, he says, revealed that 80% of 1000 torrents observed are, in fact, legal.

Big slip-up. they just admitted that they know 20% is illegal and do nothing about it.

i think he meant 80% illegal.




Heil Pirate Bay!
By jabber on 2/26/2009 12:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
Pirate bay - Sponsored and setup by a Neo-Nazi fascist.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/26/pirate_bay...

Nice folks to support, I dont think.

Funny how folks never mention this.




Legal
By Powerlines2000 on 2/23/2009 3:06:53 AM , Rating: 1
Lets face it the only reason this trial is here is the total failing of Sony and "the boys" to face up to reality and offer consumers a viable alternitave.

For the last 5 years or more sony has been asked by all major consumer groups worldwide to reduce the price of there DVD/cd's or provide an alternate digital source but refuses point blank.

The sheer greed of these companies means that there is a huge market for Torrent sites and will continue to be.




Somalian Pirates could say. . .
By Crazyeyeskillah on 2/22/09, Rating: -1
By Reclaimer77 on 2/22/2009 11:10:11 AM , Rating: 5
^^ Bad biased file sharing analogy #200,034,912


RE: Somalian Pirates could say. . .
By DCMan on 2/22/2009 5:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
Not to have a go - But by that analogy, you would then have to sue the ocean for enabling the Somali Pirates to float in their boats which they use for illegal activies 20% of the time.. :)


Hang 'em High
By mikeblas on 2/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hang 'em High
By Motoman on 2/22/2009 12:31:58 PM , Rating: 5
...not as sad as the notion that some people on the face of this earth don't understand the fundamental truth that TPB isn't violating anyone's copyrights.


RE: Hang 'em High
By walk2k on 2/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hang 'em High
By Ish718 on 2/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hang 'em High
By twhittet on 2/22/2009 2:31:20 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know what he is, but we all know what you are!


RE: Hang 'em High
By 67STANG on 2/22/2009 3:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously. Someone should tell him that you never go full retard.

What a douche.


RE: Hang 'em High
By wetwareinterface on 2/22/2009 3:08:41 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If they get off on a technicality it will only save them long enough for the law books to be re-written. They may not techincally HOST illegal files themselves but they CLEARLY host .torrents TO illegal files, do not remove torrents that they they KNOW are illegal, and very very clearly ENCOURAGE people to post illegal torrents.

Hello, they aren't called "Shareware Bay".

Only delusional idiots or pirates themselves would even attempt to defend these criminals. So which are you?


you obviously don't understand what a torrent file is. it is simply a plain text file that points people to a tracker that is the main hub point for determining where the file is currently being seeded from and who's trying to get what portions of it currently. it isn't a file that has all that info in it. it is a file that points to somewhere elese that is hosting that info. a .torrent file is basically a text file saying "this file/group of files is being managed over here". no different than google providing you with a plain text file called .html that details what website to obtain copyright infringing material from.

you can download a web page as plain text and read it in notepad. you can do the same with a torrent file. html files are handled by a web browser to display the content and forward you and manage the additional files linked in the text file labeled .html.
.torrent files are handled by a torrent application that does the same as the html file. forwards you to where you download the content linked in the file.

or did you think google is different because of magic fairies called web pages? do you even know how a browser or torrent application work fundamentally?

it's all plain text files, google links torrents also by the way. you can search in google for any file you want and just add the word torrent to look for torrents hosted on EVERY single torrent site in existence and additionally google also will point you to direct downloads of copyright infringing material, and actually hosts copyright infringing material on it's own servers, google books, youtube, google video, etc...


RE: Hang 'em High
By walk2k on 2/23/2009 4:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
You're saying if something is a plain text it's therefore legal?

And you're saying *I* don't understand the technical issues?

So if I UUencode a copyrighted movie or game and post it on alt.binaries.* it's perfectly legal then?

Wow it's like magic I'll try that thank!

Idiot.

Look it's real simple. Ask yourself, why aren't these people in the US? Because it's illegal in the US, that's why. Eventually the law in Sweden will catch up to the rest of the modern world and they'll be forced to hole up in some other backassward country.


RE: Hang 'em High
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2009 4:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look it's real simple. Ask yourself, why aren't these people in the US? Because it's illegal in the US, that's why. Eventually the law in Sweden will catch up to the rest of the modern world and they'll be forced to hole up in some other backassward country.


Peter Sunde moved to Sweden just to run Pirate Bay because it's legal there ?

Hmmm, got a link for that ?

And as an American I find the bolded part assinine. There are so many file sharing and torrent sites running out of the US it's not even funny.


RE: Hang 'em High
By Penti on 2/24/2009 10:22:54 AM , Rating: 2
Because they are not Americans! Why would a Swede move to America to run a non-profit website?

Swedish law is already more hard on the subject then US law is. It's just that MPA/IFPI and the thepiratebay are retarded on the subject. They are trying to use the wrong laws. In Sweden youtube would be responsible for the videos users upload. They aren't at all in the US!


RE: Hang 'em High
By Penti on 2/24/2009 10:25:50 AM , Rating: 2
Ergo there defense would actually hold more water in the us as they are trying to compare them selfs to a website that lies under US law, under the CDA!


RE: Hang 'em High
By kelmon on 2/24/2009 11:15:25 AM , Rating: 2
Why is it that whenever anyone says that The Pirate Bay, or any of these other Torrent Tracking sites, aids piracy you always get some muppet claiming that we don't know what a Torrent is? We are all fully aware of what a Torrent file is, Einstein, and how a technicality is being used to circumvent current laws. No matter how you look at it, what The Pirate Bay is doing is unethical and damned well should be illegal.

I severely wish I could batter the next person who suggests that they are doing nothing more than what Google or other search engines do. As I have already noted, Google does not actively attempt to provide links to copyrighted materials, they will remove links if you ask them to, and all The Pirate Bay will do is post your letter and a "hilarious" response to their Legal page. Put another way, they know exactly what they are doing and cannot hide behind the "Google Defense".

Still, I'm sure someone from the "The World Owes Me A Free Lunch" will post a response to this to try and justify why they should be allowed to continue to download copyrighted material rather than paying for it like everyone else.


RE: Hang 'em High
By arisch on 2/26/2009 11:43:05 AM , Rating: 2
"The World Owes Me A Free Lunch"

Nobody owes me anything. However, nobody owns information either. Copyright and patent laws assume that because someone claims discovery of a piece of information that they and only they should benefit from that discovery. This is what is truly unethical.


RE: Hang 'em High
By Larrymon2000 on 2/22/2009 11:03:44 PM , Rating: 3
walk2k...is that you Metallica?


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













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