NationStates Jolt Archive

Somehow I am not surprised. I got to say what did we think was going to happen?

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

Swedish Court Sends Pirate Bay Leaders to Brig, Takes Their Bounty
Jason Mick (Blog) - April 17, 2009 9:30 AM


Despite a spirited fight, Sweden's most high profile pirates get sent to the jail

The Pirate Bay was the world's largest torrent site; feeding millions of users downloading legally obtained and illegally infringed works. It was the latter that cause the admins’ home nation of Sweden to drop the hammer and announce conspiracy charges and other charges against the feisty pirates. The parties involved included Peter “brokep” Sunde Kolmisoppi, Gottfrid “anakata” Svartholm, Fredrik “TiAMO” Neij, as well as Carl Lundström, who hosted the site via his company, Rix Telecom.

The groups once had dreams of founding their own country, but the proud pirates fell, facing the legal fight of their lives. From telling the lawyers of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) who were assisting Swedish authorities to "go screw themselves" to releasing intriguing figures that 80 percent of their torrents were legal, the pirates put up a spirited fight indeed. For a time, it seemed they had the prosecution on the ropes -- they had to alter their charges against the group, faced with difficulty proving their current case.

However, in the end it was not enough, and the Stockholm district court found the four pirates guilty of assisting copyright infringement sending them to a year of hard time in jail. To add insult to injury, the court also ordered them to give up their bounty, ordering SEK 30 million ($3.59M USD) in damages.

The three week trial concluded with a somewhat surprising victory for the prosecution. The verdict stated that the Pirate Bay leadership was guilty of "promoting other people's infringements of copyright laws."

The Swedish officials have discovered that their plans to place the feisty group behind bars might be put on hold though, as the group plans an appeal. The Pirate Bay states, "This will not be the final decision, only the first before the losing party will appeal. It will have no real effect on anything besides setting the tone for the debate."

Mr. Kolmisoppi (brokep) twittered this morning urging Pirate Bay fans to stay calm, and noted that there would be no interruption in their service or their fight against the charges. He wrote, "Nothing will happen to TPB, us personally or file-sharing whatsoever."

The leadership held a special press conference for the media at the Museum of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. At the conference were Rasmus Fleischer of Piratbyrån, Sara Sajjad of Piratbyrån, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg (aka Anakata), Peter Sunde (aka Brokep) and Magnus Eriksson of Piratbyrån. Fredrik Neij (TiAMO) and the fourth defendant Carl Lundström were not in attendance.

A defiant Mr. Warg challenged Sweden's leadership to try to stop the site, stating, "What are they going to do? They have already failed to take the site down once. Let them fail again. It has its own life without us."

As to the order to surrender his supposed bounty, he states, "I already have more debt in Sweden than I will ever be able to pay off. I don’t even live here. They are welcome to send me a bill. I will frame it and put it on the wall."

Asked if he viewed his campaign as fight for technology, Mr. Kolmisoppi responded, "I think it is something in between actually. We have a personal liability for this, we have a personal risk which has some impact on our feelings. But definitely it’s not defending the technology, it’s more like defending the idea of the technology and that’s probably the most important thing in this case - the political aspect of letting the technology be free and not controlled by an entity which doesn’t like technology."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=590450

Namely:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14709078&postcount=44

Also, to contribute to this discussion: the 'bounty' part is fucking retarded. They're writing this like TPB's owners were getting paid for the torrent file downloads.

Sorry I could not find the old one.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=590450

Namely:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14709078&postcount=44

Also, to contribute to this discussion: the 'bounty' part is fucking retarded. They're writing this like TPB's owners were getting paid for the torrent file downloads.

Actually, they were getting advertising money.

Actually, they were getting advertising money.

Again: were they being paid for torrents? Were people buying torrents from them? No.

Again: were they being paid for torrents? Were people buying torrents from them? No.

They were making money from facilitating copyright infringement. It's an indirect transfer from consumer to advertiser to medium.

They were making money from facilitating copyright infringement. It's an indirect transfer from consumer to advertiser to medium.

But then surely Google, or any other search engine, are too

But then surely Google, or any other search engine, are too

And yet, that fact is conveniently ignored by every person who supported the TPB's owners' prosecution...

And yet, that fact is conveniently ignored by every person who supported the TPB's owners' prosecution...

Not at all.

The difference being intent. The mission and goals of The Pirate Bay are clearly quite different from that of Google, Yahoo, AltaVista and whatnot, as The Pirate Bay quite clearly is designed to facilitate an illegal act. Justice systems all over the world take motive and intent into account--why should this case be any different?

Not at all.

The difference being intent. The mission and goals of The Pirate Bay are clearly quite different from that of Google, Yahoo, AltaVista and whatnot, as The Pirate Bay quite clearly is designed to facilitate an illegal act. Justice systems all over the world take motive and intent into account--why should this case be any different?

Ah. You're one of those people.

http://www.what-is-torrent.com/legality

Not exactly a .gov site, but notice the exceedingly obvious paragraph:

Of course, torrents themselves and all around them is nothing illegal, until you download materials you shouldn't. Torrents are also used for fully legal distribution of certain data ( for example demo versions, trials and so on).

TPB's owners didn't create the site with the express purpose of spreading copyrighted materials, propaganda to the contrary. True internet pirates took advantage of the site's convenience as a search engine.

Ah. You're one of those people.

http://www.what-is-torrent.com/legality

Not exactly a .gov site, but notice the exceedingly obvious paragraph:

The Pirate Bay, though, is not a torrent site. It's an index to pirated material on various external Torrents. Torrents themselves, like Xeroxes or VHS players, are not what we're concerned with here. It's with deliberately facilitating the illegal use of Torrents for digital piracy.



TPB's owners didn't create the site with the express purpose of spreading copyrighted materials, propaganda to the contrary. True internet pirates took advantage of the site's convenience as a search engine.

The intent upon the creation of the site was to facilitate piracy, as indicated by its name, by what use the site has been put to, and by the unwillingness of the owners of the site to seek to control the illegal use of their site. Last, but not least, the site is called The Pirate Bay, a title that is indicative of their intent.

Ah. You're one of those people.

http://www.what-is-torrent.com/legality

Not exactly a .gov site, but notice the exceedingly obvious paragraph:



TPB's owners didn't create the site with the express purpose of spreading copyrighted materials, propaganda to the contrary. True internet pirates took advantage of the site's convenience as a search engine.

Oh come on. That's bullshit and you know it. The Pirate Bay's owners have made it clear in the past that they fully support the illegal distribution of material just like they support the legal distribution. They can try to hide behind the neutral legality of a torrent, but their real intent is clear.

The Pirate Bay, though, is not a torrent site. It's an index to pirated material on various external Torrents. Torrents themselves, like Xeroxes or VHS players, are not what we're concerned with here. It's with deliberately facilitating the illegal use of Torrents for digital piracy.





The intent upon the creation of the site was to facilitate piracy, as indicated by its name, by what use the site has been put to, and by the unwillingness of the owners of the site to seek to control the illegal use of their site. Last, but not least, the site is called The Pirate Bay, a title that is indicative of their intent.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire

Oh come on. That's bullshit and you know it. The Pirate Bay's owners have made it clear in the past that they fully support the illegal distribution of material just like they support the legal distribution. They can try to hide behind the neutral legality of a torrent, but their real intent is clear.

Great. Once again, sue Google, because:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=wolverine+workprint+torrent

Haven't visited Pirate Bay. but did they have this in their TOS?
8.1 You understand that all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of, the Services are the sole responsibility of the person from which such content originated. All such information is referred to below as the “Content”.

8.2 You should be aware that Content presented to you as part of the Services, including but not limited to advertisements in the Services and sponsored Content within the Services may be protected by intellectual property rights which are owned by the sponsors or advertisers who provide that Content to Google (or by other persons or companies on their behalf). You may not modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on this Content (either in whole or in part) unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google or by the owners of that Content, in a separate agreement.

or any other similarly worded disclaimer to show that they are nothing more than providing a service and that it's (Google) not responsible for the content.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire

If it were used for purely legal purposes, and tightly policed by site admins, perhaps. But that is pretty clearly not the case. The site was founded by a piracy advocacy group, and the admins have made it pretty clear that their interests are in supporting piracy in their statements before, during and after the trial.

If it were used for purely legal purposes, and tightly policed by site admins, perhaps. But that is pretty clearly not the case. The site was founded by a piracy advocacy group, and the admins have made it pretty clear that their interests are in supporting piracy in their statements before, during and after the trial.

Link(s).

Link(s).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7893223.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8003799.stm

And pretty much all of the other BBC articles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7893223.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8003799.stm

And pretty much all of the other BBC articles.

The only quote from an owner I found went as such:

But the defendants claim to be more Robin Hood than Blackbeard, freeing creative content from the shackles of copyright.

"There is not a cause closer to my heart," one of the founders told Wired. "This is my crusade."

Let's avoid the weasel wording of the news article here. What did the founder tell Wired? "Creative Freedom: there is not a cause closer to my heart...", etc., etc.

Now, give it another shot: give me the words of a PB founder, not a news article, where he says "I support the abuse of copyrights.", or any permutation thereof. It doesn't exist; creative freedom, the cause they support, can mean the right for artists to release their media without being forced to have a studio middleman suck all the money up. (There was a nice editorial NSG post in the thread I linked to in my first reply to this thread, explaining the fact).

I mean, common sense: they aren't going to make a court statement blatantly saying, "Yeah, we support internet piracy" when they're facing fines they can't afford and jail time.

The only quote from an owner I found went as such:



Let's avoid the weasel wording of the news article here. What did the founder tell Wired? "Creative Freedom: there is not a cause closer to my heart...", etc., etc.

Now, give it another shot: give me the words of a PB founder, not a news article, where he says "I support the abuse of copyrights.", or any permutation thereof. It doesn't exist; creative freedom, the cause they support, can mean the right for artists to release their media without being forced to have a studio middleman suck all the money up. (There was a nice editorial NSG post in the thread I linked to in my first reply to this thread, explaining the fact).

I mean, common sense: they aren't going to make a court statement blatantly saying, "Yeah, we support internet piracy" when they're facing fines they can't afford and jail time.

Oh come on, their use of the words "creative freedom" are merely, as you say, weasel words to cover the fact that, they do indeed, support the violation of copyrights. They're just far more guilty of weasel wording, and if you were willing to be intellectually honest, you'd recognize that yourself.

Further, their blatant flaunting of requests from the publishers and artists who created these products is indicative of their disdain for copyrights, and their intent to facilitate the violation of other people's intellectual property.

You break the law, you go to jail. Its very simple.

You break the law, you go to jail. Its very simple.

They didn't break the law -- not explicitly*. They weren't distributing copyrighted material. Not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

*Want to emphasize the point before anyone starts screaming that they were parties to a crime. That's about as close of a claim as you can make.

They didn't break the law -- not explicitly*. They weren't distributing copyrighted material. Not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

*Want to emphasize the point before anyone starts screaming that they were parties to a crime. That's about as close of a claim as you can make.

That's the claim that everyone's making. They were knowing accessories to a whole host of crimes, which I might add, is breaking the law.

Further, Sweden has some of the most permissive anti-piracy laws in the developed world. If they are convicted in a Swedish Court, then it's indicative of something.

They didn't break the law -- not explicitly*. They weren't distributing copyrighted material. Not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

*Want to emphasize the point before anyone starts screaming that they were parties to a crime. That's about as close of a claim as you can make.

They broke the law. If the law says you can't be party to such actions, and you are, then you are breaking the law.

Booo! This decision sucks. I get a lot of podcasts and independent movies/music as legal downloads from Pirate bay.

They broke the law. If the law says you can't be party to such actions, and you are, then you are breaking the law.

I don't know the exact legal situation in the US, but I understand that online poker is illegal. Now I know Google no longer advertise online gambling websites, I suspect however that you could use Google to locate an online gambling website. Do ISP block gambling websites or can you happily open them and play? If so, I would so that both your internet service provider and Google are party to breaking the law in a way not that different from Pirate Bay.

I don't know the exact legal situation in the US, but I understand that online poker is illegal. Now I know Google no longer advertise online gambling websites, I suspect however that you could use Google to locate an online gambling website. Do ISP block gambling websites or can you happily open them and play? If so, I would so that both your internet service provider and Google are party to breaking the law in a way not that different from Pirate Bay.

I think the level of complicity in your example vs. Pirate Bay differs dramatically. Online gambling is secondary (or tertiary, even) to the purpose of the ISP and Google, whereas a primary function of Pirate Bay is to illegally distribute copyrighted materials.

I think the level of complicity in your example vs. Pirate Bay differs dramatically. Online gambling is secondary (or tertiary, even) to the purpose of the ISP and Google, whereas a primary function of Pirate Bay is to illegally distribute copyrighted materials.

Well how about CD ripping software like Windows Media Player or Nero, are they really not mainly used for copying copyrighted material?

Well how about CD ripping software like Windows Media Player or Nero, are they really not mainly used for copying copyrighted material?

except WMP and Nero do say that it's illegal to rip copyrighted material.

except WMP and Nero do say that it's illegal to rip copyrighted material.

lulz

http://thepiratebay.org/policy

The responsibility lies upon the user to not spread malicious, false or illegal material using the tracker...

Connecting to any of our trackers means that you accept this policy agreement.

lulz

http://thepiratebay.org/policy

Post 15. I said I don't go to Pirate Bay, thus asked if they had such a thing in their policy. ;)

does it state anything about the copyright? "Illegal" does NOT mean "Copyrighted".

lulz

Post 15. I said I don't go to Pirate Bay, thus asked if they had such a thing in their policy. ;)

does it state anything about the copyright? "Illegal" does NOT mean "Copyrighted".

lulz

Well observe:

1.) Malicious: Distribution of viruses ain't illegal, especially if you're doing it without realizing (corrupted files)

2.) False: HAY GAIZ THIS IS THE NEW X MAN MOVIE (it's actually porn).

3.) Illegal: Anything violating laws, IE Copyright infringement... and that's about all I can think of, really.

In this case, illegal and copyrighted are synonymous.

The Pirate Bay, though, is not a torrent site. It's an index to pirated material on various external Torrents.
Without wishing to sound unnecessarily obtuse, that's not entirely accurate.

Its indexes did contain links to torrents of copyrighted material, that is true, but not all of the torrents that it indexed were illegal - not by a long shot.

What, then, is the difference between ThePirateBay's index of links and a set of search results obtained via Google that includes links to copyrighted material? Google may not host the copyrighted material, but neither did ThePirateBay. Google is not solely used to find links to copyrighted material, but neither is ThePirateBay.

To take it a little further, where does this leave sites and services like YouTube? It's easy to access copyrighted material via media streaming sites, trivial to keep that material if you so choose... does that not mean that the operators of any site through which copyrighted material can be accessed are, to borrow your phrase, "knowing accessories to a whole host of crimes"?

Without wishing to sound unnecessarily obtuse, that's not entirely accurate.

Its indexes did contain links to torrents of copyrighted material, that is true, but not all of the torrents that it indexed were illegal - not by a long shot.

What, then, is the difference between ThePirateBay's index of links and a set of search results obtained via Google that includes links to copyrighted material? Google may not host the copyrighted material, but neither did ThePirateBay. Google is not solely used to find links to copyrighted material, but neither is ThePirateBay.

To take it a little further, where does this leave sites and services like YouTube? It's easy to access copyrighted material via media streaming sites, trivial to keep that material if you so choose... does that not mean that the operators of any site through which copyrighted material can be accessed are, to borrow your phrase, "knowing accessories to a whole host of crimes"?

QF effing T. This is EXACTLY my point, just worded a hell of a lot better.

Without wishing to sound unnecessarily obtuse, that's not entirely accurate.

Its indexes did contain links to torrents of copyrighted material, that is true, but not all of the torrents that it indexed were illegal - not by a long shot.

What, then, is the difference between ThePirateBay's index of links and a set of search results obtained via Google that includes links to copyrighted material? Google may not host the copyrighted material, but neither did ThePirateBay. Google is not solely used to find links to copyrighted material, but neither is ThePirateBay.

To take it a little further, where does this leave sites and services like YouTube? It's easy to access copyrighted material via media streaming sites, trivial to keep that material if you so choose... does that not mean that the operators of any site through which copyrighted material can be accessed are, to borrow your phrase, "knowing accessories to a whole host of crimes"?

I think at some level, the question becomes intent. Google can be used for illicit and illegal purposes (IE using it as a search engine to find copyright protected material), and in that essence, pirate bay functions as pretty much the same.

The difference, I think, lies often in purpose. Pirate Bay, for all practical purpose, looks like a site designed specifically for the purpose of allowing people to find, and download, copyright protected material. Google does not. The fact that Google can, incidentally, be used as such, doesn't necessarily make Google complicit in that. The fact that Pirate Bay was specifically created to do so, however, does.

Well observe:
[snipped]
3.) Illegal: Anything violating laws, IE Copyright infringement... and that's about all I can think of, really.

In this case, illegal and copyrighted are synonymous.

focusing on number 3 since that is the point I focused on.

again, if you read other disclaimers, like the one I posted for Google, it states SPECIFICALLY about "intellectual property rights" does Pirate Bay mention those rights?

did the Defence argue that "Illegal" in their policy covers copyright?

focusing on number 3 since that is the point I focused on.

again, if you read other disclaimers, like the one I posted for Google, it states SPECIFICALLY about "intellectual property rights" does Pirate Bay mention those rights?

did the Defence argue that "Illegal" in their policy covers copyright?

I think you're under the impression that these disclaimers function as some sort of magic shield of liability. That all you have to do is go "hey guys, when you come to PIRATE BAY, we don't want you doing any illicit IP violations. Not here at PIRATE BAY. We don't welcome that kind of thing at PIRATE BAY. Get it? PIRATE?"

They don't. Sure, they might SAY that, but the jury is also free, in exchange, to simply say, "we don't believe you"

snip

The fact that Pirate Bay was specifically created to do so, however, does.

But it WASN'T specifically created to do so, prosecution claims (and earlier replies to this thread) notwithstanding.

I honestly thought this had something to do with Sweden attacking Somalia...

I was disappointed :(

I think you're under the impression that these disclaimers function as some sort of magic shield of liability. That all you have to do is go "hey guys, when you come to PIRATE BAY, we don't want you doing any illicit IP violations. Not here at PIRATE BAY. We don't welcome that kind of thing at PIRATE BAY. Get it? PIRATE?"

They don't. Sure, they might SAY that, but the jury is also free, in exchange, to simply say, "we don't believe you"

I don't remember -- was it you who I've already linked to this (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire)?

But it WASN'T specifically created to do so, prosecution claims (and earlier replies to this thread) notwithstanding.

It would appear that the Court disagrees with you. Your claim notwithstanding

It would appear that the Court disagrees with you. Your claim notwithstanding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoneration

Justice may yet be won.

I think you're under the impression that these disclaimers function as some sort of magic shield of liability. That all you have to do is go "hey guys, when you come to PIRATE BAY, we don't want you doing any illicit IP violations. Not here at PIRATE BAY. We don't welcome that kind of thing at PIRATE BAY. Get it? PIRATE?"

They don't. Sure, they might SAY that, but the jury is also free, in exchange, to simply say, "we don't believe you"

actually, I'm going that intent can be determined by the disclaimers.

my thoughts in Red.
Our tracker system (hereby "the tracker") is free of charge for anyone for personal usage. Organisations (for instance, but not limited to, non-profit or companies) may use the system if they clear this with the system operators first. Permission for organisations/companies is not needed for obvious "well meaning" usage, i.e. distributing works of cultural benefit for the end user. Nothing about intellectual Property Rights.

The tracker may not be used by anyone with the intention to track usage, log ip addresses/usage or anything else that we consider intrusion of privacy or disruption of tracker service. If you are not sure if this would be the case for your usage, please contact us in order to get our permission. No mention of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material being one of the things the Tracker should NOT be used for.

The tracker is run privately. That means that we do not guarantee that the tracker will be available for users at all time but we try our best to make the tracker run stable. We take no responsibility for loss of income or similar due to tracker downtime/failure.

The responsibility lies upon the user to not spread malicious, false or illegal material using the tracker.
We do not censor but we do block people that use our service wrongfully (i.e. commercial organisations that have not cleared the usage with us first).
again, nothing about Violators of Intellectual Property Laws.

We reserve the rights to charge for usage of the tracker in case this policy is violated. The charge will consist of a basic fee of EUR 5 000 plus bandwidth and other costs that may arise due to the violation.
Personal usage, although violating this policy, will not be charged. We will simply block those users.

We also reserve the rights to publish any information regarding violations. Info hashes, IP addresses and all other information that is supplied to the tracker will be considered our right to publish.

This policy may change at any time, please check in before using the tracker.

Connecting to any of our trackers means that you accept this policy agreement.

Not saying the Policies are a sheild. But it is a good indicator of intent of use. what the (in this case) site is intended to be used as.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoneration

Justice may yet be won.

right, sorry, forgive me, for a moment I thought you were actually trying to have an intelligent conversation on the topic :rolleyes:

right, sorry, forgive me, for a moment I thought you were actually trying to have an intelligent conversation on the topic :rolleyes:

Oh, right, let me just do what you're doing, then, having an intelligent conversation.

THEY'RE GUILTY THIEVES THROW THEM IN JAIL.

Better? Really captures impartiality on the subject, right?

actually, I'm going that intent can be determined by the disclaimers.

Bullshit it can. If a disclaimer was proof positive of intent, then every illegal drug sale would be predicated on a "you understand that I intend to sell you only perfectly legal oregano and confectioner's sugar. If it turns out to be something else, I NEVER intended that. Wink wink nudge nudge".

A disclaimer can be an element of consideration when determining intent, but it isn't determinative in and of itself. Yes, they can put it in a disclaimer that the drug dealer never actually intend to SELL COCAINE. And a jury is free, of course, to not believe him

Not saying the Policies are a sheild. But it is a good indicator of intent of use. what the (in this case) site is intended to be used as.

No, a policy saying "we don't intend this site to be used for illegal activities" is only a good indicator that they have a lawyer smart enough to know that there are people out there who think "well if they said it on their disclaimer, they must mean it!" and that those people sometimes make it on juries.

I should know, I am one.

Oh, right, let me just do what you're doing, then, having an intelligent conversation.

THEY'RE GUILTY THIEVES THROW THEM IN JAIL.

Better? Really captures impartiality on the subject, right?

Oh? I said that eh? Feel free to link to that post then. I'll wait right here.

You think they didn't intend it? OK, that's your right to have that opinion. Some facts would be nice to support that opinion, but perhaps I'm expecting to much.

However none of that changes the fact that it wasn't your job to determine it, it was the jury's. And they found that it was their intent. I think this may partially have been because of the cries of "we never intended anyone to use our site to pirate anything" coming from pirate bay

I think at some level, the question becomes intent.
From the Court's perspective that would certainly appear to be the case, yes, and it's another line drawn in a another little area of sand. Some people will, no doubt, laud it as some kind of tide-turning victory, but it isn't.

There's a certain absurdity about the endless furore over the whole file sharing thing, which I confess that a small part of me has been thoroughly enjoying for the last 10 years or so. I wonder who'll be next on the block?

Interesting times, as the saying goes :)

Bullshit it can. If a disclaimer was proof positive of intent, then every illegal drug sale would be predicated on a "you understand that I intend to sell you only perfectly legal oregano and confectioner's sugar. If it turns out to be something else, I NEVER intended that. Wink wink nudge nudge".

A disclaimer can be an element of consideration when determining intent, but it isn't determinative in and of itself. Yes, they can put it in a disclaimer that the drug dealer never actually intend to SELL COCAINE. And a jury is free, of course, to not believe him

snip

But that analogy fails on the grounds that... well, a disclaimer doesn't exist for drug trafficking. One does exist for TPB.org. It's the same thing with the NFL broadcasts -- "Rebroadcasting, or any other pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game, without the NFL’s express written consent, is strictly prohibited." How many people (Peter Griffin being the exception) have cops bust down the door for recording the playoffs with their TiVo?

Oh, hey, TiVo, what an invention -- you get to record anything, even movies, and then if you have a DVD recorder, there you have it -- free movie. But that's illegal! Guess they should ban TiVo, right? It's directly facilitating illegal activity, even though there are legal usages that exist for it. Sounds like a certain website. (http://thepiratebay.org/)

I despise double standards.

Now, give it another shot: give me the words of a PB founder, not a news article, where he says "I support the abuse of copyrights.", or any permutation thereof.

Actions speak louder than words
http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/04/the_pirate_bay_is_unapologetically_now_liberty_bay-2.html
http://kotaku.com/assets/resources/2008/04/liberty_bay.jpg

IIRC they have done similar things at other time. With the release of a torrent of The Dark Knight for example (http://www.techspikes.com/2008/08/when-the-pirate-bay-becomes-the-pirate-bat-batman/).

http://www.techspikes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/the-pirate-bat.jpg

Personally I think it is hard to argue that they are against copyright infringement when they are eager to broadcast the fact that they have a link to a hot new copyright infringing torrent on their homepage

It doesn't exist; creative freedom, the cause they support, can mean the right for artists to release their media without being forced to have a studio middleman suck all the money up. (There was a nice editorial NSG post in the thread I linked to in my first reply to this thread, explaining the fact).

Oh, that's just smoke and mirrors. It is the equivalent of a bong shop I know insisting that their bongs are "ornamental" and not to be used for enjoying dope at all.

I mean, common sense: they aren't going to make a court statement blatantly saying, "Yeah, we support internet piracy" when they're facing fines they can't afford and jail time.

IMO, they have done just that in the link I gave to Kotaku.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are feeling a bit sheepish round about now.

Or... it's more satire -- they know their reputation, so they are just making fun of themselves and mass media. Again, let's see actual words, not site themes that don't mean shit in a real court of law, one way or the other.

And the bong thing -- well... (http://cgi.ebay.com/Sterling-Silver-Handcrafted-Precious-Gemstone-Bong_W0QQitemZ370184604359QQcmdZViewItemQQptZHandcrafted_Artisan_Jewelry?hash=item370184604359&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1308|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50)

Oh, hey, TiVo, what an invention -- you get to record anything, even movies, and then if you have a DVD recorder, there you have it -- free movie. But that's illegal! Guess they should ban TiVo, right? It's directly facilitating illegal activity, even though there are legal usages that exist for it. Sounds like a certain website. (http://thepiratebay.org/)

Come now, you cannot expect anybody sensible to accept that the majority of visitors go to the Pirate Bay for legal and open-source reasons. Most people use it to infringe on copyright, the fact that a minority of searches will be for open source programmes or other freely distributable items is not a sufficient shield.

Most Pirate Bay searches are done for the express purpose of infringing copyright. Surely you cannot disagree with that?

I despise double standards.

I despise people who don't have the courage of their convictions. I'd much prefer it if TPB stated they didn't recognise intellectual property rights and felt they had a duty to make information free (we are constantly told it wants to be after all).

I agree, it would be suicidal and stupid. But this dancing around using equivocation and moving the goalposts is rather annoying.

Or... it's more satire -- they know their reputation, so they are just making fun of themselves and mass media. Again, let's see actual words, not site themes that don't mean shit in a real court of law, one way or the other.

They don't? Nothing at all?

They can't be contrued at all as an advertisement to pirate the hot new copyrighted piece of digital entertainment?

Why would it not be admissible in a court of law? It seems pretty clear to me what they are doing.

Also, not sure about Sweden, but I know that here claiming parody or satire under fair dealing can only go so far... ;)

And the bong thing -- well... (http://cgi.ebay.com/Sterling-Silver-Handcrafted-Precious-Gemstone-Bong_W0QQitemZ370184604359QQcmdZViewItemQQptZHandcrafted_Artisan_Jewelry?hash=item370184604359&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1308|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50)

They'd have a point if they looked like that. But they mainly sell the cheap plastic ones. For some reason I am skeptical there is a market for cheap and ugly plastic drug paraphernalia* ;)


*EDIT: I meant "ornamental cheap and ugly plastic drug paraphernalia" obv

No, a policy saying "we don't intend this site to be used for illegal activities" is only a good indicator that they have a lawyer smart enough to know that there are people out there who think "well if they said it on their disclaimer, they must mean it!" and that those people sometimes make it on juries.

I should know, I am one.

and the point I was trying to make is that other sites actually try to take steps to try to cover their asses as much as they can. again, I never said the disclaimer was a shield but it can go to show the intented use of the site. People say "because it's called 'Pirate Bay' they MUST be used for illegal downloads after all why use the word 'Pirate'?"

Their 'policy' is pretty General in what they will allow or not allow, and while it can cover copyrighted material, it goes down to whether or not the person defines sharing copyrighted material on the internet as a volation of intellectual property laws i.e. "illegal". and you know there are some people here who do NOT think such downloads are never illegal.

As for what I think about this? The Verdict was rendered, and I for one, don't have a problem with the verdict nor punishment.

I think the punishment is a bit harsh, but the verdict is understandable, given the oh-so-blatant intent advertised by TPB. That being said, many more torrent sites are around and I doubt they will fall on the illegal side of the line given they aren't so obviously anti-copyright. They're slightly more subtle about it :p

Something I've never really understood: when ridiculous fines are handed down, like this, that are way, way beyond the means of those charged, how does the court expect them to pay? Does it simply bankrupt them?

Something I've never really understood: when ridiculous fines are handed down, like this, that are way, way beyond the means of those charged, how does the court expect them to pay? Does it simply bankrupt them?

Yep.

But don't worry, we have sensationalist news articles telling the world that TPB's owners were making a 'bounty' off of this site (quoted from a BBC news article), because of all the advertisements. Shame that they don't seem to understand the costs of running something like this.

and the point I was trying to make is that other sites actually try to take steps to try to cover their asses as much as they can.
So, hypocrisy is a legal defense now?

Time to play eLawyer. They broke a law which doesn't exist in Sweden. Linking to copyrighted material. They never had any copyrighted material on their servers or distributed any of it to anybody. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal. :/

Time to play eLawyer. They broke a law which doesn't exist in Sweden. Linking to copyrighted material. They never had any copyrighted material on their servers or distributed any of it to anybody. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal. :/
Well, that was their defence AFAIK. The judges rejected it.

It will be appealed, and may even end up in the European Court of Justice for clarification as it's seemingly a landmark case for IP.

It will be appealed, and may even end up in the European Court of Justice for clarification as it's seemingly a landmark case for IP.
Certainly will. That's why they're not bothered yet. What is it they were in, a county court? They are to go to the national supreme yet.

In this case, illegal and copyrighted are synonymous.
That would depend on the country and legislation, would it not? :p

btw. You can also get linux distros from TPB

The Pirate Bay, though, is not a torrent site. It's an index to pirated material on various external Torrents. Torrents themselves, like Xeroxes or VHS players, are not what we're concerned with here. It's with deliberately facilitating the illegal use of Torrents for digital piracy.





The intent upon the creation of the site was to facilitate piracy, as indicated by its name, by what use the site has been put to, and by the unwillingness of the owners of the site to seek to control the illegal use of their site. Last, but not least, the site is called The Pirate Bay, a title that is indicative of their intent.

You make some excellent points. However something came to mind in this trial that was sort of new and was not really there in all the others. To facilitate a crime is to be guilty of Conspiracy. So as was pointed out before any site that show drug paraphernalia would be guilty of drug charges and at the very least Conspiracy.

This a bad example but let's just throw it out there for fun. Is Youtube and the many places where you can view amateur video would they now be guilty of Child Pornography? Now Youtube does not post links to kiddie sites. Okay then what about Windows Media Player or Winamp are these application as guilty then by the same dragnet that was used in the trial? They do make much easier to listen to illegal music.


So was the mere fact that the technologies in this case were put together and if used an incorrect way, they can be used to commit a crime, or was it the utility/ease that made them guilty? Was it the fact that they made it so easy anyone could find pirated material? Very interesting indeed.

From the links provided.


This is an awesome line

"Please don't sue us right now, our lawyer is passed out in an alley," says a reply to videogame giant Electronic Arts.


They are pirates!

Sorry another good line. These gentlemen seem to have resolve!

"We can't pay and we wouldn't pay. Even if I had the money I would rather burn everything I owned, and I wouldn't even give them the ashes."

It's also good to bear in mind that even if they are imprisoned, it's largely to their benefit. They are, afterall, politically motivated (the Pirate Bay has its origins in the Swedish political party Piratbyrån).

Political prisoners are always of interest to the media, and with the eventual inevitability of copyright legislation change, any press is good press. It can only hasten their cause (and release).

To take it a little further, where does this leave sites and services like YouTube? It's easy to access copyrighted material via media streaming sites, trivial to keep that material if you so choose... does that not mean that the operators of any site through which copyrighted material can be accessed are, to borrow your phrase, "knowing accessories to a whole host of crimes"?

YouTube makes good faith efforts (and as far as I know, are quite effective) at removing copyrighted material from their site at the behest of the copyright holder. I am not familiar with Pirate Bay, but from what I have read, and know personally, such efforts were not made.

Political prisoners are always of interest to the media
TPB guys are political prisoners?? I want some of that oregano you're smoking.

TPB guys are political prisoners?? I want some of that oregano you're smoking.

Considering their affiliation and connection to the Piratbyrån party which got enough votes to have a place in the Swedish parliament...Yes. I think the label of political prisoners is quite fitting. A technicality, but a true oddity nontheless. Especially since unlike many other Pirate havens, TPB bases it´s whole enterprise on a political agenda and is a non-profit organization that does not aim for profits.

YouTube makes good faith efforts (and as far as I know, are quite effective) at removing copyrighted material from their site at the behest of the copyright holder. I am not familiar with Pirate Bay, but from what I have read, and know personally, such efforts were not made.
Yes, I'm aware of YouTube's content removal policies. However, it doesn't change the fact that there is a huge amount of copyrighted material available there (and that the material in question is actually hosted by them, as opposed to simply being linked to by them, as was the case with ThePirateBay and, for that matter, a set of search results from Google). It was the contention of the defendants in this case that they did not actually make the material available, but that they simply provided a searchable index of links to the material. Since that's essentially what all search engines do, it seems likely that other organisations will face legal action for the same offences.

This has already happened more than a few times, of course, and Google themselves have had more than a few days in court over their linking to copyrighted material. Indeed, in a 2006 ruling in California concerning Google's provision of thumbnail links as the search results from an image search, the judge commented that “Google’s thumbnails lead users to sites that directly benefit Google’s bottom line”(_ (http://www.out-law.com/page-6660)). Whilst acknowledging that the provision of copyrighted content is not the search engine's primary function, the stark facts remain that there are many, many companies using the Internet who make money from other people's intellectual property, and that current legislations around the world struggle to cope.

The YouTube (and all the other media streaming sites) situation is a little different because they actually possess the material on their servers and make it available to whoever wants it (which could well be construed as being more criminal, I suppose). With that said, the fact that people might be using these streaming sites to make copies of the material has always seemed to me to be no more than the modern equivalent of people tape recording songs from the radio, or recording TV content onto videotape/DVD/digital storage. If there really is a meaningful difference between these two acts, I've yet to read it.

Considering their affiliation and connection to the Piratbyrån party which got enough votes to have a place in the Swedish parliament...Yes.
The Piratpartiet. The Piratbyrån is rather an organization.
Both don't hurry to officially affiliate with TPB, though.

I don't get why people are trying to discern the intent of TPB, as if it mattered. Of course the site is meant for people looking for copyrighted material. It doesn't matter. We don't deny free speech as long as it isn't offensive. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what Swedish law it is that they broke.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what Swedish law it is that they broke.

This, apparently.
Speaking on Swedish Radio, assistant judge Klarius explained how the court reached its findings.

"The court first tried whether there was any question of breach of copyright by the file-sharing application and that has been proved, that the offence was committed.

"The court then moved on to look at those who acted as a team to operate the Pirate Bay file-sharing service, and the court found that they knew that material which was protected by copyright but continued to operate the service," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8003799.stm

That's exactly my point. The ruling is completely nonsensical. They broke a law which doesn't exist. Show me the LAW that they broke.

That's exactly my point. The ruling is completely nonsensical. They broke a law which doesn't exist. Show me the LAW that they broke.

Well it says breach of copyright - so I imagine it something to do with 'copyright law'.

If you want to read the judgement, google it.

They broke a law which doesn't exist.

Pishposh, nulla poena sine lege is a fundamental principle of the Swedish justice system.

Show me the LAW that they broke.

Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk - 7 Kap. Ansvar och ersättningsskyldighet m.m. (http://www.notisum.se/rnp/SLS/lag/19600729.HTM#K7)

Brottsbalk (1962:700) - 23 kap. Om försök, förberedelse, stämpling och medverkan till brott (http://www.notisum.se/rnp/SLS/lag/19620700.htm#K23)

Alrighty, then.

That's exactly my point. The ruling is completely nonsensical. They broke a law which doesn't exist. Show me the LAW that they broke.

How odd that none of the lawyers noticed this. Nor the judge. You should get on the phone to these Swedish legal professionals and tell them how ignorant they are of Swedish law.

I think persanoly, it doesnt matter that the site's creators were found guilty or not, TPB is still going storng and the servers run withut them. I use it and proudly. Anyone who has ever said, 'ive used it but i dotn anyore its just theft and it is wrong', is a dirty hypocrite and they know it. youve used it, your a theif get over it!

hay hay! Ho ho! TPB will never go! ^^

I think persanoly, it doesnt matter that the site's creators were found guilty or not, TPB is still going storng and the servers run withut them. I use it and proudly. Anyone who has ever said, 'ive used it but i dotn anyore its just theft and it is wrong', is a dirty hypocrite and they know it. youve used it, your a theif get over it!

hay hay! Ho ho! TPB will never go! ^^

Ummm... okay?

Ummm... okay?

Incoherent gibberish making as much sense as anything the foreign internet law experts on Swedish law have posted thus far in this thread. Why react to it questioningly now, and not when it is in a post by you?

Incoherent gibberish making as much sense as anything the foreign internet law experts on Swedish law have posted thus far in this thread. Why react to it questioningly now, and not when it is in a post by you?

If we had any doubts before, this statement proves it. Fass is back. And how we wish we were rid of him =p

Incoherent gibberish making as much sense as anything the foreign internet law experts on Swedish law have posted thus far in this thread. Why react to it questioningly now, and not when it is in a post by you?

Okay, you really need to back the hell off and stop flamebaiting me, because I haven't made any comment in this thread for a while for a reason.

Okay, you really need to back the hell off and stop flamebaiting me, because I haven't made any comment in this thread for a while for a reason.

If that reason is that you became as acutely aware of your ignorance as, well, you should've been from the start... then good. Kind of like the old saying "better not speak and be taken for a fool than to opine and remove all possible doubt", but in a much too tardy fashion, you know. Commendable, if one felt like patronising, I suppose.

Somehow, though, I lamentably doubt that is the reason.

If that reason is that you became as acutely aware of your ignorance as, well, you should've been from the start... then good. Kind of like the old saying "better not speak and be taken for a fool than to opine and remove all possible doubt", but in a much too tardy fashion, you know. Commendable, if one felt like patronising, I suppose.

Somehow, though, I lamentably doubt that is the reason.

So I would report you for flaming AND flamebaiting, but you obviously are a common user (as evidenced by CM's familiarity), and as such, your insults and provocative language would be seen as righteous by the moderators rather than improper. Instead, I'll leave my words and this thread with this reply, and watch you try fruitlessly to coax me into your little game instead. Go ahead, keep posting and goading me, by all means; it won't keep me from getting a good night's sleep, not by a long shot.

/flamebait_ignore

So I would report you for flaming AND flamebaiting, but you obviously are a common user (as evidenced by CM's familiarity), and as such, your insults and provocative language would be seen as righteous by the moderators rather than improper. Instead, I'll leave my words and this thread with this reply, and watch you try fruitlessly to coax me into your little game instead. Go ahead, keep posting and goading me, by all means; it won't keep me from getting a good night's sleep, not by a long shot.

Oh, if only the whambulance dispatched could finally arrive. I do believe I hear the sirens.

Pishposh, nulla poena sine lege is a fundamental principle of the Swedish justice system.



Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk - 7 Kap. Ansvar och ersättningsskyldighet m.m. (http://www.notisum.se/rnp/SLS/lag/19600729.HTM#K7)

Brottsbalk (1962:700) - 23 kap. Om försök, förberedelse, stämpling och medverkan till brott (http://www.notisum.se/rnp/SLS/lag/19620700.htm#K23)

Alrighty, then.
So linking people to copyrighted material is illegal under Swedish law? The courts will have to block every search engine on the internet.
How odd that none of the lawyers noticed this. Nor the judge. You should get on the phone to these Swedish legal professionals and tell them how ignorant they are of Swedish law.

I certainly hope the courts do exactly that on appeal.

So linking people to copyrighted material is illegal under Swedish law? The courts will have to block every search engine on the internet.

Oh, look. Someone who hasn't read the ruling or the law and thus thinks that comparison is in any way applicable. Colour me unsurprised. *yawns*

Oh, if only the whambulance dispatched could finally arrive. I do believe I hear the sirens.

Your medical expertise is needed for a precision operation regarding the removal of a persecutedous gland.

So I would report you for flaming AND flamebaiting, but.....
Yeah, lets not get into the whole "Baw, mods don't ban veterans" thing. Long story short: you're wrong, they do, but long time users know how to toe the line.
So linking people to copyrighted material is illegal under Swedish law? The courts will have to block every search engine on the internet.
I doubt the law is worded in such a way. If it were the court case would have lasted 5 minutes.


I certainly hope the courts do exactly that on appeal.

I would be quite shocked and appalled if it took an appeal to discover that the law 4 people were convicted under does not actually exist.

http://i42.tinypic.com/35ivmhf.gif

Yeah, lets not get into the whole "Baw, mods don't ban veterans" thing. Long story short: you're wrong, they do,

As Fass (IIRC) and myself can attest to.

I would be quite shocked and appalled if it took an appeal to discover that the law 4 people were convicted under does not actually exist.

I'm sure it would provoke quite the constitutional crisis if Sweden were to find out that their judges were making shit up in court cases. :eek:

http://i42.tinypic.com/35ivmhf.gif

:confused:

Instead, I'll leave my words and this thread with this reply, and watch you try fruitlessly to coax me into your little game instead. Go ahead, keep posting and goading me, by all means; it won't keep me from getting a good night's sleep, not by a long shot.

Is it the new thing to deflect heat away from one's poor understanding and/or arguments by claiming 'flamebaiting'?

Is it the new thing to deflect heat away from one's poor understanding and/or arguments by claiming 'flamebaiting'?

Only when its against Fass.

Oh, look. Someone who hasn't read the ruling or the law and thus thinks that comparison is in any way applicable. Colour me unsurprised. *yawns*

If you say so.

If you say so.

I suppose that's just as good as an admission that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I suppose that's just as good as an admission that you have no idea what you're talking about.

If you say so.

I see a pattern emerging.

I see a pattern emerging.

If you say... nah, it takes at least 3 repetitions to make a pattern.

Oh, if only the whambulance dispatched could finally arrive. I do believe I hear the sirens.

I've missed you, Fass :)