NationStates Jolt Archive

In 12 hours, the verdict for the Pirate Bay trial (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7921933.stm) is expected to be handed down. Some commentators say the only certain thing in this case is that it will be appealed.

Any bets on what the outcome will be? Any speculations on what impact a vardict - either way - may have?

My money's on an acquittal, but I wouldn't bet my life savings on it...

I'd be very surprised if they weren't found guilty. Calling yourself 'pirate bay' and then claiming its not your fault, that you didn't expect or mean for loads of copyrighted files to be spread through use of the site seems a little dubious.

Then again, I know sod all about law. If the law consistently followed the logic of my brain, it'd be one majorly fucked-up world :p

Wishful thinking: not guilty.

They'll lose and then appeal. The pirate bay will continue to make money and then they'll win on appeal.

Well if they don't acquit them any service that can be used for both legal and illegal purposes will be liable for prosecution. ISPs, mobile phone networks etc...

I hope thepiratebay wins. What a wonderful blow to capitalism that will be. :)

I hope for acquittal, but the whole get the copyright violators kick the world governments makes me think other wise.

If PB.org bites the dust so does.... limewire, frostwire, bitlord, azerous, utorrent, torrentbox... oh my the list goes on! kazza or whatever its called.... ANYWAY, pray young padawans, pray that PB prevails!

Yeah. I don't want to go back to the underground scene days. They have their appeal, but that's the same appeal as driving a 1930s car.

If PB.org bites the dust so does.... limewire, frostwire, bitlord, azerous, utorrent, torrentbox... oh my the list goes on! kazza or whatever its called.... ANYWAY, pray young padawans, pray that PB prevails!
Ignoring your confusion of the difference between a torrent tracker and a p2p client, how does a judgement of the Swedish courts effect trackers in a multitude of countries?

We can only hope the pirate bay wins. I certainly hope they do. The legal ramifications if they lose could be monstrous.

Ignoring your confusion of the difference between a torrent tracker and a p2p client, how does a judgement of the Swedish courts effect trackers in a multitude of countries?

Maybe he's saying that there isn't anything left that indexes a sufficient amount of torrents if PB goes? But I don't think that's correct. Or maybe he's saying that if PB goes, a precedent will be set to make it very easy to come down on other torrent indexers.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/pirate_bay.png

;)

Ignoring your confusion of the difference between a torrent tracker and a p2p client, how does a judgement of the Swedish courts effect trackers in a multitude of countries?

The issue up for debate in the court is not the nature of Pirate bay, but what its function is Chumbly...

Maybe he's saying that there isn't anything left that indexes a sufficient amount of torrents if PB goes? But I don't think that's correct.
It certainly isn't.

Or maybe he's saying that if PB goes, a precedent will be set to make it very easy to come down on other torrent indexers.
Only if all other countries in the world are willing to play ball, which is extremely unlikely.

I don't think the music/movie/etc industry folks have learned the lessons of Oink.


The issue up for debate in the court is not the nature of Pirate bay, but what its function is Chumbly...
But if PB does get shut down, then why would Demonoid, isoHunt, btJunkie and numerous other sites suddenly go kaput?

I hope they lose resoundly, and limewire and every other piracy site goes down forever.

I've used some myself in the past, but I would prefer if these places of theft were gone forever, so I wouldn't be tempted.

Theft is bad. Period.

Maybe he's saying that there isn't anything left that indexes a sufficient amount of torrents if PB goes? But I don't think that's correct. Or maybe he's saying that if PB goes, a precedent will be set to make it very easy to come down on other torrent indexers.


As has been mentioned, if PB gets taken down for providing an indexing function for torrents, how long before google et al get taken down for providing links to any illegal material.

The reason they went after PB is because PB has an 'in your face' attitude based on too many US companies hiring US lawyers to try shutting down a swedish site and that they dont go after google because it has enough money to hire better lawyers than the criminal recording industry

As has been mentioned, if PB gets taken down for providing an indexing function for torrents, how long before google et al get taken down for providing links to any illegal material.

The reason they went after PB is because PB has an 'in your face' attitude based on too many US companies hiring US lawyers to try shutting down a swedish site and that they dont go after google because it has enough money to hire better lawyers than the criminal recording industry

Google wont get taken down, because it doesn't index torrents, only sites that index torrents, so they only need to take down those sites. But yeah, I see your point.

If the Swiss succeed in taking the legs out from under PB.org then they are, in the same blow paving the way to take down the "Members" of the p2p network. Basically, if the Swiss say Piratebay is bad and they are copyright infringing then the big boys on Wall Street can start saying the same thing about the protocols we use to transfer what we should not be transferring... And if you think America has turned a blind eye on p2p anything then you either are 1) Not an American or 2) Live under a rock. We get these nice little "Cease and Desist" letters here in the states... So Chumbly don't get your feathers ruffled; all I'm saying is PB.org is the essentially the "Gate" to the to whether or not torrents and their hosts are illegal or not.

Basically, if the Swiss say Piratebay is bad and they are copyright infringing...
Judges have already dismissed the charge of "assisting copyright infringement"; that's not the issue here.

What's actually at stake is whether or not PB is breaking Swedish law. Torrent trackers are hosted in many different countries around the world, and if PB is found guilty, then the only precedent would be that under Swedish law operators of a tracker can be found guilty of assisting copyright material being shared. There would have to be separate trials in each individual country, many of which don't have large recording industries to kick up a fuss.

AFAIK, the UK courts are still tied up with the OiNK case (and in the meantime, at least two sites have taken its place), while places like Canada seem to have given a tacit nod towards sites like Demonoid which are hosted there.

This is hardly a make-or-break case.

So Chumbly don't get your feathers ruffled; all I'm saying is PB.org is the essentially the "Gate" to the to whether or not torrents and their hosts are illegal or not.
The PB founders are charged with "assisting making available copyright material". I fail to see the direct implication for other trackers hosted in other countries.

EDIT: While lawmakers would have an even greater challenge going after p2p clients such as µTorrent.

Let's look at this like organized crime, because that's what it is. Now, say there are three thugs. The first thug locates a armored car carrying money. He passes the information to the second thug who ambushes the car, shoots the driver and guard and loads the money into his car. The third thug drives the money to a safe house... All three thugs are guilty correct?


You want Bioshock for the PC. You go to Pirate bay, Pirate bay finds you a Bioshock torrent. You click download torrent. BitLord loads the torrent and downloads it to your computer. All three of you (You, PB.org & BitLord) are guilty... correct?

IF the courts saw it this way P2P would be under the gun, however you say the courts have overruled the "assisting copyright infringement" charge (I am not disagreeing with you) this still does not mean that other countries/places NA, Europe minus Sweden & Asia will simply drop the idea of ridding the world of Trackers and Protocols. It would be absurd to think that. Let me try another analogy... PB.org is like a dam. The Law and the Recording industry is the water. We, torrent users, make up the cozy little town on the other side of the dam. Once that dam has one hole in it, we (trackers, protocols & downloaders) are no longer "Safe".

Well if they don't acquit them any service that can be used for both legal and illegal purposes will be liable for prosecution. ISPs, mobile phone networks etc...

or just the sites and apps that allow for the downloading...

You want Bioshock for the PC. You go to Pirate bay, Pirate bay finds you a Bioshock torrent. You click download torrent. BitLord loads the torrent and downloads it to your computer. All three of you (You, PB.org & BitLord) are guilty... correct?
Pirate Bay indexes the torrents, the search engine it uses finds them. BitLoad I imagine is just a standard bit torrent program. Bit torrent programs are perfectly legal and legit.

Pirate Bay indexes the torrents, the search engine it uses finds them. BitLoad I imagine is just a standard bit torrent program. Bit torrent programs are perfectly legal and legit.

Still, without torrent trackers, they wont be very useful.

Let's look at this like organized crime, because that's what it is.
That is what is very much in contention.

Now, say there are three thugs. The first thug locates a armored car carrying money. He passes the information to the second thug who ambushes the car, shoots the driver and guard and loads the money into his car. The third thug drives the money to a safe house... All three thugs are guilty correct?

You want Bioshock for the PC. You go to Pirate bay, Pirate bay finds you a Bioshock torrent. You click download torrent. BitLord loads the torrent and downloads it to your computer. All three of you (You, PB.org & BitLord) are guilty... correct?
Your analogy doesn't fit. The three thugs are all very much aware of what is going on, and are actively perpetrating the crime. Both the torrent tracker and the p2p client have a good case for being, if not unaware, then not complicit with copyright infringement. Indeed, as I've mentioned above, the Swedish courts have already thrown out the charge that PB are complicit in copyright infringement.

A better analogy might be with smoking paraphernalia: cannabis is an illegal substance in the UK, yet bongs, grinders, king-size skins, etc., aren't. PB are claiming that they are just as guilty in copyright infringement as bong manufacturers are in illegal cannabis consumption.

We get these nice little "Cease and Desist" letters here in the states...
I don't get them.
Oh, that's right....

Let's look at this like organized crime, because that's what it is. Now, say there are three thugs. The first thug locates a armored car carrying money. He passes the information to the second thug who ambushes the car, shoots the driver and guard and loads the money into his car. The third thug drives the money to a safe house... All three thugs are guilty correct?


You want Bioshock for the PC. You go to Pirate bay, Pirate bay finds you a Bioshock torrent. You click download torrent. BitLord loads the torrent and downloads it to your computer. All three of you (You, PB.org & BitLord) are guilty... correct?

IF the courts saw it this way P2P would be under the gun, however you say the courts have overruled the "assisting copyright infringement" charge (I am not disagreeing with you) this still does not mean that other countries/places NA, Europe minus Sweden & Asia will simply drop the idea of ridding the world of Trackers and Protocols. It would be absurd to think that. Let me try another analogy... PB.org is like a dam. The Law and the Recording industry is the water. We, torrent users, make up the cozy little town on the other side of the dam. Once that dam has one hole in it, we (trackers, protocols & downloaders) are no longer "Safe".

That is an excellent description, well done. I think they will be found guilty. I hope they find a loophole. I think it comes down to how technical savvy the court is in this case and how good the lawyers are in each camp. You sometimes get the feeling that these guys don't even understand what they are arguing.

That is what is very much in contention.


Your analogy doesn't fit. The three thugs are all very much aware of what is going on, and are actively perpetrating the crime. Both the torrent tracker and the p2p client have a good case for being, if not unaware, then not complicit with copyright infringement. Indeed, as I've mentioned above, the Swedish courts have already thrown out the charge that PB are complicit in copyright infringement.

A better analogy might be with smoking paraphernalia: cannabis is an illegal substance in the UK, yet bongs, grinders, king-size skins, etc., aren't. PB are claiming that they are just as guilty in copyright infringement as bong manufacturers are in illegal cannabis consumption.

I hope the courts see it the way you do, but I don't think they get it, do you? However your analogy pretty much true except they are pointing the way to the nearest drug dealer and will give you his phone number or something.

Pirate Bay indexes the torrents, the search engine it uses finds them. BitLoad I imagine is just a standard bit torrent program. Bit torrent programs are perfectly legal and legit.

Yeah you get the feeling if they wanted to stop this you would almost have to sue all 3 at the same time. After this Bit Torrents might be in trouble.

I hope the courts see it the way you do, but I don't think they get it, do you?
We'll find out later today.

I bet they get the gas chamber. *nod*

I bet they get the gas chamber. *nod*

[horrific one-liner]Nah, they'll probably make 'em walk the plank.[/horrific one-liner]

[horrific one-liner]Nah, they'll probably make 'em walk the plank.[/horrific one-liner]

Pardon me, I just need to get my hunting rifle, we have a killer Tiger to skin...

Pardon me, I just need to get my hunting rifle, we have a killer Tiger to skin...

Where the hell did you learn how to hunt? You can't skin something with a rifle...

Where the hell did you learn how to hunt? You can't skin something with a rifle...

First the gun, then the blade. What's the point of shooting without a trophy? :wink:

I hope thepiratebay wins. What a wonderful blow to capitalism that will be. :)

What a wonderful blow to people receiving some form of compensation for entertaining us it will be.

What a wonderful blow to people receiving some form of compensation for entertaining us it will be.

Jolt gets money for me reading the posts of NSG noobtards who show up with politically extreme views and flamebait everyone, in language appropriate for a third grade classroom and with about as much compliance with every known grammatical convention of the written English language?

'Cuz I don't know about you, but that's the only way I get my kicks on the internets.

Jolt gets money for me reading the posts of NSG noobtards who show up with politically extreme views and flamebait everyone, in language appropriate for a third grade classroom and with about as much compliance with every known grammatical convention of the written English language?

'Cuz I don't know about you, but that's how I get my kicks on the internets.

Where the hell did this come from?

Damn, forgot the quote.

Edited, but the zippy one-liner is dead now. Shit.

After debating whether or not to stay up and see what the court says, I decided that I'll check Dagens Nyheter later on this morning. Who knows when an actual decision will be made?

I hope they lose resoundly, and limewire and every other piracy site goes down forever.

I've used some myself in the past, but I would prefer if these places of theft were gone forever, so I wouldn't be tempted.

Theft is bad. Period.

Infringement of copyright =/= theft.

Furthermore, the Pirate Bay have not even infringed copyright, they just host trackers. Trackers are not copyrighted material in themselves, they just link to it.

Comprehend?

They've all been found guilty.

A court in Sweden has handed down its verdict on four men behind The Pirate Bay (TPB), the world's biggest file-sharing website.
Frederik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Carl Lundstrom and Peter Sunde were found guilty of breaking copyright law and were sentenced to a year in jail.
In a Twitter posting, Mr Sunde said: "Nothing will happen to TPB, this is just theatre for the media."
Mr Sunde went on to say that he "got the news last night that we lost".

If they don't win the appeal, looks like in a few years we'll all be using Darknet.

Not only guilty, but have been given a year each.

http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-trial-the-verdict-090417/

Thats the kind of asshole fuckwit judgement I'd expect from some less enlightened place. Obviously Sweden has its judicial shitebags too.

They've all been found guilty.

They were also ordered to pay 30m kronor (£2.4m) in damages.
(same BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8003799.stm))

Considering that they were accused of having made around GBP90,000 from the site that's harsh. (Yeah, that's not really how awarding damages works, but still).

Also, even though they're going to appeal they're still going to prison right now, no? If so, considering how long appeals can take and that there's often more than one appeal, that year in prison might be spent before appeals are over. Sucky.

BBC's TV reporting just now is making the point that this ruling could pave the way for similar charges to be brought against the likes of Google, for a sort of "aiding and abetting" type of offence that contravenes copyright laws.

It makes sense. If what thePirateBay were doing is deemed to be illegal, then so is what Google does. It's a trivial task to configure a Google search to find media content stored on unprotected web space, thanks to the way that Google's spiders collect data and index it. For that matter, it's also a pretty trivial task to use a Google search to find a torrent that you might be after. The result is that you can use Google to provide you with a list of copyrighted material that you can then go and download.

And what about YouTube (or any other video streaming site)? Loads of copyrighted material is available, and it gets viewed on a computer by being downloaded to that computer. Once again, it's a trivial task to make a local copy of whatever you've streamed from the site, and to extract the audio if you so choose.

As so often happens when I read court rulings on things related to contemporary I.T. matters I'm left struggling to decide whether it's an ignorance of the realities of the way that the Internet works, or just stubborness on the part of the judiciary.

How sad..

:(

Still, without torrent trackers, they wont be very useful.

Many totally legit sites provide torrents for downloads of files as a choice.

Bummer. Hoping it wouldn't come to this. Longhaul makes a good point, is it technological ignorance or stubbornness?

Ever since the moderates came into power they have royally screwed us big time,
what with the increase in the rich-poor divide and the relevant FRA, IPRED, ACTA and constant ignorance of how the internet works.

I thought it looked rather good early on in this debacle,
but I can see now that it was a way too naive outlook.
The fallout amongst the common folk might still be able to change it for the better in the future.

Had it been anyone but Pirate Bay on trial, they probably would've more easily won. Pirate Bay pretty much constantly brags about the copyright infringing torrent hosting and how they can't be touched because they are in Sweden or something. If they had feigned ignorance for years and insisted that you shouldn't use the site for illegal file sharing but said they wouldn't police it and it was all the honor system, they would've had this.

What a wonderful blow to people receiving some form of compensation for entertaining us it will be.

Um, complete nonsense.

What a wonderful blow to the traditional record industry and its models of compensation, which favour the industry over the artists, that will be. Which is something long overdue.

As it currently stands, most of the money you pay for a CD goes to the label, and a little bit trickles through to the artist. That's a holdover from the old days, when making a CD involved recording studio time (expensive), physical production (expensive), physical distribution (expensive), and so on.

Now, however, that's all changed. With the advent of file sharing sites and cheap bandwidth, anyone can distribute their music for practically no cost. Through forums, myspace, and email lists, they can reach people and tell them about it for free. Heck, even recording can be done fairly cheaply, although this is still the area where a decent cash expenditure is most useful.

As a result, many artists don't really care if you're sharing their music. The hard thing is not to get compensated - it's to get heard. By sharing your music as cheaply and as widely as possible, you as an artist build up a fanbase, a core of devoted followers who will come to concerts, buy CDs even when they can get the tracks free, tell other people about you and get them interested as well.

For the labels, of course, that's entirely different. These new tools which are empowering artists are, inevitably, rendering labels more and more useless. When the artist can deal directly with the fans, getting their work out there, getting money back, the label becomes unneeded. So, unsurprisingly, they're fighting tooth and nail to prevent this happening.

Um, complete nonsense.

What a wonderful blow to the traditional record industry and its models of compensation, which favour the industry over the artists, that will be. Which is something long overdue.

As it currently stands, most of the money you pay for a CD goes to the label, and a little bit trickles through to the artist. That's a holdover from the old days, when making a CD involved recording studio time (expensive), physical production (expensive), physical distribution (expensive), and so on.

Now, however, that's all changed. With the advent of file sharing sites and cheap bandwidth, anyone can distribute their music for practically no cost. Through forums, myspace, and email lists, they can reach people and tell them about it for free. Heck, even recording can be done fairly cheaply, although this is still the area where a decent cash expenditure is most useful.

As a result, many artists don't really care if you're sharing their music. The hard thing is not to get compensated - it's to get heard. By sharing your music as cheaply and as widely as possible, you as an artist build up a fanbase, a core of devoted followers who will come to concerts, buy CDs even when they can get the tracks free, tell other people about you and get them interested as well.

For the labels, of course, that's entirely different. These new tools which are empowering artists are, inevitably, rendering labels more and more useless. When the artist can deal directly with the fans, getting their work out there, getting money back, the label becomes unneeded. So, unsurprisingly, they're fighting tooth and nail to prevent this happening.

I wanted to write something more meaningful than QFT. But I can't think of one. You're fucking awesome.

Um, complete nonsense.

What a wonderful blow to the traditional record industry and its models of compensation, which favour the industry over the artists, that will be. Which is something long overdue.

As it currently stands, most of the money you pay for a CD goes to the label, and a little bit trickles through to the artist. That's a holdover from the old days, when making a CD involved recording studio time (expensive), physical production (expensive), physical distribution (expensive), and so on.

Now, however, that's all changed. With the advent of file sharing sites and cheap bandwidth, anyone can distribute their music for practically no cost. Through forums, myspace, and email lists, they can reach people and tell them about it for free. Heck, even recording can be done fairly cheaply, although this is still the area where a decent cash expenditure is most useful.

As a result, many artists don't really care if you're sharing their music. The hard thing is not to get compensated - it's to get heard. By sharing your music as cheaply and as widely as possible, you as an artist build up a fanbase, a core of devoted followers who will come to concerts, buy CDs even when they can get the tracks free, tell other people about you and get them interested as well.

For the labels, of course, that's entirely different. These new tools which are empowering artists are, inevitably, rendering labels more and more useless. When the artist can deal directly with the fans, getting their work out there, getting money back, the label becomes unneeded. So, unsurprisingly, they're fighting tooth and nail to prevent this happening.

There is a huge problem with your reasoning. The system we currently use passes on a pittance per disc to the artist, true; but the filesharing systems pass on nothing at all. You speak of "empowering artists" - but how will they pay for the very expensive recording equipment and studios that make them sound their best? Where will they get the initial impetus to take them out ahead of the millions of wannabes that flood the YouTubes of the world?

The labels system, for all it's faults, works. The anarchic system you propose never will.

You speak of "empowering artists" - but how will they pay for the very expensive recording equipment and studios that make them sound their best?
They need to just pay the studio, not buy it.

If their fans make enough donations and buy enough stuff - posters, T-shirts, music Blurays (death to the CD, ban to the mp3!), they'll have the money for it. If the fans don't - well, perhaps they don't care all that much for you sounding your best. After all, what most modern studios do is record and mix you in a million-dollar room, and then apply a shit compressor to make it sound louder and simultaneously shittier.


Where will they get the initial impetus to take them out ahead of the millions of wannabes that flood the YouTubes of the world?
On YouTubes of the world.


The anarchic system you propose never will.
Well, then I guess we'll be stuck to playing old recordings of classical music over and over again! It will be the greatest improvement in music since XIX century.

Sucks for them, but it doesn't matter in the bigger picture. Filesharing will never end, the laws governing it just haven't caught up yet. If the Piratebay falls, there'll be two dozen replacements within 24 hours.

Sucks for them, but it doesn't matter in the bigger picture. Filesharing will never end, the laws governing it just haven't caught up yet. If the Piratebay falls, there'll be two dozen replacements within 24 hours.
Exactly.

The media, particularly the BBC, made the same huge fuss over the closure of OiNk a little over a year ago... and what happened? Multiple sites sprang up to replace the music tracker, with two in particular now boasting more members and more torrents than OiNk ever had.

Moreover, this is hardly as big a precedent as some are making out; as I've said before, this is a Swedish trial, not an international one. Any organisation wishing to prosecute similar trackers cannot simply point to the Swedish court's decision and expect to automatically win their case.

I wanted to write something more meaningful than QFT. But I can't think of one. You're fucking awesome.

Thank you.

There is a huge problem with your reasoning. The system we currently use passes on a pittance per disc to the artist, true; but the filesharing systems pass on nothing at all. You speak of "empowering artists" - but how will they pay for the very expensive recording equipment and studios that make them sound their best? Where will they get the initial impetus to take them out ahead of the millions of wannabes that flood the YouTubes of the world?

The labels system, for all it's faults, works. The anarchic system you propose never will.

Oh, I don't know. Why don't you ask the literally thousands of artists who already operate by this model? People like Emilie Autumn, who have full copies of albums uploaded to their own websites as mp3, and explicitly encourage sharing their music around. If you want to get started, a few hundred pounds up front can get you acceptable, if average, recording equipment and some space to work in, and every computer system in existence now has fairly decent (and free) recording software*. Sure, the quality won't be up to professional level, but it can be good enough for talent to come through.

As I said, the biggest problem for most artists isn't getting paid, it's getting heard. If you can find a way to get people to listen to your music, there are dozens of ways to start to make money from that - donation links, giving away samples but not whole albums, selling nice CDs but freely distributing digital copies, playing concerts. Very few people will pay out good money for something they've never heard of before, and don't know if they like. Quite a lot of people are willing to pay out for nice copies of stuff they already know is good.

If nothing else, there's a strong practical incentive - file sharing is here to stay. As a new artist looking to find fans, trying to fight it will simply make it hard to find people. The trick is to make it easy for people to hear your music legitimately, and then some percentage will willingly give you money to support you, or for nifty t-shirts, or something like that. The percentage who only leech off what you're giving away wouldn't pay anything anyway, as they're the same percentage who would pirate it if you didn't make it free.

At it's heart, I suppose, is the fact that we are moving to a post-information-scarcity society. Copying and sharing costs are now effectively nil for digital information, so preventing it being freely transferred is completely impossible. If you want to make money from your work, you have to adapt to the new circumstances, and this anarchic model is the one best suited to them. 500 people buying your album directly from you, at £3 each, and another 10000 people leeching it for free, still makes you more money than 10000 people buying it from the record label at £10 each, of which 10p reaches you.

*One of the things I do with my free time is sound-teching. I could probably scrounge and borrow enough equipment to do a pretty reasonable job of recording an album, for no cost. Wouldn't be insanely well produced, but it could be good enough.

I miss the hey-day of Napster.

An interesting little article from Wired:

Pirate Bay Verdict: Pirates Win Either Way (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/04/pirate-bay-verd.html)

An interesting little article from Wired:

Pirate Bay Verdict: Pirates Win Either Way (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/04/pirate-bay-verd.html)

I love Wired.

An interesting little article from Wired:

Pirate Bay Verdict: Pirates Win Either Way (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/04/pirate-bay-verd.html)

Interesting. I particularly liked this quote


It's important not to oversimplify; there is no strict line between two sides. Swedish studies show that half the musicians are file-sharing illegally themselves. Many musicians, filmmakers and artists are annoyed that the copyright organizations tend to speak for all of them, while they themselves may feel closer to the piracy movement.


Because it's basically what I said here

<snip>

As a result, many artists don't really care if you're sharing their music. The hard thing is not to get compensated - it's to get heard. By sharing your music as cheaply and as widely as possible, you as an artist build up a fanbase, a core of devoted followers who will come to concerts, buy CDs even when they can get the tracks free, tell other people about you and get them interested as well.

For the labels, of course, that's entirely different. These new tools which are empowering artists are, inevitably, rendering labels more and more useless. When the artist can deal directly with the fans, getting their work out there, getting money back, the label becomes unneeded. So, unsurprisingly, they're fighting tooth and nail to prevent this happening.

The times have changed, and unless record labels manage to change with them, they're doomed. That's what technology does.

Having said that, an interesting point was brought up on another forum I read: this doesn't just apply to music, but also to games and movies (and other areas, too). In these areas, the ability to produce good work isn't yet anywhere as widespread, so the industries are both more relevant, and have more to lose. However, the key facts haven't changed - in the digital age, it's impossible to prevent people sharing copies of files. As a result, the industries will have to work out another way of dealing with things, but it's harder to see what, exactly, they can do.

Guilty. 1 year in jail for each. SKr30m ($3.58m) in damages. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/675bb2ea-2b35-11de-b806-00144feabdc0.html

^ Late. Not paying attention. Sentenced to read before posting:

They were also ordered to pay 30m kronor (£2.4m) in damages.

(same BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8003799.stm))

Considering that they were accused of having made around GBP90,000 from the site that's harsh. (Yeah, that's not really how awarding damages works, but still).

Also, even though they're going to appeal they're still going to prison right now, no? If so, considering how long appeals can take and that there's often more than one appeal, that year in prison might be spent before appeals are over. Sucky.

Guilty. 1 year in jail for each. SKr30m ($3.58m) in damages. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/675bb2ea-2b35-11de-b806-00144feabdc0.html

Hot damn, that's a bit harsh.

Seriously, how much money could they be making off that site? Methinks not millions a year.

"There has been a perception that piracy is OK and that the music industry should just have to accept it. This verdict will change that," he said.

Anyone think that's the case? I don't think so, Pirate Bay is still up after all.

Anyone think that's the case? I don't think so, Pirate Bay is still up after all.

Pirating didn't disappear when they gave Napster a taste of the law-hammer. Why would anything change now that it's The Pirate Bay on trial and people use torrents instead of direct p2p?

Pirating didn't disappear when they gave Napster a taste of the law-hammer. Why would anything change now that it's The Pirate Bay on trial and people use torrents instead of direct p2p?

Scare factor. That's a lot of money and jail time just for aiding in a so-called crime.

Scare factor. That's a lot of money and jail time just for aiding in a so-called crime.

I suppose. But then there's what was said in the wired article. Losing will just turn them into martyrs to the cause.

Scare factor. That's a lot of money and jail time just for aiding in a so-called crime.

But it's a lot easier to prove for them. For J. C. Infringer, the chance of being caught is effectively nil, and the chance that charges can be made to stick is also very low. Even if 10000 people a year were tossed in gaol for music piracy, that's still a tiny chance of any particular person being caught. And the backlash against that would leave the record labels completely destroyed.

I suppose. But then there's what was said in the wired article. Losing will just turn them into martyrs to the cause.

Yeah, that's what I'm hoping. Then again with all of this internet tracking going on lately, the governments just might be pushed by the entertainment industry to start tracking file sharing. They did the same thing after Napster (stepping up busting people) but I fear with technology being advanced, it could be 10x worse for file sharing.

But it's a lot easier to prove for them. For J. C. Infringer, the chance of being caught is effectively nil, and the chance that charges can be made to stick is also very low. Even if 10000 people a year were tossed in gaol for music piracy, that's still a tiny chance of any particular person being caught. And the backlash against that would leave the record labels completely destroyed.

But there's still a chance, and a lot of people don't like to risk it.

What I'm really worried about is that the powers that be will use this verdict as a springboard for more invasive actions on the internet, all in the name of copyright infringement.

I'm trying to stay optimistic though:)

Anyone think that's the case? I don't think so, Pirate Bay is still up after all.

yes, but there might be another consequence. as more and more cases get publicity, it MIGHT turn into another attempt to regulate the internet.

I posted a new link because I could not find this one. Busted!

http://www.dailytech.com/Swedish+Court+Sends+Pirate+Bay+Leaders+to+Brig+Takes+Their+Bounty/article14892.htm

Wow if this goes through and people face real jail time. Now we are talking serious stuff. Wow I think they may have went a little overboard.

Interesting. I particularly liked this quote



Because it's basically what I said here



The times have changed, and unless record labels manage to change with them, they're doomed. That's what technology does.

Having said that, an interesting point was brought up on another forum I read: this doesn't just apply to music, but also to games and movies (and other areas, too). In these areas, the ability to produce good work isn't yet anywhere as widespread, so the industries are both more relevant, and have more to lose. However, the key facts haven't changed - in the digital age, it's impossible to prevent people sharing copies of files. As a result, the industries will have to work out another way of dealing with things, but it's harder to see what, exactly, they can do.

At least they look all John Dillinger. They need wide brim hats. What can I say other than best of luck.

Do you think they would have gotten prison sentances if they weren't so belligerent?

Do you think they would have gotten prison sentances if they weren't so belligerent?

Their imprisonment was independent of their behavior. If they had been too belligerent, as perceived by the judge during the hearings, they would have been held in contempt of court and this would have been mentioned in the trial information. However, it wasn't, so it had no bearing on the jury's ruling.

Although, I'll grant two things:

A.) This was in Sweden, so the law may be different for court contempt.

B.) TPB's owners have long been totally informal and sort of cocksure about their position -- read the 'legal charges' page on TPB.org and check out some of the emails they send in reply to DMCA violation notices. Anything they did during the trial was tame by comparison.