ThePirateBay.org Raided and Shut Down

An anonymous reader writes "ThePirateBay.org, a longtime fixture of the BitTorrent community, is currently under investigation. Slyck.com is reporting their servers have been seized by the Swedish police." What's really interesting about them is the strange political power that they held in their homeland. There was much discussion even of a political party. This will be interesting to watch unfold.

Comments

This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

When you're a fledgling political party - you cannot buy this sort of publicity.

What we probably have here is pressure (who doesn't doubt it didn't go down like this) from a foreign organisation to shut down something that's legal under Swedish law. (The torrent files themselves contain no copyrighted information).

Is this going to permanently shutdown thepiratebay.org? I doubt it.

Is this going to help the Pirate Party's chances for election in the September elections and be detrimental to the content oligopolist's interests in the long run? Hell yes.

Mildly offtopic, if TPB is shutdown, the thing I'm going to miss most is their 'legal' section (with legal threats + responses) - here's one of my favorite responses (via google cache):

I have the distinct pleasure of informing you that no Swedish trademark and/or coypyright law is being violated, regardless of how the situation may or may not be under UK law. I would advise you to read up on Swedish trademark law, more specifically Varumarkeslag (1960:644), as this might save you a great deal of future humiliation.

I would also advise you to
a) not write the subject all in UPPERCASE, as it makes spam filters go nuts
b) not attach meaningless data from trademark registrys in PDF format and
c) stop lying.

(in response to a threat from Sega europe)

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[iNTERcEPTOR-SdB]

Good luck to Pirate Bay. They make really good rum drinks! *burp*

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[jank1887]

All hail the Dark 'N Stormy! (now available in a convenient gift pack!)

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[moranar]

Given that their platform has caused the other parties in Sweden to reconsider their own stances on filesharing and IP, I'd say go Pirate Party, even if I wouldn't vote them. There are other ways to accomplish this, but this is a nice one.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[slimme]

I used to work for an ISP's customer service and the response I gave to silly demands from foreign entities was similar to this response.

If you want us to take action, please provide us with a legal title that is valid in our country or cooperate with local law enforcement. Otherwise we will not respond to claims.

I guess the claiming companies cooperated with local law enforcement :-)

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[extintor]

The pirate party and thepiratebay are not affiliated in any way. They are to different movements.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Eideewt]

It's more like reading books in the store without buying them. You got the content without paying, but the original media is still there to be sold.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Martin Blank]

That's not really an apt comparison. While the open seas were a little bit like the Internet in that they were largely open to anyone that could get a ship out of port, there were also conventions between nations, long-standing naval traditions, and the simple fact that pretty much everyone recognized that taking shots at a vessel flying under another flag was an act of war.

Legal circumstances of other actions on the Internet are different in that there are serious but legitimate differences in the laws of different countries. The best example of which I can think are Europe's anti-Nazi laws, of which Yahoo famously ran afoul. Trading Nazi memorabilia in France and Germany is strictly forbidden (at least for private parties -- museums may have more leeway), while no court in the United States would entertain such restrictions for very long. In Russia, you have the legal authority to break DRM encryption for the purposes of making a personal backup (though not for warez trading), hence Elcomsoft's legal dilemma with the PDF cracker.

I can't speak to the situation here, because Swedish copyright law may or may not be on the side of TPB, and I'm not familiar with Swedish law in general, but the overall situation may not be nearly as cut and dried as you seem to believe.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[NutscrapeSucks]

If you want us to take action, please provide us with a legal title that is valid

IANACopyrightExpert, but the Berne Convention provides for international copyrights that don't require any sort of registration or 'title'. If your ISP was in the US, complying with these sorts of requests removes the ISP's liability in the matter.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[mapkinase]

Do you have some references about "has caused the other parties"?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

require any sort of registration or 'title'.

I believe by "Title" the gp meant Barrister, QC, attorney, etc.

If he's in a country that doesn't know what a QC is, and gets a letter from a QC, he's going to write back saying "I have no idea what QC means"

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[ch-chuck]

I wonder what the modern version of ABBA or whoever think's about freely giving away their work. Or if Volvo minds a Chinese company making an exact replica of their latest model.

Anyway, I've been watching the copyright situation for over 25 years - it's always the same thing. The players and circumstances change, but it's the same cops and robbers games. If you're on the consumer side of the fence, PB is great - if your a producer, it's a crime.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Sure. It's just that under that scheme, there's no reason for anyone else to buy it either. The market value of the content is dramatically reduced by allowing use without compensation.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[moranar]

Not directly. You could ask Honken.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[ajs318]

PirateBay is just a high-tech, "white-collar" version of shoplifting DVD's, however you justify it to yourself.

Except that, unlike traditional shoplifting methods, this way the DVDs actually remain on the store shelves to be sold, thereby not hurting the retailers.

Side note, what do the Master Bakers' Association of America {or whatever they call themselves} think about the popularity of home bread making machines? Should a levy be imposed on every kilo of Strong Flour to pay for the business they are losing?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Eideewt]

Maybe it is.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[itchy92]

This argument drives me nuts. They're not selling you the paper on which the book was printed. They are selling you the entertainment/knowledge/whatever you derive from the content of the book. The lost sales argument aside, this is the problem I have with any music/movie pirates who justify it the way you did. "Well, I wouldn't buy that shit anyway, and I just made a copy, I didn't physically deprive them of anything." Well, 1) How pathetic must you be to waste your time downloading shit you don't value? Either that or you're lying, and enjoy getting something for free. And 2) If you delete a bunch of vital information on a company's server, would you use the defense that "I didn't physically destroy anything, I just realigned some bits on a hard drive"?

Of course not, because the typical /. demographic understands that you can't apply laws and governance of the physical world to the virtual, technology world. So perhaps it is not THEFT in the traditional sense, but it is THEFT in the "I'm taking something that I'm not authorized to take" sense.

I post similar comments everytime I see this issue raised, and most people must think I'm a shill or something. I'm not; I personally believe in free (speech and beer) information, and public disbursement of my creative efforts. As a multi-medium content creator, however, I recognize that not everyone believes the same things I do, and it's more important to respect that than to push my own beliefs.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[mapkinase]

He says: "... it probably won't have a major impact on the upcoming election in September ...".

The question is: why do we need another special interests party? We already have a Green Party - party of special interests (though everybody is interested in preserving a planet, there are plenty of issues completely unlrelated to this platform - that is what I mean by special interests).

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I agree wholeheartedly. Believing in some sort of fair compensation for people who create works of knowledge seems to be terribly out-dated around these parts, which is kinda sad. I guess either good content grows on infinitely duplicated trees in some people's world, or none of the content those people rip is good enough for them to care about (which does make you wonder why they rip it in the first place).

Of course the big media industries have gone way too far in some respects, and people should be aware of that and support moves to bring things back to a more reasonable balance. But it irritates the hell out of me when Slashdot gets overrun by kids who've grown up thinking everything in life is free, who don't understand that concepts like fairness and social responsibility are important too.

Personally, I try to avoid using the word "theft" in this context, simply because it is inflammatory. That doesn't mean that the real arguments against this sort of behaviour are any less valid because the person making them could have written "copyright infringement" instead.

And yes, the argument that they haven't deprived the original copy-holder of anything is crap. Just above this thread, I made the elementary economic point that even if you haven't deprived the copyright holder of a physical work, you've still reduced the market value of their work. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion in isolation, the value is reduced to no more than the cost of the first publicly-available copy.

That's just as damaging as ripping the amount of lost compensation right out of someone's bank account. Ah, but there's no physical property being stolen then either, so presumably these guys see stealing $500 in paper money from someone's home as theft, but think just cracking their account on-line should be legal...

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[no_opinion]

Wrong. If I shop lifted a DVD, why do I need to buy it from the retailer? The retailer is losing sales. This isn't good for anyone in the business chain: artist, retailer, recording engineers, distributors, stock-boys. The only one it benefits is the shop-lifter.

The artist doesn't want their music to be sold, nor do the people making the movie. So why are you justifying this?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[JoeSchmoe999]

What about Libraries? I can go to my local library, check out any books I want for no money read them and if I truly like them go out and buy them. Have I dramatically reduced the value of the book? If noone bought any books but everyone went to the library to read said books, would the library be considered pirates and be responsible for the "loss of income", raided and all the stacks confiscated?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[GigG]

No, there would be many fewer books though.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[mrtroy]

Reading books in the bookstore (skimming through them) makes me purchase MORE books. Listening to music I download leads me to purchase MORE albums. Watching movies I download leads me to buy MORE dvds.

It seems impossible that industries rely on such backwards business strategy as to punish people from browsing their content.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[toriver]

This argument drives me nuts. They're not selling you the paper on which the book was printed. They are selling you the entertainment/knowledge/whatever you derive from the content of the book.

Actually, they are selling you both. After you have consumed the content of your purchased book/CD/DVD you can sell it second-hand. Though the industries are fighting that tooth and nail. Well, except the retailers like EB Games, which actively support the practice.

1) How pathetic must you be to waste your time downloading shit you don't value?

Ooh, your level of discourse is... not high, really. How do you know how good something is without sampling it?

2) If you delete a bunch of vital information on a company's server, would you use the defense that "I didn't physically destroy anything, I just realigned some bits on a hard drive"?

What the heck does that have to do with the subject? Are you a believer in the "taking data from somewhere removes it" theories of William Gibson? When he wrote Neuromancer he knew very little about how computers worked, which he admitted.

it is THEFT in the "I'm taking something that I'm not authorized to take" sense.

But not in the legal sense. Which is the sense that matters. It's "theft" only in the "the industry wants to abuse words for scare-mongering while insulting their lawful customers by putting unskippable 'Don't be a thief' shit at the beginning of my DVDs" sense.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a common misconception that I see around slashdot...

People don't "waste their time downloading things they don't value"... it takes no time, and ridiculously little effort. With nzb files, you can take about 15 seconds to queue up a download for an entire season of a TV show, for example. Let it run overnight on your fast cable connection and when you wake up in the morning, it's just done. No effort, really. No time spent, really. The argument "well, if you go through so much trouble, you MUST value it" falls apart when you realize that it really isn't any trouble/effort at all. Also, it's not so much a question of valuing or not valuing something, it's a question of what KIND of value you see in a product. Let's say a company is selling a DVD of a very bad movie (let's use Gigli as an example) for $19.99 at the local store. Now, I (and everyone else on Earth) know that Gigli isn't worth $19.99, but I do have SOME limited interest in seeing the film, or at least part of it, just to see HOW very bad it actually was. Is satisfying that curiosity worth twenty bucks? Hell no, but it's worth 30 seconds of my time. This example leaves aside the issue, obviously, of that content which isn't even for sale, AT ANY PRICE. I fail to see how you can seriously assert that copyright infringement of, say, an Anime series which isn't available in the United States is problematic. What lost sales are there if there are no sales to lose? What artist is going to be upset and not receiving compensation from someone whom they've never sought as an audience? These are just two examples of cases where "you must value it if you download it, so why not pay for it" fall apart.

As for the "fairness" of someone getting compensated for their creative work... well, do you watch every commercial when you watch a TV show? Do you ever fastforwad through them with your TiVO? The TV episodes were available, for free, in the past. The fact that I wasn't physically in front of the television at the time they were offered is irrelevant. I own a TV and I pay for a cable connection, so I'm paying for content and delivery. If I want to time shift (and if I choose to do that by downloading the episodes from Usenet), that's my business. No one is losing anything there. I didn't download the episodes instead of buying the DVD... I wasn't going to buy the DVD. Why? Because I don't want to watch a TV series over and over again like I do with movies. I want to watch a TV series ONCE, and it's my choice to wait until the whole season is over so that I can see the whole season at once and don't have to be pissed off by being forced to wait a week between cliffhangers.

I understand that there are other kinds of copyright infringement out there that have a much less rigid relationship to fair use and timeshifting... but the point is, that there ARE some things that the **AA considers "copyright infringement" that are both legally (as I read the law) and morally (as I've explained) A'OK.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[spectre_240sx]

Their former legal advisor is, however, part of the party. I'd imagine there's something of a connection there.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Dutch_Cap]

"The market value of the content is dramatically reduced by allowing use without compensation."

Not necessarily. For example, Janis Ian claims she has actually sold more cd's thanks to Napster and its offspring. Most DVD's I own were bought because I downloaded the movie and decided I really liked it. I think p2p will usually increase the sales of quality and decrease the sales of crap. The movie and music industry prefer to produce crap because it's easier and cheaper, which is why they oppose p2p.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Stealth Dave]

It's more like reading books in the store without buying them. You got the content without paying, but the original media is still there to be sold.

No, it's really more like walking into an art gallery with a camera and taking a few snapshots with your digital camera. Sure, they've still got their prints and original to sell, but with your blown-up-printed-on-the-office's-large-format-prin ter copy hanging on your wall, then it's not really stealing. - Stealth Dave

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[rolfwind]

This argument drives me nuts. They're not selling you the paper on which the book was printed. They are selling you the entertainment/knowledge/whatever you derive from the content of the book.

What if the content isn't original. For instance, I can buy a book from Harry Lorayne & Jerry Lucas, called "The Memory Book." But they admit freely in that book, most techniques come from the past - some all the way back from Greek times (loci technique), and some more recent but not by them - it was a 19th century mnemonic guy whose name I forget.

So is that knowledge theirs to sell? I doubt it, it's public domain. Otherwise, all the new generation of memory books (which are just basic variations of these techniques) would be sued at some point in time for stealing the content and making it their own.

This would go for most how-to books, like math books (algebra, trig) where the content is public domain.

It might be better to argue that what you are paying for is presentation.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Jack9]

If I shop lifted a DVD, why do I need to buy it from the retailer?

If I recorded the music from a concert, why would I need to buy it from a retailer? There is NO reason I would NEED to buy a copy of something that I can make myself. It's an option. Just as I don't have to buy a copy of Linux but I do because it's convenient.

I do like the bread analogy. However it's not about making bread, it's about bread recipes.

There's nothing inherently good or necessary about retail distribution of music. It's akin to selling bread recipes. Yes music (as well as computer programs) are more complicated forms of information, they are still both traded information. You cannot shoplift information nor legislate it without completely obscuring it. Unfortunately that would make it unsaleable to the public!

I dont see how anyone can SUPPORT proprietary IP, as if it's a demonstrable concept.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Arker]

Actually many Swedish (and other) bands encourage their fans to share their music. It leads to larger crowds showing up for their gigs, and they get nearly nothing on record sales anyway.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Sleepy]

>The pirate party and thepiratebay are not affiliated in any way. They are to different movements.

Don't you mean... Vey are different movements. ?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Mateo_LeFou]

It's just that under that scheme, there's no reason for anyone else to buy it either. The market value of the content is dramatically reduced by allowing use without compensation.

Rubbish. If there are ten copies of Da Vinci Code II:Electric Boogaloo and 90 people mulling around trying to read it for free in the store, shelling out $20 for a copy is Very Cost-effective. The value-add is that your access is unrestricted, not affected by other people's attempts to access it. But you have to add value to 'content' to sell it. 'Cause it's digitizable. And a few hours after it begins to exist, it's usually digitized in actuality.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[ch-chuck]

Actually many Swedish (and other) bands encourage their fans to share their music

Certainly - and shouldn't a band have a choice whether to freely share it, or try to make a living from it without other people deciding it's going to be freely shared whether they want to sell it or not?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[iNTERcEPTOR-SdB]

oops! My friend informs me that was Parrot Bay. My bad.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[ceoyoyo]

Actually, the fact that someone can set up a political party to address a particular issue they're concerned about is what democracy is all about. This shows that democracy is NOT totally dead, at least in Sweden.

Some countries have one choice in elections. Some have two. Real democracies have as many as there are people to set them up.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Some_Llama]

"If I shop lifted a DVD, why do I need to buy it from the retailer?"

If you shop lifted the DVD then you wouldn't have boughten it fromt he retailer in the first place, so there is no lost sale here...

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[cayenne8]

"He says: "... it probably won't have a major impact on the upcoming election in September ...".

Hmm....is this on September 19th???

Hehehe..if by chance the election was on the 19th, with a Pirate Bay party, well, I can just imagine the final debates and rederick would be fun....ARRrrrrghhhh!!

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[no_opinion]

So you're saying everyone who pirates movies and music has no intention of buying it anyway, they're just law breakers? Well, that sounds like reason enough to shut down piratebay to me.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Arker]

Sweden, until rather recently, had one of the more enlightened copyright laws around. It explicitly required authorisation only for *commercial* reproduction. Making a copy of a cd, book, or whatever and giving it to your friends was never illegal.

Well, of course once the *AA found out about that they had a tizzy fit, and funnelled an unknown, but apparently substantial amount of money to Sweden, funding the Antipirat Byrån and some other organisations, as well as bribing lots of politicians. They haven't had the kind of success they've been hoping for, but they did manage to change the law to prohibit unauthorised non-commercial copying. A rather unpopular move with the voting public, I might add, which is increasingly resentful of the swedish politicians who have a pattern of voting in stuff that's unpopular with the citizenry but popular with wealthy foreign lobbyists. Politicians are traditionally held in VERY high regard in Sweden, and there's an overwhelming tradition of people trusting them, viewing them as experts, and assuming that if they do something like this they must know best. That tradition has been quickly eroding, by incidents like this. Before that law was hustled through in the back rooms, very few people were actively thinking about the issue. Afterwards, a significant movement started to form and demand that their liberty be restored.

Anyhow, they did manage to technically make filesharing illegal there, and there was a test case a few months back. It was reported that, basically, if the court didn't impose a fairly harsh sentence, the police would not enforce the law again. As I recall, the court did not go mad, and therefore it was widely assumed afterwards this was essentially a dead law. They can, of course, write someone up for it if they happen to see it, but they cannot, for instance, breach privacy laws to get your IP over such a minor offense, so in practice it's nearly unenforceable.

I'm guessing this raid will backfire horribly for those behind it. Unless I've horribly misunderstood the law there (and not just me, the pirate bay folks, who have significant legal respresentation and counsel available) hosting the torrent files themselves is still completely legal. If a court winds up agreeing with that assessment, the pirate bay should wind up getting everything returned along with an apology and a nice fat cheque. And I don't mean that in the sense I would in a similar circumstance in the US - it should happen but it never will - I mean it's very likely. The falsely accused are normally compensated for their trouble there. If that happens, it should be rather impossible for this to be spun away - it will become another police scandal coming at a time when the police have way too many already.

So far, every effort the *AA has made in Sweden has backfired in terms of public opinion. The more attention they draw to the issue, the more support for liberty seems to arise. Won't be surprised if that happens again, although I note today that the hacks at dn.se, the nations largest newspaper, are desperately trying to spin this the other way. But then again, they've been doing that all along...

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[mapkinase]

You see democracy as a big achievement itself. It is just another political system.

This example clearly shows disadvantages of democracy.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[no_opinion]

Article 1, section 8 of the US constitution explicitly describes the rights of content creators to control their works. Congress is supposed to promote the arts and sciences so that "authors and inventors [get] the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Yeah, don't know how anyone can support a long standing concept that even made it into the document that is the foundation of the United States. Sorry for the sarcasm, but seriously!

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[itchy92]

1. Your first point is fair enough, I suppose. Although I simply meant that the value of what they're selling is in the content, not the access medium.

2a. Oh no, you've attacked my level of discourse! You've ignored the rest of the post (which is at least fairly coherent) and picked on the one whimsical statement of opinion I made. Awesome.

2b. There are many legal venues for sampling an album or a movie to see whether it's to your liking before purchase. Perhaps you use pira-- er, copyright infringement-- as a meter by which to guage your interest in a product before purchasing it, but a substantial portion of 'pirates' simply horde as much content as they can, sift through it as their convenience, keep what they want, and enjoy it without any desire to recompense the producer.

3. My contrived analogy had nothing to do with Gibson's theories. As the paragraph below it clarified (a little), it's to show that we can't always define something in the digital world as we do in the physical world. To say you duplicated content and didn't physically steal anything is like saying you rearranged bits, and didn't physically destroy anything. Both are true, but neither quite fit the physical world definitions, either.

4. I wasn't making a legal case. I still believe that it is theft; the producer creates content to entertain you at a set cost, and you acquire the entertainment without paying the cost. Theft of services, piracy, copyright infringement, whatever you want to call it. The concept is pretty much the same.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Well, that's what content companies like the *AA's want you to think. I think that people did quite well generating hundreds of thousands of books before copyrighting and content ownership ever came along.

Your statement rests on the assumption that people will write only to be paid, whereas I think most people (not all; most) start writing because they have something to say, and merely HOPE they get paid. I think that's as it should be.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Arker]

No, not really.

In order for them to have that 'choice' they would have to be able to infringe on everyone elses essential liberty, after all.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[ichigo 2.0]

There are other ways to accomplish this, but this is a nice one.

I thought participating in the democratic process to enact change was the "other way" people always mention? If there are easier ways to do it then I'm curious to hear about them.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[h4x0r-3l337]

It's even more like making photocopies at the store, then taking those home and reading them. Or do you normally download and watch your movies at the DVD store?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[moranar]

Well, there are also public manifestations and meetings when the shit hits the fan, but they're rare. There is, as you say, voting the candidate who best represents you and writing to them to make sure they know your opinions (without founding yourself a new party). You could also lobby the existing representatives to accomplish what you want. Finally, you could also terrorize the candidates. This is obviously not my recommendation, but equally obviously something that could be done.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Eideewt]

Exactly right. They're selling what's in the book. So why is it that reading it in the store is merely rude, but downloading it is a crime? They strike me as the same thing.* How can one be fine, but the other is wrong? Is it because downloading is easier? Is it just because it would be futile (and less profitable to the store) to make people pay to pick up a book in a bookstore?

* Not including uploading -- I speak only of the ones getting the content.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[bigmammoth]

yea that's why we need to build alternatives, subverting the supplier accomplishes little and results in exploitive relationships.

Pirating software does not make it free.

Better to spend our time participating. Abandon the cultural metaphor that something can be produced for consumption, instead produce for participation and participate as cultural practice.

Subvert the supplier only to these ends, ie remix audio, film, and only pirate software to reverse engineer it in an effort to make open source alternatives, create re-mixable media assets.

Accept this is a relativist position in the context of capital-based society. Make relative choices about how you spend your time, while maintain personal economic sustainability.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[/ASCII]

Technically that may be true, but they both have roots in piratbyrån. Though the pirate bay was mostly brached of as a separate organization long ago.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Eideewt]

What's the difference? Is morality a matter of convenience?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Jesus_666]

1.) Buy some reps
2.) Get them to pass some legislation for you
3.) Profit!

Note that the usefulness of this is proportional to your funds and the level of corruption in the country.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Eideewt]

I'll just reply to myself to clarify: given that what I said above is true downloading is still not necessarily right. I think that reading books in the store is just as wrong as downloading them. Or, if you prefer, downloading books is no worse than reading them in the store. Downloading == reading in the store (== photocopying, for everyone who mentioned that). In each case you're getting an author's hard work for nothing. It seems awfully inconsistent to be fine with one of the three, but not the others.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[crabpeople]

"They are selling you the entertainment/knowledge/whatever you derive from the content of the book."

So then google should charge for returning search results?
Im not against compensation for artists, and your example of a 7-11 is exactly right. Its disrespectful to walk into a convience store and read their periodicals, and leave without paying. Its DISRESPECTFUL but thats pretty much the level os societal annoyance that you are posing. People shouldnt go to jail, have their assets seized, and be given ludicrous fines for this type of thing. The entertainment industry is fighting so hard, we have to push harder back. For every work that isnt in the public domain, that should be, i will download a film.

That being said, I think the real value of art to an artist should be inspiring or invoking emotion in people. All good art has this quality. Is the music really entertaining you, or are you entertaining the music in your head?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[GigG]

Oh I'm sorry you're talking about good books. I on the other hand was talking about popular books. Though I have little doubt that even the writers of those started out because they had something to say but after getting that first one out they really just want the money. I didn't say there would be no books just fewer.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[esper]

Based on my read of TFA, piratpartiet is affiliated with piratbyrån and some of piratbyrån's servers were also seized in the raid, simply because they happened to be nearby. Assuming that's correct, piratpartiet is involved in the event, even if they have no direct ties to TPB itself.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Asphalt]

The lost sales argument aside, this is the problem I have with any music/movie pirates who justify it the way you did. "Well, I wouldn't buy that shit anyway, and I just made a copy, I didn't physically deprive them of anything." Well, 1) How pathetic must you be to waste your time downloading shit you don't value? Either that or you're lying, and enjoy getting something for free.

I think we do indeed value it. Just not nearly as much as they value it.

And since we cannot come to an agreement on how much we value it ... this is the outcome.

Also, it is difficult to figure out how much you value something until you know what it is.

I mean SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE paid $24.95 for the "From Justin to Kelly" DVD.

I watched it out of morbid curiosity, and might have paid, I dunno .... 3 bucks to do so.

However, after seeing it, I am thinking of suing for damages. It should have been a capital offense to put that thing into the public domain.

Most of the stuff REALLY ISN'T WORTH what they charge for it. But it is worth 60 minutes of background downloading, and if it stinks, hit delete. No harm, no foul.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Jesus_666]

Because sometimes all other fractions consist entirely of scumbags who'd rather kill their family than pass legislation you consider necessary. For example the German Green Party is the country's only party actually concerned about things like privacy and software patents (except for the Christian Democrats who are concerned about destroying privacy). I vote Green, not for their (rather absurd) fixed idea that nuclear power is teh evul, but because I really don't want shit like software patents happening in Europe and they are the only ones who actually care to fight against it. I accept the potential damage their policy deals to the economy as necessary collateral damage.

Yes, I'm a lobbyist. If there was a special interest party that stood in for my interests without the eco-baggage of the Greens I'd vote for them (and make lots of advertisement, so that they might get more than the neccessary 5% in the election). But there isn't and the Greens are effective, so yay for the Greens.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[EzInKy]

Congress is supposed to promote the arts and sciences so that "authors and inventors [get] the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."


The same section also states that Congress has the power to declare war. That doesn't mean they have to.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[itchy92]

The difference is that this is a separate transaction. The bookstore has already purchased the book from the publisher, who published the rights from the author. If they choose to let you read the whole book and leave without paying, that's their decision and perhaps a failure of their business model. If you download a copy, no one in the chain has received compensation, and no one enabled you to do that.

Look, I've said this before, too, but I think it bears repeating: you do not have a right to commercial entertainment. It is a service/product whose terms are defined by the publisher/producer. If you do not agree to these terms, then don't utilize the product. This is one concept that I think translates directly from the physical world to digital.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[ceoyoyo]

How do you figure this is a disadvantage?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[mog007]

You're paying for the books at the library, even if you arn't aware of it. Libraries get funding through property taxes, and sales taxes, and state income taxes. You're paying for those books, even if you never step foot inside a library.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Knuckles]

fixed idea that nuclear power is teh evul

Nuclear power is not*. But the nuclear lobby is, and the concentration of power (pun intended) and the ever-increasing police forces are, which are both needed (for security reasons) and promoted (because they are evul) by the nuclear lobby.

Don't forget that the greens are the only ones opposed to that too (well, partly. But compared to Schily ...)

* Well, at best not anymore. Today, nobody would even consider taking one of those crap reactors from the 60ies or 70ies live. But the nuclear lobby then argued that they were perfectly fine, and so I have to chalk up the improvements that were made since then to the opposition.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[mapkinase]

How is defending special interests is advantage to the country?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[itchy92]

This is one of those gray areas where I think it's hard to draw a line. What about the language they used? They merely arranged a bunch of preconceived words to create their book, right? I know it seems like an absurd argument, but where can you draw the line? The old memory techniques they cite would not have been possible if someone hadn't defined the concept of memory before them, so where does it stop?

Same with programming, music, or anything else. You are merely rearranging predefined elements to create something new as a whole. So while the memory techniques they discuss aren't original, the arrangment is, and I guess it should be subject to their copyright.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[ceoyoyo]

Special interests don't deserve representation?

Defending minorities and special interests is a critical part of democracy. Ever heard the phrase "tyranny of the majority?" The minority's interests shouldn't be put ahead of those of the majority, but they should be heard, and not interfered with if they don't conflict.

Besides, special interests often have something important to say to the majority. Sometimes they even grow into the majority. Sometimes they already ARE. If properly informed about the issue, how many voters in Sweden do you think would agree with outlawing DRM, instituting or maintaining fair use and generally telling major American media companies to back off?

Yes, the Pirate Party takes a more extreme position, but I expect their goal is to pull more mainstream parties in the direction they'd like, rather than to actually form a government. In Canada your federally funded (and allowed) advertising budget is a function of how much of the popular vote you got in the last election. The Green party isn't likely to ever form an actual government but they DID get enough of the vote to get funding for the next election. That sends two messages. They can advertise directly and reach more people AND the major political parties will see that a significant number of voters are concerned about the issue.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Harik]

For every work that isnt in the public domain, that should be, i will download a film.

Eye for an eye works for me. And yes, copyright infrignement is theft if and only if stealing from the public domain is theft as well. They just don't like getting called on that. Copyright is forever and a day because damnit we paid... er stole it from the original artist fair and square!

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[shmlco]

Fundamentally, your arguments boil down to the "Photoshop is too expensive for me" rationalization. And since it's too expensive and you'd never buy it anyway, it must be okay to steal it.

Yes, Adobe would have never sold PS to you. But by stealing and using it, you didn't pay $99 for PS Elements. Nor did you buy Paintshop Pro, nor any of the plethora of shareware products out there. Heck, you didn't even "support" open source.

Back to Gigli. By downloading it you didn't pay $19.95 for it. Nor did you pay $4.95 at the bargin bin, $3.99 for PPV, $3.0 at Blockbuster, from NetFlix, or $1.99 at the grocery store. You didn't even wait for it to be "free" on TV or cable, or check out that paid copy from the library. Nor did you do any of those things that evening for another movie you might have liked more, nor did you go to the movies, buy and read a book, and so on.

Which is why rationalizing that your actions regarding Gigli had no impact are just that. You had plenty of alternatives. But they weren't "convenient" and weren't at a price you were willing to pay.

Face it. Whenever you want whatever it is you want, and don't want to pay for it, in your mind your actions are automatically "justified"...

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[toriver]

the producer creates content to entertain you at a set cost, and you acquire the entertainment without paying the cost. ... to the creator. Just like when you buy a second-hand product from someone: No money beyond the initial purchase goes to the creator, yet more than the original purchaser benefits from the item. Any such arguments against copying is also an argument against second-hand sales.

In most cases I am not paying the creator anyway: I am paying a chain of companies (record company/publisher, distributor, retailer) that have interposed themselves between the creator and me, each taking a "cut" of the money. Sometimes a very large cut. How did these companies manage to convince the creator they were necessary in the age of digital content? They are leeches who have yet to wake up to the fact that their business model is faulty.

Not to mention that original copyright laws - a time-limited monopoly - has been twisted into an abomination that only serves the industries. Seventy years after the creator's death? Combined with "work-for-hire" clauses which effectively makes a company the "creator"? Society is not served by that, only the media megacorporations.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[mapkinase]

"deserve representation": Not at the level of parties.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can put any kind of spin on this that you'd like, but it doesn't change the validity of my core arguments. You'll notice that I avoided any mention of software titles, but since you brought it up, I'll address your point.

Photoshop is a standard. I am not in the graphic design business... at all, by any stretch of the imagination. If I was, I'd buy Photoshop. I know how to pirate Photoshop, but I wouldn't do it for my business. If I'm making money off of a product, I'll buy it, that's a no-brainer. Back to the issue of a "standard". I didn't make Photoshop a standard. When I'm faced with wanting (yes, WANTING, not NEEDING) to do something to a jpeg or tiff or whatever, or if I need to import RAW images from a camera, or especially if I need to read a PSD file that someone has, I might be inclined to use Photoshop. I own Photoshop Elements, so the argument that I didn't/wouldn't buy it is specious, it came free with some expensive hardware I bought about a year ago. The fact of the matter is, since "everyone" uses Photoshop, it's the simplest and easiest thing for ME to use. Adobe Photoshop isn't FOR me, but I'll use it when it suits my needs. Now, you may have a moral problem with that. I don't. Why? Because (as you so eloquently put it) they didn't lose a sale. I wasn't going to buy Photoshop. Your ludicrous argument that I also didn't buy Paintshop Pro is completely off the beam. If I had BOUGHT Photoshop I wouldn't have bought Paintshop Pro. Get real. The fact of the matter is, since Photoshop has done their best to become a global standard, they are also going to have to face the fact that there are people who want to do something in their arena and not pay the entry fee. Again, I didn't bring up software, you did.

Back to Gigli. You're right that I didn't pay X, Y, Z or even BLUE for Gigli. That's because $19.95 wasn't the right price, nor was $5, $3, or even $2. As for not waiting til it was available free, that's not entirely true. I pay for cable. I also have premium channels, specifically HBO, Showtime, and Starz/Encore. Gigli may well have been shown on those channels, but that's not relevant to my point. Whoever is offering Gigli to me at a given price is selling me the chance to watch (or own, or whatever, depending on the specifics) Gigli. I don't want to watch Gigli... I want to see "what the big deal is" about how craptacular it is. That probably means about 15 minutes of rapid-fire fast-forwarding to catch some choice one-liners. I'm not willing to pay for that. Period. Now, you clearly take issue with that. I don't. That's why I do it and you don't. Congratulations, you've successfully proven that you aren't me. Want a cookie?

I'm not rationalizing, I'm explaining how a preceding argument didn't hold water. I know I had plenty of alternatives and that none had the appropriate perceived "value", that was the central thesis of my point. Something that may not be worth actual money might be worth 30 seconds of my time. Re-read what I wrote.

You can play your little word games about me just taking what I want when I want it and it being "justified" in my mind, but I gave very specific examples, tailored to illustrate the limited circumstances under which "copyright infringement" was "OK in my mind". YOU are the one who claims that means I take whatever I want when I want it and think that's fine. YOU are the one making sweeping generalizations and "justifying" why the behavior I described is "wrong". Thanks for playing though.

P.S. What does the MPAA pay you per hour? I might want to take a second job so I can afford to buy Gigli.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[itchy92]

If the terms of the sale explicitly prohibit resale, then yes, you are guilty of copyright infringement. Otherwise, no, you can do anything implicit in the terms of sale, and it will be the copyright holder's fault for not properly protecting his/her work. My whole argument in this thread is that you should respect the terms of the rights-owner, or simply not utilize their content, plain and simple. I'm not saying I agree with their terms all the time, but I don't say "fuck you" and take what I want to anyway.

This is an inaccurate sentiment. It's not the middlemen who are at fault for not "waking up", it is the artists/content creators. If I can't figure out how to utilize digital publishing for distribution and/or profit, while retaining my rights to my work, well, it's unfortunate, but it's my own shortcoming.

I have no argument against this. But still, the content creators are not without choice. Release your stuff under Creative Commons, or a F/OSS license, or whatever applicable license, or make up your own terms. US copyright laws only apply to works that have chosen to use US Copyright protection. As an end-user, make a choice to use only those content providers whose terms you agree with. To paraphrase what bigmammoth said in a reply further down, we don't have to play by their rules or cheat, we can just create our own game.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[itchy92]

It's also unfortunate that I can't close my tags, or remember to paste quote snippets in my posts. Sorry.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Some_Llama]

"So you're saying everyone who pirates movies and music has no intention of buying it anyway, they're just law breakers?"

No, i'm saying there is no lost sale, so that point of the parent's argument is moot.

If you mean to say that anyone who has ever downloaded a movie is completely unlawful, should be locked away and all of their equipment confiscated, I think you need to relax a bit, this isn't murder, this is watching a movie...

like back when there were drive ins and the young people who couldn't afford to drive in would sit outside the fence and tune in their radios or read lips.

Good thing IP laws didn't exist back in Da Vinci's day or you would have to pay 5 bucks to the Da Vinci estate everytime you saw an image of the Mona Lisa or flew in a helicopter.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Darby]

I wasn't making a legal case. I still believe that it is theft;

Then you are still wrong. 100% absolutely wrong. Seriously, if you are going to base your entire viewpoint on a "belief" that is demonstrably false, then why would any reasonable person lend any credence whatsoever to what you have to say? You've already demonstrated that you don't know what the word means, that you don't care what it means, and that you have a complete and total disregard for the facts of the matter.

Sorry, but mindless belief in nonsense is one of the primary problems with a society like ours which is based on the requirement that the public be informed.
Your efforts to disinform the public have no possible positive outcome.
Please don't bother trying to claim that this isn't what you are doing. Idiotic lies like that get very tiresome.

The concept is pretty much the same.

If that were true, then there wouldn't be entirely different classes of laws that apply to them.
Again, your "beliefs" are meaningless, and in this case they are *wrong* It isn't a question of a difference of opinion, or a religious belief where the truth is unknowable by design.
You are wrong on every level and in every conceivable way.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If noone bought any books but everyone went to the library to read said books, would the library be considered pirates and be responsible for the "loss of income", raided and all the stacks confiscated?

Well, for that to happen, the library would have to buy many copies of the books at the regular price anyway...

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[NMerriam]

The difference is that this is a separate transaction. The bookstore has already purchased the book from the publisher, who published the rights from the author. If they choose to let you read the whole book and leave without paying, that's their decision and perhaps a failure of their business model. If you download a copy, no one in the chain has received compensation, and no one enabled you to do that.

You clearly don't know anything about the book selling business. Book stores don't pay the publisher until long after they've sold the book at retail, and if they never sell the book they simply destroy it.

So yes, it is entirely possible for you to walk into Barnes & Noble, read a book for free, and then they destroy the book and nobody ever gets paid for it. The publisher is still stuck with the expense of printing, promoting and shipping the book, though!

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[AK Marc]

So perhaps it is not THEFT in the traditional sense, but it is THEFT in the "I'm taking something that I'm not authorized to take" sense.

"Taking" in a legal definition requires that the person subject to the "taking" loses something. If I make a copy of something, no one has lost anything. New things have been created, not destruction or loss of something someone once had. Since I can't "take" through a copy, I can't "steal" or "commit theft" through a copy. I think you misunderstand why people object to the use of the words "theft" and "take." I object because it is simply a wrong use of those words. You might as well call it rape. "I raped the record companies today." "Let's go rape some songs." No more wrong than saying a copy is a "theft" of a song.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[shark72]

"How did these companies manage to convince the creator they were necessary in the age of digital content? They are leeches who have yet to wake up to the fact that their business model is faulty."

Hi there. I have a pretty good singing voice, and a sheaf of paper with some lyrics that I wrote. I would like your help in:

• Securing a studio and some session musicians;
• Finding an engineer and mixer to create a commercial-quality recording;
• Publicity photos, and wardrobe and makeup consultants, so I can get some attention amongst the thousands of other pretty people who are vying for attention;
• Getting my music reproduced on CD and distributed to thousands of radio stations (and I also want somebody to call all these radio stations to pester them to play it);
• Some publicity, so that magazines and newspapers will write about me;
• Some advertising and promotion -- and I don't mean that "put it on P2P and let people spread it via word of mouth" promotion that everybody gets for free. I want real advertising and promotion.
• Arranging some concert gigs to promote my music -- including booking, transportation, and all the various minor expenses and details.

I don't want to spend any out-of-pocket money on this, since, like most struggling musicians, I don't have any. If I get a record contract, the record company will take care of all the above. They'll cover the expenses. Worst case is that I'll make no money; if the record loses money, I won't have to pay them back. And, no, I'm not interested in just putting my stuff on Magnatune and hoping to make a few hundred bucks a year. Just as you would like to reach your full potential at your choice of profession, I would like to do the same.

But since all the people who do that are unecessary, it wouldn't be fair for you to ask for any sort of payment for your time and effort in helping me accomplish all those. After all, that would make you just as much as a "leech" as they are. So, what do you say?

"Not to mention that original copyright laws - a time-limited monopoly - has been twisted into an abomination that only serves the industries. Seventy years after the creator's death? Combined with "work-for-hire" clauses which effectively makes a company the "creator"? Society is not served by that, only the media megacorporations."

This is correct if you don't include the many individual rightsholders whom copyright law has served. All cats are white, except those that aren't.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[RedWizzard]

It's "theft" only in the "the industry wants to abuse words for scare-mongering while insulting their lawful customers by putting unskippable 'Don't be a thief' shit at the beginning of my DVDs" sense.

Yes. Since they are so keen to get an emotive response I think we should start refering to copyright protection as rape. Maybe then people will stop trying to defend the use of "theft" to describe it.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Jack9]

That's an interesting bastardization of what the Constitution actually says. More importantly a nuclear armament would technically be something a US Citizen should have a right to bear, right? Referring to centuries old legislation INACCURATELY to argue a contemporary issue is absurd on its face.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

For example, Janis Ian claims she has actually sold more cd's thanks to Napster and its offspring.

I'm sure some artists do benefit from the advertising effect. People benefit from charity when there's no obligation to give as well, and I can imagine that artists with a certain level of support - enough that word of mouth will widen exposure significantly but low enough in profile that they wouldn't receive that exposure otherwise - will benefit in that way.

But for everyone I personally know who uses P2P as a preview and really does buy the CD/software/whatever to support the artists, I know closer to 10 who just rip people off. If this is the situation when it is illegal to rip music, I see no particular reason to believe that fewer people would take without giving back if it was legal.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Exitthree]

I believe, but am not exactly sure, that the First Sale Doctrine applies regardless of whether or not the copyright owner wishes the work to be resold. The only exception to this is when the work is contained in a medium protected by the DMCA, in which case, reverse-engineering the container to allow for resale would be prohibited.

The same is holds for Fair Use exemptions, which are provided without the consent of the copyright owner.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[node 3]

They're not selling you the paper on which the book was printed.

Yes, they are.

They are selling you the entertainment/knowledge/whatever you derive from the content of the book.

No, they aren't. If I buy a book and never read it, do I not have to pay? Or conversely, if I read a book someone else bought, did I steal from them?

How pathetic must you be to waste your time downloading shit you don't value?

There are a lot of things I value which I will never buy. How pathetic of you to not understand this simple fact.

If you delete a bunch of vital information on a company's server, would you use the defense that "I didn't physically destroy anything, I just realigned some bits on a hard drive"?

1. Destroying data is different from copying data.
2. You didn't have permission to access the corporate server, while you did have permission to access some p2p server

Of course not, because the typical /. demographic understands that you can't apply laws and governance of the physical world to the virtual, technology world.

First thing you got right.

So perhaps it is not THEFT in the traditional sense, but it is THEFT in the "I'm taking something that I'm not authorized to take" sense.

It's not theft in any sense. It's copyright infringement. The problem with calling it "theft", since it does share *some* characteristics with theft, is that you end up attributing the characteristics of theft which do *not* apply.

The *only* reason the concept of "theft" exists at all is because of the limitations of physical reality--specifically that physical objects can be taken away from someone, and that a thief cannot just make a copy, but must take the actual item.

The problem with copyright, and other forms of so-called "Intellectual Property" is that they are not physical, objective absolutes, like physical property is. The idea of IP is a convenience, which provides for a mechanism to encourage people to create. Yes, there will always be artists, but sometimes artists have ideas which they cannot afford to see through to creation, and the people with actual property (cameras, props, film studios, theaters, etc) are subject to the physical reality that if they don't recoup the cost of their physical property, they will use it up and be left with nothing (let alone the fact that they have the right to make a profit as well).

That's the benefit of IP. The drawback is, as you already stated, but then backtracked on, is that it's not a natural, actual, thing. It's a concept. Once you put IP on the same footing as physical reality, you are contradicting reality, and whenever you do that *someone* has to pay. In the case of IP, it's the consumer who is unfairly forced to pay and the IP owner who unfairly benefits. That's why the only reasonable, rational, way to treat IP is as a separate concept, which grants a limited (both in time and scope) monopoly to the IP owners, giving them an incentive to create and an opportunity to profit, while still respecting the laws of reality.

Current IP laws are far-and-away out of touch with reality. Until that discrepancy is addressed, why should *any consumer whatsoever* respect the concept of IP, if it violate reality only in a way that is detrimental to them? The worst thing a law can do is violate reality. Sometimes laws must do so, but when they do, care must be taken to keep the law just and fair. The worst thing the people can do is support a law that only works against their best interests. In the case of current IP laws, both of those problems come into play. You're going to have to address those two issues before you even *think* of extolling the virtue of IP, or condemning the IP infringer.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[informatico]

Why not use Freenet to host ed2k links and bittorrent files? I'd expect Freenet sites would be harder to attack ;).

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Jesus_666]

That's true. Now if someone would find a way to produce cheap, reliable, clean power (note that modern nuclear power techniques would allow for all that, even recycling most of the nuclear waste) without a positively evil lobby behind it (er, nuclear power still needs to work on that one)... Then gain, the same person would probably also solve unemployment, make trains show up on time, turn afternoon TV programs into something worthwile to watch and talk Microsoft into handing over the API documentation.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[cliffski]

I agree 100%. Unfortunatly there is a whole subculture, usually amongst teenagers that think that all software and data should be free. Copyright infringement has been devalued in the popular media to the point where many people dont see the harm that it does. Invariably those who churn out the 'copright violation isnt theft' bull dont actually rely on making digital content for a living, or are clueless about how the market system works in their industry. My personal hatred is those who say "nobody owes you a living" when I point out that people should buy, rather than steal my games, if they like them enough to want the full versions. apparently my counter response of "nobody owes you my games" goes right over their head.
Its refreshing to see some posts from slashdotters that understand the rights of the content creators, and why they must be defended.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[S3pulchrav3]

Get bent you narc.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[cliffski]

so if theres a freely available demo of a product, then you CAN sample it, and have no rights or justification for taking it without payment. agreed? So if there is a demo of photoshop, getting a warez copy is totally unjustfied.
Besides, if the customer cant tell how good the product is, thats the sellers problem. I cant justify stealing a ferrari to give it a test drive. Its the ferrari owners discretion as to under what conditions he lets people sample HIS product. Nobody owes you a ferrari test drive.

You cant criticise lawyers AND use legal fine print in the same argument. Argue semantics all you like, but downloading a full copy of something that you have not paid for and which is not free sounds like theft to everyone except the downloader trying to justify his actions.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[cliffski]

part of the real value of art is paying for the artists food and rent. Artists arent all independently wealthy.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[cliffski]

"There are a lot of things I value which I will never buy"

yet somehow you believe you are entitled to own them. Ill wager this isnt true of physical goods. So basically you will pay people to make physical goods, but not any goods that can be stored digitally. Are computer programmers so beneath carpenters in your estimation for a reason?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[gnud]

So perhaps it is not THEFT in the traditional sense, but it is THEFT in the "I'm taking something that I'm not authorized to take" sense.

Ay, there's the rub.
Some people dispute that this should be called theft. The whole "intellectual propery" is more imposed by laws, and less "natural" than laws againts physical theft (they argue).

For an interesting read, go to http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt (Cory Doctorow's talk about DRM at MS. It starts by outlining copyright history).

PS: I agree completely with your last paragraph :)

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Blockquoth the AC:

That doesn't mean that I am against what you said, it only means that you cannot be friendly or kind to this kind of people. They don't deserve any rights because they would gladly restrict ours to the point of being useless.

Please stop generalising way too far. The intellectual property laws implemented throughout the western world apply just as much to the part-time musician earning a bit of extra money to see herself through college, or the guys who write software in small businesses and make enough to live on but not much more. The whole world is not the MPAA, RIAA, or similar organisations. In fact, those organisations act for a rather small proportion of the people who make a living through creative work and rely on the protections copyright and the like should provide them to guarantee their return on investment.

Your concluding statement is demonstrably false, simply because I write software for a living and don't wish to see your rights reduced to nothing.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[cliffski]

hey coward, ever considered that someone who disagrees with you MIGHT not be an employee of the MPAA?
And whats with the "Ill buy if if i make money with it" defense? So productivity software is fine, but entertainment products must be free to everyone? that justification is so flimsy its laughable.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[TWooster]

You're pretty much correct, but there's more to it than that.

The RIAA and their ilk are stuck in a somewhat out-moded business model. They aim for the hits, and take massive risks on untested individuals/bands. The problem is, as society allows us to become more selective in our tastes, become more individualistic (by way of technology that enables obscurity), the less their business model works. They've created a pop culture, because it worked at the time, but we are enabled now to move away from that, and that doesn't work for them.

Look at the way performance has changed over the years:

Early: Selection was limited to local music or traveling bands. No recordings.
Next: Recordings become more wide-spread. However, musical genre's are pretty standardized and recordings are closer to localized. We begin to see the separation of the wheat from the chaff in terms of hits versus non-hits.
Next: Media hits its next big plateau, with TV, radio, CDs, etc, as distribution mediums. Cross-advertisements, constant struggle for listener time, the hits have to be that much "hittier" in order to sustain a business.
Now: The Internet has come into full swing, accessibility (even in terms of media samples, not even full-blown downloads) has increased to the point where people can seek out new music much easier. As a consequence, people's tastes have diverged. Now they are empowered to spend more money on a more diverse musical collection.

We're hitting a critical mass. The advertising meccas, the product placement and the consolidation of mass-media is slowly disintegrating as the social structure, especially around media, is becoming less monolithic. Choice choice choice. Hundreds of cable channels, foreign movies and back-catalogs, thousands of small no-name bands. Anyone with a 4-track DAT can put out a decent demo. Recording tech has gone down in price, indies have sprung up and are now becoming "mainstream" in-as-much as people are more willing to buy. It's no longer just for people in the "know". The line between the snobs and the slobs is slowly vanishing.

Unfortunately, all of this means less attention and less money for the hit-makers. They simply aren't as valuable anymore. Music has become an easily produced, recorded, and even advertised commodity (the internet, MySpace for one, global-spreading word-of-mouth for another). This is distressing for an industry that thrives on controlling first: what's commonly cool, and second: what's released, and then re-absorbed. Things are becoming, for lack of better researched terms, either more communistic or more anarchistic, all of which has been enabled by recent strides in technology.

The fact is, it's not that hard to do all-of-the-above (your list). Any large city that a band would be attracted to has the social networks in place to get you going where you need to go without signing a sell-your-soul contract. Being social, working the scene, making yourself heard, and working your fricking ass off to do so is part of being a musician.

So now I feel conflicted. At first I thought I was sticking up for the little guy, but now I find not only the RIAA outdated and outmoded, but I find the bands that want to sign-up for such a tour outdated and outmoded as well. I guess I dislike both.

Sorry about the rant, now to more firmly address a few things you said:

-- Most struggling musicians know people. If you're so much of a loner that you can't make friends in the industry in which you've chosen to work, there's very little likelihood of lage RTI for a major record label. You'll probably flake out.
-- Reaching the full potential of your profession has changed. See above. Mega hit-makers are slowly not as mega. If you're making music to get rich, re-evaluate your perceptions and priorities. (If you're making music for beer-money, drugs, and groupies, you're probably still in luck.)
-- Copyright extensions are still stupid. Even though they certainly have benefited some individual rightsholders, t

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

No offence, but you should really look at what typical recording contracts actually say before launching into a rant like that.

Hint: if you're part of a newbie band and things go to hell, you're probably going to get stuck with most of the expenses, not the record label.

People around here need to stop associating defending the principle of intellectual property with defending the big record labels, who are for the most part the scum of the earth.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[shark72]

"No offence, but you should really look at what typical recording contracts actually say before launching into a rant like that. Hint: if you're part of a newbie band and things go to hell, you're probably going to get stuck with most of the expenses, not the record label."

I'm aware that many recording contracts are designed so that every last staple and paper clip is charged to you. Thus, many new artists in awful contracts find that they never make money -- and if they have a particularly bad contract, then they might be stuck making more records for the label, which also probably won't make any money.

But these expenses are charged to you out of the gross sales profits. Typical recording contracts do not require that the artist whip out their personal checkbook or credit card number and partially fund the endeavor. If the record ultimately loses money (and most do; it's a highly speculative business) the artist loses nothing but time, and the record company eats the financial loss. If a new artist is suckered into a multi-CD contract and the first CD doesn't break even, the record company may not opt to drop them from their contract. In that case, the artist may "owe" the record label (revenue on the next CD would go toward the negative balance), but not in the sense that the artist has to pay them cash out of their own bank account or risk losing their house. And, this isn't a typical situation.

This is why the alternate route of getting a huge loan from the bank (assuming one has the collateral) and hiring one's own experts may be preferable for many people. If the endeavor is a failure, you must pay back the loan, but at least you were personally responsible for spending every dollar.

"People around here need to stop associating defending the principle of intellectual property with defending the big record labels, who are for the most part the scum of the earth."

And people around here really need to stop using the evilness of the big record labels as justification for piracy. I am against unfair contracts (as we all are, I'm sure). I'm also against lame rationalizations for piracy. Most people here could simply acknowledge that they pirate as a means to save money, and move along.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[StikyPad]

This argument drives me nuts..."Well, I wouldn't buy that shit anyway, and I just made a copy, I didn't physically deprive them of anything."

Well, 1) How pathetic must you be to waste your time downloading shit you don't value? Either that or you're lying, and enjoy getting something for free.

"Value" is not a boolean. There's plenty of stuff I don't value enough to buy, but I'll still borrow it from a friend or listen to it on the radio. I may even record it when it's on TV. I borrow books from the library as well. They're not completely free, since my taxes help pay for the library, but the artist definately isn't getting compensated for every person who borrows a book or CD. Conversely, some of the items at the library -- such as reference materials -- are invaluable to me, I would definately buy them if they weren't available for near-free at the library. So by that logic, the publishers have lost a sale.

Essentially people are, and always have been, paying for things when they need to, not when the selling party wants them to. The selling parties would like to change that, obviously, but I'm not convinced that such a change is either necessary or desirable for the public good. As long as there's a mechanism in place for content producers to be compensated by those who choose to compensate, I believe that's sufficient.

2) If you delete a bunch of vital information on a company's server, would you use the defense that "I didn't physically destroy anything, I just realigned some bits on a hard drive"?

There's a clear difference between reproducing something and destroying it -- namely one is commonly acceptable and the other is not. If I buy some corn, and then plant that corn instead of eating it, I can have the very same corn in my backyard that the farmer would have sold me next year had I not planted it. If I give away an ear, someone else can do the same thing. Is that fair? Of course, because I've done work to reproduce that corn. If I reproduce a CD, I've arguably done more work than the publisher. Perhaps the original content producer hasn't been compensated, but a) he was likely compensated a flat fee to begin with (royalties ARE rare), and b) it goes back to the point I made in response to the previous question: People pay when they must, not when the seller wants them to. But, you say, that's not the same thing! An artist has produced something new, not a piece of corn! True, but if I create a new vegetable, and then sell it to a farmer for exclusive distribution, whose fault is it when other people figure out they can just plant it themselves? I probably should have thought of that in the first place, and provided sufficient incentive for people to obtain it directly from me. There is merit to the idea that society should likewise provide some inventives for people to create new things (and copyright is one of those incentives), but an incentive is just that, and if it's not good enough, then perhaps we should explore alternative solutions. I would submit that copyright is "good enough" as it stands, or stood. That is; preventing other people, for a limited time, from reproducing/distributing a work for profit without permission from the creator should be a criminal offense. People who desire to compensate the creator have a means, and those who have no such desire will find other ways. Anything more is just creating more of a burden on society, and the benefits are questionable, at best. Making ALL copying a criminal act was, I believe, a mistake, in that it costs society more to make criminals out of people than to simply accept that such activity is impossible to control.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

And people around here really need to stop using the evilness of the big record labels as justification for piracy.

Absolutely. (I'm not doing that, in case it's not clear. I think my posting history makes that pretty unambiguous...)

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[10101001 10101001]

Invariably those who churn out the 'copright violation isnt theft' bull dont actually rely on making digital content for a living, or are clueless about how the market system works in their industry.

One can sell the act of making digital content. One can sell digital content at a price that most people find is acceptable. The latter, of course, leaves one having to accept that others will do the same and quite possibly make a living off the selling of your work as well.

My personal hatred is those who say "nobody owes you a living" when I point out that people should buy, rather than steal my games, if they like them enough to want the full versions.

I'm sorry you hate that. It's true, though.

apparently my counter response of "nobody owes you my games" goes right over their head.

It doesn't go over my head. But I don't expect you to make games if you're unable to live solely through sales under copyright. As much as I realize that an end to copyright will surely mean a decrease in the production of works, I can't point at the ends (more works) as justification for the means (copyright). The statement "nobody owes you a living" is merely a statement of the belief that copyright, your means of making a living (though not the only one, as I already stated), isn't a natural right. So, perhaps you should try justifying copyright itself?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[eikonos]

This argument drives me nuts. They're not selling you the paper on which the book was printed. They are selling you the entertainment/knowledge/whatever you derive from the content of the book.

That means that Libraries are stealing because they give away the knowledge for free. It also means that if I accidentally destroy a book by leaving it in the rain I should be able to pick up a new paper copy from the bookstore for free because I already bought and own the knowledge.

That's the problem with 'intellectual property'. It has to exist in a physical medium somewhere (book, CD, hard drive, etc) and up to this point in history we've had a one-to-one relationship between the physical medium and the 'license' to the knowledge. Now that we can copy a bunch of bits from one physical medium to another with virtually no cost the 'medium is the license' breaks down and we're going to have to think of a new model.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[itchy92]

I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to this; you seem outwardly hostile as though by stating my *personal* view on the matter, I'm trying to collapse society and promote ignorance.

My "efforts to disinform the public"?! Whenever I state a personal opinion, I make damned sure to label it as such, which is why that statement begins with "I still believe..." You need to chill out. Frankly, I don't give two shits about changing what anyone on this board personally believes, I just enjoy the exchange of views sometimes, although posts like yours make me wonder why I still come here to do that.

I'm not saying, "lets change the laws to reflect my belief"; I wholly understand that there are different laws to deal with copyright infringement and with theft, simply because they are TWO DIFFERENT ACTS. BUT, even on a purely semantic level, you could say that you are taking the RIGHT to COPY from the copyright holder and assigning it to yourself, to copy it as you see fit. You can argue ad infinitum that nothing is being taken, so it's not theft, and fine, maybe you don't see it that way. My point isn't to legally treat copyright infringement as theft, but to explain why I see them as closely related.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[presentt]

Aren't software vendors normally selling you a license to use their software?

Then there's a difference between taking a copy of software and borrowing a copy of a book from a library. When I finish reading the book, it goes back to the library. It is illegal for me to photocopy the book while it's in my possession; after I return the book, I can't read it anymore. With software, I'm not borrowing a copy of a CD. The CD isn't valuable. The license is. I can return the CD to a friend and still have the program on my computer--illegally, unless my friend uninstalled it from his PC when I installed it on mine.

I pirate software. A lot. Like, a lot as in multiple versions of Photoshop and Premier and Flash and SoftICE and Visual Basic and Cakewalk and ... ... ... (note to all you NSA guys reading this and then reporting me to the copyright offices: I am not legally bound to my statements, and everthing I'm writing is just to make a point. Basically, I'm denying I pirate software.)

But I know that what I'm doing is in direct contradiction with the EULAs that I was forced to accept before installing those disc images I found using PirateBay and isoHunt.

Thus, wouldn't what I'm doing, even if it isn't violating any copywrite laws or content management schemes, be still violating basic contract-accountability laws? I hit "Accept" under the conditions that I've read and agreed to the EULA.

No matter what loophole or excuse I come up with in my mind to justify grabbing a copy of Photoshop from the torrent community or burning a copy of a friend's disc, I'm still acting illegally when I install the software using a crack, keygen, or somebody else's key, simply because I accepted the End Use License Agreement.

I've told myself that Adobe isn't losing a sale of Premiere, because I wouldn't have bought it anyways. I've told myself that it's okay to use Photoshop because I tried theGimp and didn't like it as an alternative. I've told myself that the Flash 8 Pro development environment is a fair download because I can't find an alternative. But at the end of the day, I still broke the law. Plain and simple. I broke the law.

Whether I agree with the law or not... that's a different issue.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[node 3]

yet somehow you believe you are entitled to own them.

Not in the slightest. I believe no one can own an idea short of keeping it to themselves. Once they do, *reality* dictates they no longer own the copies in other people's minds or contained on other people's possessions. That fact of reality works against the need of humans to make money, and the desire of humans to create and consume art. Because reality and our desires are in contradiction, it's rational to create laws which violate reality and grant logical ownership to the content creators. Because that violates reality, it needs to be limited, both in scope and over time.

This is a case of "you can't eat your cake and have it, too", therefore a balance needs to be maintained. Right now the balance is exceedingly weighted in favor of IP owners, and against the interests of the people. This is immoral.

So basically you will pay people to make physical goods, but not any goods that can be stored digitally.

I never said I will not pay for digitally stored goods. In fact, even a cursory reading of my post should make clear that I fully *support* the idea of paying for creative works.

Are computer programmers so beneath carpenters in your estimation for a reason?

Ok, I see your problem. You are an "all-or-nothing" type who can't see shades of grey. Because I said that there are things I value, but will never buy, you think I will never buy *anything* I value (in the context of digital media). You think that because I said copyright violates reality, that I believe I'm entitled to own every digital item I desire. You think that because I treat a computer program different from a wooden deck, that I despise programmers, but value carpenters.

Your assumptions are false. I suggest you work on those if you want your conclusions to match reality.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[paeanblack]

I agree 100%. Unfortunatly there is a whole subculture, usually amongst teenagers that think that all software and data should be free. Copyright infringement has been devalued in the popular media to the point where many people dont see the harm that it does. Invariably those who churn out the 'copright violation isnt theft' bull dont actually rely on making digital content for a living, or are clueless about how the market system works in their industry.

Actually, most sensible content creators deride the use of the term "theft" in this context. "Theft" draws invalid analogies to physical property that could cause far more problems for us than moralizing away copyright violations would solve. We certainly do not want to be required to track inventory (in a physical sense); that's just one of many concepts that shouldn't be applied here...like "theft/stealing" and "borrowing/sharing".

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[paeanblack]

Of course not, because the typical /. demographic understands that you can't apply laws and governance of the physical world to the virtual, technology world. So perhaps it is not THEFT in the traditional sense, but it is THEFT in the "I'm taking something that I'm not authorized to take" sense.

If you are on the subway and the guy next to you leaves his newspaper behind, would you read it?

Is that pirating the newspaper's contents?

In this case the whole "printing content is different...with a book you get something tangible you can read as many times as you want, and that's part of the sale" argument dies. Newspapers are 100% content and 0% medium. What's the difference between reading a newspaper you didn't pay for and downloading a song you didn't purchase? Why is the first act harmless and the second criminal?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Danse]

My point isn't to legally treat copyright infringement as theft, but to explain why I see them as closely related.

Probably not as closely as you seem to think though. An idea, or arrangement of words would even be considered something of value if it weren't for laws granting exclusive, monopoly rights over such things. The law creates the thing, and the law creates the crime of infringing on the thing. It's a much newer concept than actual property laws, and I think people can recognize instinctively when they're getting the shaft.

Copyright law is supposed to be a bargain between society and the creators of works that society values. They get exclusive rights to distribute and sell the work, and after a period of time, we get unfettered access to the work as it becomes public domain. However, over the last several decades, copyright law has gotten out of control. The works that were to become public domain were snatched back, some retroactively. The copyright term is now longer than a normal human lifespan. Almost nothing has become public domain in the last 80 years or so. The content industry has screwed us, and most people didn't even realize it. But, people do realize, even if unconsciously, that copyright is a legal fiction. They don't see the bargain anymore because the bargain has been long broken, so they don't feel that they are morally wrong to download copyrighted works. Why should we be creating monopolies to charge us more for something when we get nothing in return?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[ToolPackinMama]

Schnappi (the German kid's song about a baby crocodile) became a huge multi-national hit YEARS after it began to be traded for free on the internet. Lots of people made lots of money selling a song that had been freely available for a long time.

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

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Knuckles]

The greens in Austria have always argued for a mix of a multitude of measures on smaller scales: energy-efficient building (with the goal of net zero energy), block heat and power plants (90% efficiency with natural gas, can use biowaste), small (down to personal) hydroelectric plants, solar (both thermal for water heating and photovoltaic), and so on. Basically choosing and combining the most efficient solution for a given local situation, backed up by a few big plants.

In conjunction with that, a rebuilding of the electric power economy, where each of those many small producers could feed excess power into the grid and be compensated (usually by getting a free amount of power out of the grid at other times.)

Seems entirely doable to me from a technical point of view. And economically/politically, it encourages a strong small to mid local economy of empowered (hard to avoid puns) and partly self-sufficient citizens, instead of pumping billions in the corrupt nuclear lobby (and by extension, militar-industrial complex.)

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[arose]

Look, I've said this before, too, but I think it bears repeating: you do not have a right to commercial entertainment.

Yet I have to fork over my tax money so the police can protect it? And of course copyright holders have the right to get a cut out of my backup media...

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Psykosys]

Well, 1) How pathetic must you be to waste your time downloading shit you don't value? Either that or you're lying, and enjoy getting something for free.

As pathetic as someone who drives over to the record store, listens to something there, and decides they don't like it?

And 2) If you delete a bunch of vital information on a company's server, would you use the defense that "I didn't physically destroy anything, I just realigned some bits on a hard drive"?

Irrelevant, because with piracy we're not talking about any destruction of property, whether data or otherwise.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[cliffski]

So how can i make a living through sales under copyright, if copyright is not enforced? or are you one of these people who supports a two tier system where some people pay for the product, and you and your friends convenientyly ignore copyright and just take it?
piracy is widespread, as the percentage of piracy to legit sales goes up, nobody will make a living. surely this is obvious?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[cliffski]

sorry pal, but posts from anonymous cowards that are just full of abuse arent worth the time if takes to read.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[ajs318]

Well, if you thought about shoplifting it but were physically unable to do so, chances are you'd be more likely just to do without it than buy it.

Is Charlie Dimmock harming the bra industry?
Does masturbation harm the prostitution industry?

Ask yourself some questions. Why is there no rampant piracy of newspapers, magazines and books, despite there being a photocopier in nearly every newsagent's shop? Do you think the same principle could be applied to movies and music?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[wendyg]

In the UK -- and, I believe, the rest of Europe -- there is actually a "public lending right", and there is a collection society that surveys libraries and makes payouts to authors based on the results of the survey. So apparently these countries do believe that authors should be compensated for lost sales due to library loans.

I don't buy this premise, myself -- but I'm not about to refuse the whole £40 I've been paid in PLR in my career, either.

wg

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[quux4]

So then google should charge for returning search results? ... if they want to, yes. The point is that the content owner sets the selling price. Those who don't pay that price, shouldn't get the content. So. I can write a book and give it away. Or I can set the price at $10,000 per copy. My content: my choice. At $10k/copy, I can be reasonably sure no one will buy my book. So, I might wanna come down a little.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[Sparr0]

Tell that to the hundreds of authors who publish on lulu.com (a print-on-demand print/digital media publishing company, very sweet business model and great for new authors) for the cost of the paper plus ten cents or some other trivial amount. For the most part you ARE paying for the paper, the ink, and the cost of getting the physical book to the store. This is why I can get better fiction from a $1/mo e-zine than fro0m a $7/mo magazine, AND the authors of said fiction make more of my $1 than they do from my $7.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[flogic42]

You're paying for the books at the library, even if you arn't aware of it. Libraries get funding through property taxes, and sales taxes, and state income taxes. You're paying for those books, even if you never step foot inside a library.

Likewise the originator of a cracked copy of a game must have purchased the game in the first place. He is simply sharing his copy with many people the same way a library shares one copy with many people. The fact that digital transmission requires copying is immaterial.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[geoffspear]

Actually, most sensible content creators deride the use of the term "theft" in this context.

...for definitions of "sensible" agreed to by those who think that calling copyright violation "theft" is inherently insensible.

Everyone I know who's right always agrees with me. - Lady Mal

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[itchy92]

Yet I have to fork over my tax money so the police can protect it?

You fork over tax money so that the 'police' can protect it, and whatever copyrights you may hold. You say you don't produce copyrighted material, so why should you pay? Because that's how society works. I'm sure someone, somewhere is paying taxes for something that they don't use, but you do.

And of course copyright holders have the right to get a cut out of my backup media...

Look, I don't support the RIAA, MPAA, or any organization like them. I agree that they've abused their powers to contort copyright law into a gigantic mess that seems to only line their pockets. However, I do support the individual copyright holders out there who just wanted their work to be recognized, attributed to them, and distributed according to their rules. I don't shed a tear for the latest pop-tastic boy/girl band, or the underwhelmingly mediocre rock band who owe their whole careers to the strongarm tactics of the RIAA, but I still think that their... output, for lack of a better word, should be protected under copyright as well. I won't buy their music, but I won't pirate it, either.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[arose]

You fork over tax money so that the 'police' can protect it, and whatever copyrights you may hold.

They won't give a shit about my copyrights as I'm not a big organization. I would have to pay a lawyer.

I won't buy their music, but I won't pirate it, either.

I don't do it either anymore, but I still have to pay them if I need a CDR. As long as they have rights to my money I won't agree with your stance that I have no rights to their "commercial entertainment".

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[10101001 10101001]

So how can i make a living through sales under copyright, if copyright is not enforced?

The same way chair makers make a living selling chairs even though the materials to make a chair are readily available. Obviously not all chair makers are able to continue production, and you very well might not be able to live through sales without copyright. Again, no one owes you a living. If you can't make a living on sales through copyright, I'm quite willing to accept that you'll stop making new works, just like I'm quite willing to accept that whole other industries might collapse instead of being supported through a government monopoly.

or are you one of these people who supports a two tier system where some people pay for the product, and you and your friends convenientyly ignore copyright and just take it?

I support a system in which you make content and sell it and anyone else can do the same thing. If that means you have to sell CDs of your software at $1 just like the "pirates", so be it. That's how the free market works. If you can't tell, I don't support patents either, as it's the same government interference without justification other than the ends.

piracy is widespread, as the percentage of piracy to legit sales goes up, nobody will make a living. surely this is obvious?

No, it's not obvious. It's not obvious because there's all sorts of goods that are mass produced that sell at below the price one could get for a CD and still people are able to live off the sales (think of all the goods one can buy a a dollar store for a dollar). Hell, do you think commercial pirates don't live off *their* sales of pirated software/movies? Maybe you won't be one of those who manage it. But that doesn't mean nobody will manage it. Simply put, at some point people will want to have hard copies of software, movies, or whatever. And at that point, it's invariable cheaper through economy of scale and opportunity cost for people to buy a cheap CD on the corner than it is to buy a CD-R, find what is wanted, downloading it, and finally burning it.

After all, the stuff one downloads is only free* if your time isn't worth anything. Surely iTunes is a sign that for a lot of people their time is worth something.

*It still isn't free a lot of the time because, again, you need to buy a CD-R for a hard copy, and that's something you really want for a lot of stuff.

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[cliffski]

"(think of all the goods one can buy a a dollar store for a dollar). "

god are you really this deluded?
So basically if you cant make a movie that earns its money back selling for a dollar a pop, you dont bother.
Goodbye Lord of the rings then.
I hope you dont use any commericial software (pirated or not) that wouldnt break even on a dollar a sale, because that would make you a total hypocrite wouldnt it?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[10101001 10101001]

>>(think of all the goods one can buy a a dollar store for a dollar).

>god are you really this deluded?

In that there are dollar stores? Yep.

>So basically if you cant make a movie that earns its money back selling for a dollar a pop, you dont bother.

If you're making a movie for profit movites, obviously not. No more so than if you can't make a can of soda that earns it money back selling for under a dollar a pop, you probably won't bother.

>Goodbye Lord of the rings then.

Goodbye most future Lord of the Rings movies, probably, yes. But existing Lord of the Rings movies won't just magically disappear with the end of copyright.

>I hope you dont use any commericial software (pirated or not) that wouldnt break even on a dollar a sale, because that would make you a total hypocrite wouldnt it?

Yep, I'm a hypocrite. And I want to change that by changing the world. Funny idea, eh?

Re:This is the sort of publicity you can't buy.

[toriver]

Securing a studio and some session musicians;
Finding an engineer and mixer to create a commercial-quality recording;
Publicity photos, and wardrobe and makeup consultants, so I can get some attention amongst the thousands of other pretty people who are vying for attention;
Getting my music reproduced on CD and distributed to thousands of radio stations (and I also want somebody to call all these radio stations to pester them to play it);
Some publicity, so that magazines and newspapers will write about me;
Some advertising and promotion -- and I don't mean that "put it on P2P and let people spread it via word of mouth" promotion that everybody gets for free. I want real advertising and promotion.
Arranging some concert gigs to promote my music -- including booking, transportation, and all the various minor expenses and details.

It's amazing that the music industry apparently has made you believe all of those are necessary to make and publish music. Are you in a hurry to become a cocaine-addicted star or something? R.E.M. spent years on the road before making their first album - that was what brought their dominance.

Think of Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska. One man, a basement, three instruments and a four-track recorder. Hailed as one of the best acoustic (except the electric guitar on "Open All Night") albums ever. Admittedly, he could "ride the coattails" of a success (The River) though.

And why should you as a musican have it any easier establishing a business than a non-musican? Either you become a worker-for-hire for some soulless corporation (which is what your checklist will lead to) or you actually strike out on your own. Perhaps you can publish your self-recorded and mixed (do you really need more than Garageband on a Mac?) on eMusic or Magnatune? Perhaps take up a loan for the initial finances - you know like what practically EVERY OTHER START-UP has to do?

If you are a musican, you'll have to ask yourself if you want to be a slave to the system ("work" for the music publishers you sign over your rights to) or be your own master.

The Political Pirate Party

[eldavojohn]

The lauch of the Pirate Party. The Pirate Party website (in Swedish as far as I can tell). And the English version. As you can see, it's taking forever for those pages to load (if at all). I suspect this to be due to their server reduction. The Wikipedia entry on the Pirate Party. An interview with the founder.

From the first link, the aims of the Pirate Party seem to be:

• Strike out immaterial law. Every last bit of it.
• Disregard WIPO and WTO completely. Even though the US will "go bananas" as they put it.
• Annul any further treaties or policies that hinder the free flow of information.
• Stand up for privacy. No data retention nonsense based on terrorism shills or failed **AA business models.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[Meneth]

> Strike out immaterial law. Every last bit of it.
Not every bit. They want a five-year commercial-only copyright term; allowing for non-commercial copying and use during that period.
Also, personal information and trademarks are to retain their protection.

> Disregard WIPO and WTO completely. Even though the US will "go bananas" as they put it.
Again, not completely. The WTO regulates some non-IP issues, on which the Pirate Party has no opinion.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[Stentapp]

First comment from the Pirate Party: http://www2.piratpartiet.se/nyheter/the_pirate_bay _and_piratbyran_taken_down_by_police
"Swedish police has today taken all the servers of The Pirate Bay into custody. Two operators of The Pirate Bay are in police custody, and can't be reached.

Swedish police has today taken all the servers of The Pirate Bay into custody. The police chose to do this despite the fact that the services provided by the worlds largest bittorrent tracker are fully legal in Sweden.
The servers where located in a protected area, to which the police had no legal right to enter, but this was ignored.
Piratbyrån (the Pirate Bureau), a swedish pro-pirate lobby organisation, also got their servers seized, since they where located in the same room.
Two operators of The Pirate Bay are in police custody, and can't be reached.
This article will be updated as more news come in.
14:35: 50 policemen participated in the raid."

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[JanneM]

Note that their program would invalidate Creative Commons and the GPL as well. I am Swedish, I worry a lot about the IP land grab going on, but no way will I vote for those people come september.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[Elvis Parsley]

• Strike out immaterial law. Every last bit of it.
• Stand up for privacy. No data retention nonsense based on terrorism shills or failed **AA business models.

Without getting into whether or not that's a good idea, does this strike anyone else as inconsistent? If there's no "immaterial law," that would suggest no laws preventing anyone from gathering and retaining whatever data that fell into their hands.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[lbmouse]

You forgot to include a link to their international holiday site. It is also in September. Coincidence? I think not.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[arose]

I am Swedish, I worry a lot about the IP land grab going on, but no way will I vote for those people come september.

Why not? Unless they get the majority (do you think they will?) they should make a nice counterbalance.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[BoredAtWorkWhatElse]

As you can see, it's taking forever for those pages to load (if at all).

Yeah and I'm sure slashdotting it will definitly help lowering the load.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[sesshomaru]

The GPL is copyright judo (i.e. use the strength of your enemies against them) created by a man who is fanatically anti-copyright. If you support the continued existance of copyright, you shouldn't support the GPL. It's a means to an end. The end is the destruction of copyright on software.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[squiggleslash]

Not really. There's more to Free Software than freeware. One of the things that makes the GPL so successful is the mandating of source code redistribution. With only binaries floating around, your ability to modify a program for your own needs gets a little harder, and the ability of Joe Proprietary Vendor to insert code you don't like becomes a little easier.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[JanneM]

Note that Creative Commons and the GPL would not be neccessary if their program was successful :-)

Yes, it would, more than ever. Without any protection, anyone could take GPL code, bake it into their own and refuse to share any alterations.

Removing all copyright would constitute a massive shift in power towards the largest holders.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[OECD]

Note that Creative Commons and the GPL would not be neccessary if their program was successful :-)

No, think about it. The beauty of the GPL and CC licenses is that they use copyright law to achieve ends not really envisioned by the framers of copyright law. Toss out copyrights and you have no means of ensuring that, say, the picture you took of your cat and released under CC gets attributed to you, even if someone turns it into a best-selling poster. Or that someone who builds a linux-based device returns any source code.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that PP is free to allow GPL-like constructs! We dont currently say anything about this, either way afaik. We do say that prohibiting spread of information should not be allowed, even by licenses etc.

But does that really apply to GPL? If you really care about these things, you should discuss on PPs forum. Its a party, it will do whatever its members wants it to do, but it needs to actually know what they want!

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[goldspider]

Nothing says "viable political party" quite like a single-issue platform, and a name many associate with either raping and pillaging on the high seas or Walt Disney.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[Ironsides]

To me it seems incompatible. Along with the Free Flow of Information part. If you want to protect peoples privacy, you make laws that restrict the dissemination of information about them. This information is immaterial, hence the laws about it would be elliminated under their platform. Additionaly, creating any law to restrict access to the information and protect the privacy would restrict the free flow of information.

They need to be more precise about what they want.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[homer_ca]

Many countries recognize the moral rights of artists in addition to commercial copyrights. The Pirate Party's platform is a 5 year term of commercial copyright. The right of attribution is a moral right of the artist.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[mobby_6kl]

>Without any protection, anyone could take GPL code, bake it into their own and refuse to share any alterations.

Sounds fine to me, free will remain free, without copyrights no one can "close" the source.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[isorox]

I am Swedish, I worry a lot about the IP land grab going on

IPv6 will sort that out

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, it would, more than ever. Without any protection, anyone could take GPL code, bake it into their own and refuse to share any alterations.

And what would be the point? They wouldn't be able to sell more than one copy anyway.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Quite right,

I should have said less necessary, not unnecessary!

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[Eideewt]

Technically, yes, but in practice, no one would have to give it away either. Plain old secrets are just as closed as legally protected ones.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[bzipitidoo]

You're saying we need copyright because we actually need copyleft. Without copyright there is no copyleft, as copyleft depends on copyright law.

Others say we wouldn't need copyleft if there was no copyright. Without copyright, people could do evil things such as plagiarize. There may be ways to have the protections of copyleft without copyright law. We can have laws against plagiarism and similar evils without having to base them on or associate them with copyright law.

I would prefer an incentive based system. Having only the Big Stick of law to force people to do "right" doesn't often work, especially in America where protest against and distrust of authority is part of our culture. I would like to see a system that makes not sharing about as intelligent as shooting yourself in the foot, because if you don't share then you don't get any recognition or credit, and therefore no compensation. I'm not talking anarchy-- not let's throw copyright away and replace it with nothing. What something could or should replace copyright I don't know, but I have some possibly unworkable ideas about that.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[bentcd]

Note that their program would invalidate Creative Commons and the GPL as well.
More importantly, their program would make both Creative Commons and GPL redundant. With no copyrights, everything would be in the commons, so a separate "Creative Commons" would not be necessary. The only reason we need the GPL is because commercial interests use copyright to artificially restrict their customers' freedom to do as they wish with their products.
Abolishment of copyright would be a decisive victory both for CC and GPL.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[NickFortune]

Note that their program would invalidate Creative Commons and the GPL as well.

mmm... I can see it now.

The Pirate Party passes legislation that invalidates the protection of Copyright. Everyone's favourite Evil MegaCorps open offices in Sweden to take advantage of the bonanza, rip of the Linux kernel and sell it for money because the free versions have presumably vanished in a puff of logic, and besides which they can rely on Sweden's newly repealed IP laws to protect their own closed source kernel and... you know, that doesn't sound right somehow.

Or maybe the grand master plan is to make lots of changes in Sweden, and then to sell the product in other countries... where the GPL does function and where they will be forced to release the source their changes... nah, still doesn't work, does it?

Are you sure you've thought this one through? In the absence of strong legal IP protection, is there still a need for the GPL? It seems a bit like saying, "if there were no guns, there'd be nothing to stop the bad guys from shooting people".

I'm havng difficulty worrying about this one.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[kilodelta]

I like the platform of the Pirate Party very much. We should have the same here in the United States.

But withdrawal from the WTO will only server to screw Sweden in the long run. Watch what happens to the price of Volvo ans Saab vehicles if they do.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[ajs318]

Note that their program would invalidate Creative Commons and the GPL as well.

In a land where nothing is flammable, there is no need for a law against arson.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[steveha]

Abolishment of copyright would be a decisive victory both for CC and GPL.

Not quite.

The GPL uses the power of copyright to enforce certain goals. If copyright loses force, the GPL loses force.

The BSD license is basically "you can do anything you want" and if copyright runs out, that's pretty much the situation. If copyright loses force, it's like everything is now BSD-licensed.

With no copyrights, Microsoft could take FSF software, change it, and sell the result without releasing source code. RMS would not be pleased.

The only reason we need the GPL is because commercial interests use copyright to artificially restrict their customers' freedom to do as they wish with their products.

No, another reason for the GPL is to keep anyone from taking free software, changing it, and not releasing the changes to the world.

steveha

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[Jack9]

Why would the invalidation of CC and GPL be a bad thing? CC and GPL are necessary responses to insane IP laws, not virtuous in and of themselves. Sounds like a ridiculous philosophical stance to me.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[Sylver Dragon]

I'm guessing that this is one of those "lost in traslation" issues. Just at a guess, the first point probably has more to do with patents on ideas and business methods. Along with the software patents the US has been getting. The second point is almost certainly about personally identifiable information. The two are very different.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[JanneM]

And what would be the point? They wouldn't be able to sell more than one copy anyway.

They can sell as many closed copies as they want. Nobody gets the source to it. WIth the abolishment of copyright it's no longer prohibited, remember.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[JavaRob]

This is incorrect on two counts -- first, the Pirate Party isn't arguing for abolishing copyright (just limiting it to something like 5 years), second (as mentioned in other posts below) the GPL is *based* on copyright law.

GPL uses copyright protection specifically to stop commercial interests from, say, enhancing the Linux kernel and selling the result as a closed source product. Without copyright protections, the commercial company COULD do this with impunity.

Personally, I agree that current copyright law is ridiculous, but 5 years seems way too short. I would argue for something like 40 or 50 years. There are plenty of examples of creative work that was a dud on initial release, but became a cult favorite a decade later... or creative work that was the product of decades of work, from a creator who would not be able to "just do more" to keep an income stream once copyright ended. We want to support these kinds of "master works" or "life's work" projects, not say, "sorry, but your 5 years is up -- if the word is still spreading, hey; sucks to be you".

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[flobberchops]

And my NAT router :)

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[pilot1]

You're missing the distinction between Free as in speech and free as in beer.
Everything would be free as in beer, but wouldn't be Free. The point of the GPL isn't to keep people from charging money for software, it's to ensure that the source code remains available for anyone to modify. Without the GPL, software might be free of charge, but we have no way to ensure that it remains Free.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[rolfwind]

Personally, I agree that current copyright law is ridiculous, but 5 years seems way too short. I would argue for something like 40 or 50 years.

Way too long.

There are plenty of examples of creative work that was a dud on initial release, but became a cult favorite a decade later...

A minority of examples should not hold the majority of people hostage with overly long copyrights. I say a decade is good. Five years too short and 40-50 years way too long - works tend to become culturally irrevelent by then.

or creative work that was the product of decades of work, from a creator who would not be able to "just do more" to keep an income stream once copyright ended.

Yeah, where would we all be if George Lucas "couldn't" make Star Wars 4, 5, 6 (or ep 1, 2, 3 - whatever). What a cultural travesty! Or if Sylvester Stallone "couldn't" make Rocky 6 (currently in production). Perhaps they'd get off their ass and have another original idea.

Anyway, I call bullshit. People will always want a continuation of the story by whom they perceive as the original creator. It's called having authenticity - audiences don't care about copyrights - they care about the name attached. And since the Pirate Party allows trademarks - George Lucas can make his new Starwars. He just can't rake in the cash for the old ones forever. So there is actually incentive for him to produce new stuff lest a vacuum comes in the Star Wars universe that others will decide to fill over time.

And Rowling would still have economic incentive (actually, even more so) to make Harry Potter books. So I don't see your point.

We want to support these kinds of "master works" or "life's work" projects, not say, "sorry, but your 5 years is up -- if the word is still spreading, hey; sucks to be you".

I just said how it would be done under that system.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[lordmetroid]

If you haven't noticed Volvo and Saab is now owned by GM and Ford

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[Digital Vomit]

Strike out immaterial law. Every last bit of it.

Not every bit. They want a five-year commercial-only copyright term; allowing for non-commercial copying and use during that period.

That's probably the simplest and most sensible thing that should be done with respect to copyright law. Get rid of perpetual copyrights and bring back sane limits.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[croddy]

There are plenty of examples of creative work that was a dud on initial release, but became a cult favorite a decade later...

One notable example of this is It's a Wonderful Life, which went from a 1946 flop to a holiday favorite -- because its copyright expired and it passed into the public domain.

Copyright is an obstruction to these works.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[jrockway]

> With no copyrights, Microsoft could take FSF software, change it, and sell the result without releasing source code. RMS would not be pleased.

Not true. The FSF could easily create a new license that's a binding legal contract. Something to the effect of, "If you want our trade secret, the source code to GCC, you have to make all modifications available to us. If you give this source to anyone else, you must have them sign and notarize this document."

A PITA, yes, but Free Software is still possible.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[LWATCDR]

Not exactly. Without copyrights and the GPL I could create a product say a wifi router, I could then compile a custom Linux Kernel for said router and the sell them. I wouldn't need to provide any source code at all with the product. I could use DRM and keep anyone from modifying the product. So yes no copyrights no free source required.
You would in one fell swoop make GPL into Public Domain.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Yeah, where would we all be if George Lucas "couldn't" make Star Wars 4, 5, 6 (or ep 1, 2, 3 - whatever). What a cultural travesty! Or if Sylvester Stallone "couldn't" make Rocky 6 (currently in production). Perhaps they'd get off their ass and have another original idea.

Sure he could. Just trademark Luke, Leia and Rocky and you're done - "ADRIAN! Use the Force!"

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Everyone's favourite Evil MegaCorps open offices in Sweden to take advantage of the bonanza, rip of the Linux kernel and sell it for money because the free versions have presumably vanished in a puff of logic, and besides which they can rely on Sweden's newly repealed IP laws to protect their own closed source kernel and... you know, that doesn't sound right somehow.

Yeah, they want a 5 year term, it would only be valid in Sweden (not terribly big), and who's going to buy a copy of linux for $100 when they can buy one for $10 and copy it as much as they like? Besides, what's the market value of an OS by itself? PRetty damn low.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[Lord Kano]

No, another reason for the GPL is to keep anyone from taking free software, changing it, and not releasing the changes to the world.

The GPL allows this. You can make changes to GPLed software and not release the changes to the world. If you don't release the binaries, you dan't have to release the code.

LK

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[dotoole]

And who will provide support for it? John Q Hacker might have not need it but, but companies like to have someone to shout down the phone at when something breaks.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[NickFortune]

Without the GPL, software might be free of charge, but we have no way to ensure that it remains Free.

Umm... free from what? No, really. I mean it.

I mean it's not the software that wants to be free. GNU theology notwithstanding, software doesn't give a toss. The important thing the GPL does is safeguard certain freedoms of human beings. I can't find the reference I was looking for, but Wikipedia gives these freedoms as

• the freedom to run a program
• the freedom to study and modify a program
• the freedom to redistribute the program and
• the freedom to improve the program and release the improvements to the public

Now it does this in a very outside-the-box sort of way, by using the legal mechanisms that software vendors typically use to deny these people - copyright and licence agreements - in order to safeguard same for GPL licenced code. It's like one of those martial arts that uses an opponents strength and weight against them.

It's a very clever trick. All hail Richard Stallman

Now suppose we remove all IP laws. Stallman's judo ceases to function, certainly, but so does the threat it was designed to defend against. So I still don't see a downside. Opposing the abolition of IP because it invalidates the GPL is like opposing the abolition of slavery because it would undermine the emancipation movement: probably well intentioned, but woefully missing the point.

So like I say: free for what? Freedom is a relatve concept - it's only meaningful in the context of being free to do something, or of being free from some condition. So which are the freedoms you feel are be threatened by the policies of the Pirate Party?

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[Ibn al-Hazardous]

Abolishment of copyright would be a decisive victory both for CC and GPL.

No.

If copyright is abolished - commercial interests will find another way to protect their stuff, probably with technology (eg with ties to hardware, or product activation, or part of a program's logic offloaded to a central server). Thus there is no win for the consumers, and commercial entities are free to steal Free code.

The GNU movement started over proprietary printer drivers IIRC, and the point was to get improved access to source code - and make it impossible to yank access at a later date. Abolished copyright will make it all the more unlikely that any company is going to let source code gratis/Free, because it will have become a trade secret.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[pilot1]

The important thing the GPL does is safeguard certain freedoms of human beings. I can't find the reference I was looking for, but Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] gives these freedoms as

• the freedom to study and modify a program

My point is that the GPL is no longer able to provide you with the freedom to study and modify a program if the GPL is no longer valid. Anyone could make changes to a GPL program and distribute binaries without distributing the modified source, thus infringing on the above freedom.
Whether or not this is a big deal is another discussion entirely.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[cayenne8]

"Stand up for privacy. No data retention nonsense based on terrorism shills or failed **AA business models."

Maybe they could be the Switzerland of privacy and computer freedom. The Swedish computer acct. could be analagous to the Swiss bank account...anonymous and free?

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[NickFortune]

My point is that the GPL is no longer able to provide you with the freedom to study and modify a program if the GPL is no longer valid.

mmm... You need to GPL to force people to release their changes. However that is not the same thing as providing you with the freedom to study and make changes. That's just an assertion Stallman makes to give this mechanism an apparent ethical dimension.

It isn't that I disagree with his intention, but clearly access to source is not a pre-requisite to this freedom. A legion of dedicated game protecton crackers stand as eloquent testimony to that fact.

This means the only Freedom lost is the freedom to force other people tell you how they modded your code - and I'm not at all comfortable with "freedoms" that force other people to do anything - if only because someday one of those people is probably going to be me.

Which is probably why Stallman indulged in such uncharacteristic circumlocutions in the first place. heh.

Whether or not this is a big deal is another discussion entirely.

Maybe in the context of current laws. Whether or not this would be a big deal in the context of the Pirate Party's proposed legislation most certainly is not.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[Alsn]

Who the hell would BUY microsoft products when you could just download it in a world of no copyrights?

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[pilot1]

It isn't that I disagree with his intention, but clearly access to source is not a pre-requisite to this freedom. A legion of dedicated game protecton crackers stand as eloquent testimony to that fact.

Having access to the actual source code and reverse engineering a program are two entirely different of things. Making changes to a program by reverse engineering it is several orders of magnitude harder than modifying source code that is already available.

This means the only Freedom lost is the freedom to force other people tell you how they modded your code - and I'm not at all comfortable with "freedoms" that force other people to do anything - if only because someday one of those people is probably going to be me.

The freedom in question is the freedom to make changes to GPL'ed source. The GPL in no way forces anyone who makes a change to your code to release the modified source. What it does force them to do is to release the source if they release binaries, so that users of the modified program retain their freedom to modify it.
This is what worries me about The Pirate Party's stance: the party's goal is to give everyone more freedom, but in doing so, they run the risk of removing some freedom (that is, the freedom to modify the program by means of modifying the source). Yes, it's true that one could reverse engineer/decompile/whatever the program, but that is _much_ harder than modifying freely-available source. Realistically, very few people are going to go to the trouble of reverse engineering or decompiling a large program just to make a few modifications.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[quenda]

> Why not? Unless they get the majority (do you think they will?) they should make a nice counterbalance. Isn't that what the Palestianians said about Hamas?

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[StikyPad]

Personally, I think five years is plenty. If the creator (artist/author/whatever) didn't succeed in convincing people that his creation was valuable within five years, I see no reason to support his failure. If I can't currently convince my boss I deserve to stay on, then that's my shortcoming. It may be that the company will fall apart without me, and society will be worse for it, but I don't think there should be legal protection to prevent my boss from making the mistake of firing me. Mistakes are just as important as successes; they're just not as enjoyable. Copyright is a form of welfare: Society as a whole makes a small sacrifice to prevent people from being significantly disenfranchised. It should be very limited, and should provide significant incentive for people to do better in the future.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[dfjghsk]

you can't call something a trade secret, and then release it to the public. Free Software is only "Free" because of Copyright law.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[theLOUDroom]

No, another reason for the GPL is to keep anyone from taking free software, changing it, and not releasing the changes to the world.

Well, there's a tradeoff. Yes if copyright were to disappear then companies could take GPL'ed works modify them and distribute them under whatever terms they wanter, BUT:
Whatever means the corporations are using to force us to agree to their terms could also be used to force the companies to agree to the GPL.

The GPL would still work (although not as written), but you would have to really sign it BEFORE you took posession of the work. (In the same way that one might agree to an NDA.)

So a huge body of GPL'ed work would suddenly become BSD licensed, a huge body of proprietary work would become BSD licensed, and both sides would begin anew, this time with the burden of getting actual signed contracts and lawyers involved.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[JavaRob]

For starters, it's not the creator normally who has to convince the general public that the work is good -- it's the publishers, recording companies, etc., who have an advertising budget because of the long-term earnings of the work. Regardless of the problems in these industries, they do need some money to do that, and if they're losing the revenue stream for that book/album in 5 years, they'll have far less incentive to publish works that aren't directly in the mainstream.

My wife is a writer, so let's talk about that. She recently completed a novel which took her almost 8 years to write and revise. I know of plenty of instances of people who took 10 years or more of their lives to create a work. If you remove that revenue stream for both the writer *and* the publisher after 5 years, not only would she be unable to get any kind of decent advance from a publisher (because their long-term expected revenue would be so much lower), but if she was hawking her book from a website, there's no way she'd sell enough to possibly support her. ESPECIALLY because people would know -- if you hear about a great new book, just wait a few years, and you'll be able to get it for a buck and a quarter instead of $25.

Remember, an author doesn't get squat during the years they're just writing, so even a nice advance and some royalties, say 200K, after 8 years of work means she has earned 25K/year with no benefits, before tax (which, yeah, will be rough for that one year).

And what would the world gain by her losing that copyright (and not being able to afford to write the novel in the first place)? Well, cheap paperbacks for work that IS published. But you'd have to choose between Chicken Soup for the DaVinci Code Lover's Soul and the latest Danielle Steele book with a Fabio lookalike on the cover.

Hopefully it's starting to be clear why copyright was started in the first place. Yes, corporate interests have been pushing the extension period out, not because of the creator but to futher their own bottom line. It blows my mind that Mickey Mouse is still protected.

But this isn't some kind of black/white question. Overly short copyright terms would harm society just as much, if not more, than overly long ones. If you're balancing "the music that exists will be cheap" vs. "the music I like will exist", I imagine you'd choose the latter.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[NickFortune]

The freedom in question is the freedom to make changes to GPL'ed source.

Of course it isn't. GPL'd source will remain freely available, and no one will be prohibited from making changes to that source. What you lose is the ability to force those who modify GPL source to re-licence their changes under the GPL. Which means that since the changes aren't GPL'd then you can't demand the source for those changes, and therefore you can't hack on the modified version. But nothing stops you from changing GPL source. It just loses that pardon-the-term viral quality.

What it does force them to do is to release the source if they release binaries

Yes, yes, yes. Can we take the "if they release binaries" proviso as read? I'll thank you, and my keyboard will thank you.

Realistically, very few people are going to go to the trouble of reverse engineering or decompiling a large program just to make a few modifications.

Realistically, they won't have to. Starting with the original codebase is not the same as clean-room reverse engineering. Unless of course they've made massive changes, in which case they could probably have written the whole thing from scratch for less effort.

This is what worries me about The Pirate Party's stance: the party's goal is to give everyone more freedom, but in doing so, they run the risk of removing some freedom (that is, the freedom to modify the program by means of modifying the source).

So on the one hand, I gain unfettered access to the music, literature, imagery, and software of an entire planet, mine to modify in any way I can, and without threat of legal reprisal. And the cost for that is that I can no longer force people changing my code to re-licence under the GPL?

Sorry, but that sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[C.W. Moss]

I think people need to realize that they're not using their democratic right cleverly, when their vote goes to protect the rights and riches of the few. This is exactly what copyrights on media is these days and it's a symptom of a democracy that is not working for the better of the majority.

This might not be the intention either; it just might be that most people think it's great that the wealth isn't shared equally. Afterall, this does create popstars, idols, dreams etc. for the ordinary people. I don't think it's worth it though. Why shouldn't everybody have cheap access to culture? There's plenty incentive to be a musician even without the millions of dollars, just look at old geezers like Tom Waits and Bob Dylan.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[JavaRob]

I understand that there can be a cost to longer copyright -- the trick is finding a balance.

I'm sure It's a Wonderful Life got better distribution once it was public domain. But what was the real loss to society before that? I don't think other creative work was seriously being stifled because they couldn't use clips from Wonderful Life.

Was the copyright owner simply not distributing it?

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[deblau]

With no copyrights, Microsoft could take FSF software, change it, and sell the result without releasing source code. RMS would not be pleased.

True, but try this on for size:

With no copyrights, RMS (or anyone else for that matter) could take Microsoft software, make lots of copies, and sell it for less than Microsoft. Windows for $1, anyone?

Who do you think wins that battle, Microsoft or RMS?

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[bugg]

Everyone who buys a computer and gets it bundled.

Or have you not figured out Microsoft's business model by now?

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[StikyPad]

I conceed that most creators aren't in charge of marketing their own products, but I don't view that as justification to continue the current process. Entertainment is the only industry I can think of where the content producer has little or no role in marketing their product (aside from book-signing tours, funded by the publisher of course).

However, there are very limited cases where any form of entertainment -- book, music, film, or otherwise -- is a "long term" source of income. Most books aren't even printed for 5 years; only those that are extremely popular, in which case the author and publisher have arguably already earned significant income. As for books which go out of print, the only option for would-be consumers is to obtain a used copy, which doesn't benefit the author/publisher anyway. Removing copyright would actually create new revenue streams by allowing small or alternative publishers to produce books on-demand or in small runs. Perhaps a clause of "5 years from first publication" would be more appropriate, to balance the fact that authors might spend years searching for a publisher in the first place.

people would know -- if you hear about a great new book, just wait a few years, and you'll be able to get it for a buck and a quarter instead of $25.

I think such a claim is highly specious. In most cases, the desire to "have it now" will trump any small savings made by waiting, and five years is a LONG time to wait. In any case, such individuals are more likely to buy a used copy, which means they weren't a potential customer to begin with. If people are compelled to wait that long, chances are your asking price is too high. Of course, you could always drop the price after a couple of years, which is already standard practice for most published works.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[JavaRob]

I conceed that most creators aren't in charge of marketing their own products, but I don't view that as justification to continue the current process. Entertainment is the only industry I can think of where the content producer has little or no role in marketing their product

I'm not sure if I understand this point -- which are the industries you're talking about where the content creator *is* the primary marketer for their product? Obviously marketing campaigns that involve the creator but are funded and managed by someone else (like music videos) don't count against my original point, because it still requires that 3rd party with large resources who can support a lot of creators based on the occasional huge seller. Most creators -- writing cookbooks, songs, novels, nonfiction, technical books, whatever -- are individuals or a few individuals, who almost never have those kinds of resources (unless they were one of the tiny minority who *already* had a massive success -- marketed by that 3rd party -- and *now* they have plenty of cash).

However, there are very limited cases where any form of entertainment -- book, music, film, or otherwise -- is a "long term" source of income. Most books aren't even printed for 5 years;

Really? Where are you getting that idea from? Go browse through Borders or Barnes and Nobles, or any music store. Are you seriously saying almost all of those books, albums, etc. were created in the past 5 years? That would be strange, outside of the "new releases" section.

In most cases, the desire to "have it now" will trump any small savings made by waiting, and five years is a LONG time to wait.

There's a lot money in paperback sales, of course -- basically a cheaper version of the original hardcover that's not available for a while. Obviously people do buy hardcover books, and some people would buy the copyright-protected materials when they are first released. But I know the majority of the books I read and music I listen to (and buy) are more than 5 years old, and I tend towards paperbacks when they're available. I don't want what's *newest*, I want what's *best*. I don't know what most people's purchasing tendencies are, but remember that even diminishing returns are *returns*, and the publishing houses and authors are currently depending on that money.

Really, how do you buy books? Do you buy only latest releases, or do you find an author you like based on recommendations and start reading all of their books? When I was a kid (and reading all the time) I spend my time going through stuff by (at different times) Roald Dahl, CS Lewis, Ray Bradbury, Steven King, Isaac Asimov, etc. etc., as well as authors that looked good but I've forgotten now... but never based on what was new, just what I liked. And listening to music that was mostly created 15-20 years earlier. If you like the Harry Potter books, and had a cousin who was getting to about that level, you'd buy him the first one, right? Not the latest.

It was never about "being compelled to wait that long" for a newly-released book -- there was an overwhelming number of books that looked wonderful, so of course I only chose the paperbacks if I was buying them.

So I think your gut instincts on how this would work are wrong, though I don't have the useful statistics to hand either... The other main point I'd make is asking what exactly is *lost* with a 50-year copyright, i.e., what are we sacrificing? You need to have a grasp on both sides of the equation. I can imagine laws to "rescue" content that's been out-of-print and totally unavailable for a given length of time, but that's not at all the same thing as curtailing copyright for *everything* down to 5 years (which has obvious costs for no great benefits that I can think of.. other than "punishing" Disney, which doesn't actually gain me anything).

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[bentcd]

First, I must apologize for the lateness of my reply. Been busy.

The GPL uses the power of copyright to enforce certain goals. If copyright loses force, the GPL loses force.

That will not matter since the GPL will have become largely unnecessary. While the new world without copyright will have problems of its own (see below), it will have far fewer of them than the one we have today.

With no copyrights, Microsoft could take FSF software, change it, and sell the result without releasing source code. RMS would not be pleased.

Microsoft would have the edge for all of two weeks before its source code is leaked and the world can freely use its code if it so desires. RMS wins in the end, and that's basically what he cares about.

The one drawback to no-copyrights and no-GPL is that there will be no obligation for anyone to release their source code. If you can get it, you can use it (trade secret legislation might complicate things a little), but it could take a while for it to leak out. This seems considerably less incapacitating than the complete ban we'd be facing today.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[iminplaya]

No, another reason for the GPL is to keep anyone from taking free software, changing it, and not releasing the changes to the world.

Sigh...So many of you people still don't get it. Without copyright law, GPL is unnecessary! You won't need it. So what if a company doesn't release the source. Without copyright law, there is nothing to prevent me from disassembling the code myself. Let them take what they want. Without copyright law, there is nothing to prevent me from using it anyway. I lose nothing. You all really need to think these things through.

If copyright loses force, it's like everything is now BSD-licensed.

Wrong. Everything would be brought into the public domain immediately...where it belongs. Copyright law only delays the inevitable.

Re:The Political Pirate Party

[iminplaya]

GPL uses copyright protection specifically to stop commercial interests from, say, enhancing the Linux kernel and selling the result as a closed source product. Without copyright protections, the commercial company COULD do this with impunity.

Care to explain how you can maintain "closed source" without copyright law?

Strange political power

[Jarlsberg]

There's nothing really strange about it. Anyone can start a political party, and anyone who does so can get elected provided they get enough votes. Hell, if someone started a party like this in Norway, I'd vote for it.

Re:Strange political power

[ChTh]

Do you really think people accustomed to taking things for free and financing their business with porn ads should handle distribution of your tax money?

Re:Strange political power

[Jarlsberg]

That's a laugh. At least they don't hide where their money is coming from ;). And about taking things for free and sharing it freely -- isn't that what all socialist goverments aspire to do?

Re:Strange political power

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

they couldn't do much worse(than those already in power).

Re:Strange political power

[JanneM]

Do you really think people accustomed to taking things for free and financing their business with porn ads should handle distribution of your tax money?

What's wrong with porn ads if they're legal? Either something is legal, and thus ok for society as a whole (as opposed to any particular slice of society), or it's not ok for society as a whole, in which case it should be made illegal.

To put it another way: don't you want the people in charge to do the utmost not to waste your money unnecessarily? An ad-supported government should have fiscal conservatives everywhere salivating in anticipation.

And salivating further, no doubt if the administration gained further income by auctioning image, video or live access to a yearly interdepartmental gay/straight orgy. Anything to reduce the cost of government, right?

Re:Strange political power

[tinkerghost]

Hmm, check how many bankruptcy filings there have been from members of congress. Then look at the number of failed businesses they have had....
A bunch of porn profiting pirates who are breaking even seem like a big improvement to me. At least they seem to understand that you have to have revenue in order to spend money.

Re:Strange political power

[pipatron]

Though this should be obvious it deserves to be mentioned: The Pirate Bay and the Pirate Party are not run by the same group of people. They just happen to live in the same country.

Re:Strange political power

[oneandoneis2]

I'd take politicians funded by porn ads over the bastards taking a chunk out of my salary any day :o)

Re:Strange political power

[squiggleslash]

You mean they might replace income tax and VAT/sales tax with a tax on porn?

Good point. I wouldn't want that either.

Re:Strange political power

[KiloByte]

There is one problem in your argumentation, I'm afraid.

The only non-negligible contenders to the Repunazi Party, the Commiecrats, are as bad or perhaps even worse. They're even more corrupt, even more populist (although the Republicans really went forward in this department during the last few years). Just think: whom do you thank for DMCA?

In the US, it's more like 3% of us and 97% of them.

Re:Strange political power

[rbochan]

It would beat the hell out of an government full of negligent cronyism, criminals, and that uses its military to invade a sovereign nation as an investment scam for Haliburton and the Carlyle Group.

Re:Strange political power

[Malakusen]

Today's State of the Union address is sponsored by Vivid Porn Productions.

I might actually start watching the SOTU again if they did that...

Re:Strange political power

[Asphalt]

Do you really think people accustomed to taking things for free and financing their business with porn ads should handle distribution of your tax money?

Only if the advertised porn sites contain a sufficient girl-on-girl selection.

Otherwise, no.

Re:Strange political power

[Pig Hogger]

Hmm, check how many bankruptcy filings there have been from members of congress. Then look at the number of failed businesses they have had....

Anglo-saxon politicians are, for the most part, failed businessmen.

Anglo-saxon culture views the State/Government as something bad, for which it is demeaning to work for. So the brightest people tend to work in business, whilst those unsuccessful in business but with still an ounce of ambition will be drawn towards politics, where they will apply their businessmen credo, which is to line their pockets.

It's okay for a private businessman to line his pockets; that's what businesses are for: fatten their executives, and, if there's some left, the shareholders.

But it cannot work for the Government, because it acts for the whole society, but politicians act like businessmen and still stuff their pockets at public expense...

Re:Strange political power

[twistedsymphony]

I think you hit the nail square on the head with that one...
The fact that the voter turnout for american idol was far and wide better then that of the last presidential election is proof enough that the REAL election winner is APATHY due to lack of a decent choice.

Re:Strange political power

[Coeurderoy]

No I do not think those people should, but then it would not be a very different from the current situation where the people in charges are accustomed to get "support" from wholesome organizations like:
Weapon Dealers, Casino Owners, Fiscal Paradise based Finance house, and for the more depraved one Microsoft.

Or put in another way: What the PB people are doing is "very very very naughty", but they can only get support because they create an opening in a situation that would otherwise be totaly evil.

On the other hand I would really be happy if ALL the P2P sites would stop right now at once, and all "illegal" DVD/CD ripping also, just so that the m****s that are still using "the obvious choice" would be "feeling the pain" and maybe start asking some "hard questions".

Re:Strange political power

[Elvis Parsley]

I was about to post something allegedly clever about how you were already giving the pornographers a chunk of your salary, but then I remembered the context of the discussion. We're all downloading our porn for free!

Re:Strange political power

[Guysmiley777]

Hell, that's a less corrupt system than the US currently has. They probably wouldn't even take bribes, err, campaign contributions from Concerned Religous Zealots Who You Better Do What They Pay You To Do Or You Won't Get Reelected of America.

Re:Strange political power

[pipatron]

No, the website for the Pirate Party was still up and running. They are, however, suffering from some heavy overload at the moment, mostly due to slashdot I think, but also because of all the new members they have got the last hour. :)

Re:Strange political power

[Politburo]

American Idol loves to say "That's more votes than the last election" or some other bullshit. What they conveniently leave out is that you're allowed to vote more than once for American Idol.

Re:Strange political power

[Peter La Casse]

Either something is legal, and thus ok for society as a whole (as opposed to any particular slice of society), or it's not ok for society as a whole, in which case it should be made illegal.

That's a popular view, but I am unconvinced that just because somebody, or even the majority, believes that something is not ok for society as a whole it is ok to make that thing illegal.

Some things have negative effects on society as a whole that, if made illegal, would leave society even worse off. Example: the War On Some Drugs. Society as a whole is better off when people don't ruin their own lives, but it is even better off when the government doesn't ruin twice as many lives in its attempt to stop people from ruining their own lives.

Individual rights sometimes supercede society's best interests. Example: it is best for society as a whole for a genius to be as productive as possible, but she has the right to waste her potential by flipping burgers for a living or engaging in dangerous behavior (e.g. skydiving) if she so chooses. (Note that "copy" rights are not "rights" in this sense; their only reason for existence is society's best interest.)

Re:Strange political power

[Vo0k]

Surely more trusted than ones that finance their party with weapon trade and invading random countries. Or by making up laws that prevent any competition to those who fund their activity.

Re:Strange political power

[CrosseyedPainless]

Do you have a blog? Because you've made me laugh out loud twice already.

Re:Strange political power

[JavaLord]

American Idol loves to say "That's more votes than the last election" or some other bullshit. What they conveniently leave out is that you're allowed to vote more than once for American Idol.

There are other dynamics at work as well:

1. You can vote from your phone for American Idol, you have to trudge out to the polls to vote for the next president, on a work day on top of it.

2. Politics are more difficult to follow then American Idol. Almost everyone can watch American Idol and decide if someone can sing well or not. How many Americans do you think understand or care about foreign policy? How many care about fiscal policy? How many care about Social Security other then it 'being there' for them?

3. American Idol tends to be more 'tribal'. What I mean by that is it often puts people of different ethnic backgrounds or gender against one another, and the media plays upon those differences to encourage more votes. For president, you typically end up with rich WASP male #1 vs rich WASP male #2.

How many women do you think will turn out to vote for Hillary just because she's a women in 2008? Don't discount that type of motivation from a previously disenfranchised group, it's a strong one.

Re:Strange political power

[DataCannibal]

As opposed to a real government who...er...takes things for free (income tax) and finances it's business through ..er.. taxes on betting, alcohol and tobacco.

Excuse me for being a bit dim but I fail to see a great deal of difference.

Re:Strange political power

[jongleur_kit]

There are several reasons why comparing American Idol votes to presidential votes is an apples-an-oranges comparison: 1. You can vote multiple times in American Idol. Many people try speed-dial and vote over and over. Whether the votes get ~counted~ I don't know, but the vote count you see may contain dupes. 2. In American Idol, anyone with a phone can vote. No age limits, etc. 3. With American Idol, you can vote by phone, from the privacy of your home and without leaving your couch. 4. With American idol, the time between "thinking about voting" and voting can be instant. You can't just vote for president when you feel like it.

Re:Strange political power

[Guysmiley777]

you have to have revenue in order to spend money

Nonsense! You don't need revenue when you can just go further into debt! Who gives a crap about the suckers that have to shoulder the burden in 100 years? I'll be dead anyway!

/cry

Re:Strange political power

[owlnation]

...and do you seriously think that sending 50 police officers, paid for by Swedish taxes, to arrest and intimidate individuals with no history of violence is a responsible and appropriate use of money?

Re:Strange political power

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for Diebold,

We are allowed to vote more than once for the Presidential election.

Re:Strange political power

[clickclickdrone]

Do you really think people accustomed to taking things for free and financing their business with porn ads should handle distribution of your tax money?

At least you'd know where you stood with them unlike the current incumbents who say one thing and do another.

Re:Strange political power

[A beautiful mind]

That stands true to the election aswell. *cough* diebold *cough*.

Re:Strange political power

[TheLink]

Maybe if you could vote "No" to candidates there'd be a higher turnout.

A "No" vote = -1. "Yes" = +1.

The candidate with the most positive total or lease negative total wins.

In current "popular" systems if you don't like a candidate you have to vote for some other candidate or don't vote at all - this distorts stuff significantly - you could have a situation where a candidate wins even though hated by the majority, because the voters spread their votes amongst the other candidates. After a while the voters might end up just flip flopping between two fairly hated candidates, or give up entirely.

With my proposal if people really hate someone they get to "pull them backwards", rather than trying to figure out who else to "pull forwards" and hopefully the hated one doesn't win.

The popular method probably works fine if the _majority_ actually _like_ the candidates and want to _vote_for_ them, but it doesn't work if the majority don't. And perhaps the latter is true in the USA?

Re:Strange political power

[kimvette]

Uh, how the hell is that a troll? That you disagree with me does not make my opinion a troll. Actually my post rated a funny, at worst (which was really what I was trying for). Stop throwing away mod points. Want to use your mod points wisely? Mod up some very insightful topical post.

Re:Strange political power

[rhild]

But can the dead vote for American Idol?

Re:Strange political power

[ptelligence]

True the dead can vote in Florida, but can they win? http://www2.jsonline.com/election2000/nov00/spot08 s1110800.asp

Re:Strange political power

[mOdQuArK!]

The instant-runoff form of voting is also an interesting alternative.

Re:Strange political power

[christian.elliott]

Sure, there are people who vote more than once, but don't assume that one phone is equal to one person. A normal household would have 3-4 people in that household, most likely 3 of them able to vote, I would think this kinda of evens out, one way or another. And even if it does not, and perhaps only half of the votes (or a quarter for that matter) are uniques, the numbers are still staggering. While it's true, American Idol is something easier to follow than politics, it just tells you how much people actually care about the direction of their country, and who they put in the drivers seat. But thats just my 2 cents.

Re:Strange political power

[Phroggy]

1. You can vote from your phone for American Idol, you have to trudge out to the polls to vote for the next president, on a work day on top of it.

I wonder why more states don't follow Oregon's model? We have what is probably the best voting system in the country:

1) Everyone receives a voter's pamphlet: a booklet listing all candidates and measures on the ballot, with a description of each, and paid single-column advertisements for/against them (not sure about candidates, but for ballot measures it's $500 per column, ANYONE can buy one). It works better than I'm probably making it sound.

2) All registered voters get a ballot in the mail. I don't think you can register to vote if you don't have a mailing address. If you move and don't receive your ballot, I'm pretty sure there's a number you can call or something to get it straightened out.

3) Fill out the ballot at your leisure. It's a Scantron-style form, fill in the bubbles with a pencil or black/blue pen.

4) Stuff the completed ballot into a "secrecy envelope", which has no identifying information.

5) Stuff the secrecy envelope into another envelope, with your name and address printed on it (and a barcode). Sign the outside of the envelope. Of course it's against the law to sign somebody else's name.

6) Drop it off at your local public library or wherever else they have ballot drop boxes, or stick a stamp on it and drop it in the mail.

7) When ballots are received, election officials make sure they only receive one envelope from each registered voter, and that your signature on the envelope matches the signature on your voter registration. Yes, they actually check. This is an open transparent process with people watching.

8) The secrecy envelope containing your ballot is removed and mixed in with everybody else's. Now there's no way to associate ballots with voters, but we know there's only one ballot per voter.

9) Secrecy envelopes are opened, and ballots are manually checked for problems (e.g. somebody put an X through the bubble instead of filling it in completely). Election officials are allowed to fix these kinds of problems, when the intent of the voter is clear; again, this is an open process with people watching.

10) Ballots are scanned and counted, on machines that have been tested for accuracy (they have a pile of sample ballots that they run through the machines first, to make sure all the machines return the correct results). Results are reported.

11) If it's close, ballots are recounted. Because the ballots are human-readable as well as machine-readable, manual recounts are easy.

The only possible drawback here is that it's easy to pressure someone into voting a certain way. Someone can pay you to vote a certain way, then watch you vote and seal your envelope. So far, it hasn't been a problem, but I'll admit it's a flaw in the system. However, it's obviously something that can't be fixed in any system where you can vote from home, and the convenience of being able to vote in your underwear at 1am, or sit around with a group of friends drinking tea and filling out ballots, or whatever else you want to do, so far seems to far outweigh the risk of abuse.

Re:Strange political power

[maverick02]

you left out the biggest factor! you have to be 18 and old to vote for president.. any idiot under 18 can pick up the phone and vote for american idol. I bet if we could see a breakdown of the demographics who call in to american idol, i bet HALF are under 18.

Re:Strange political power

[bothra]

And you're allowed to be under 18.

How many of their votes are 13-yr-old girls texting votes over and over? I'm not sure I know anyone over 30 who actively watches and votes for the idol.

Re:Strange political power

[fossa]

Nice. In Peru, election day is a national holiday and liquor may not be sold. You'll also be fined if you fail to vote (something around $50 I belive). Not sure how I feel about that one. (I am not a Peruvian citizen nor have I visted Peru). All democratic nations should really encourage voting by making it accessable to everyone, including those who work two jobs to make ends meet.

Re:Strange political power

[fossa]

Our voting system (first past the post) only gathers enough information to decide between two candidates. Your proposal seems similar to Approval Voting: vote for each candidate you approve of, and not for any candidate you disaprove of. Most approvals wins. It appears to be less susceptible to some of the problems Instant Run-Off has, and looks simpler to implement than Ranked Pairs (my favorite, a Condorcet method). See condorcet.org for some voting method descriptions, criticisms, and links.

I think everyone needs to seriously ask this question: assume for a moment that if, as is sometimes suggested, in the 2000 US presidential election, Ralph Nader "stole" votes from Al Gore such that had only Gore and Bush run then Gore would have won, do we really want a voting system that picks Bush as the winner in that case? (change the political parties if it helps, and ignore the Florida debacle). With any other voting system, all the Nader voters could have also voted for Gore. Or those who voted for Gore as a vote against Bush could have also voted for Nader. Or those who voted for Bush as a vote against Gore could have also voted for the one they really wanted.

First past the post sucks. It leads to voters gaming the system by voting for the lesser evil rather than voting for their favorite.

Re:Strange political power

[dotoole]

Well since the major copyright holders have no stick to force the swedish government to shut down TPB as they havn't done anything illegal, I'll hazard a guess that certain key people got some nice carrots. I highly doubt some wasted public money is going to bother them.

Re:Strange political power

[thebluesgnr]

The system in many countries prevent a "most hated" candidate from being elected. To get elected, a candidate must have more than 50% of all valid votes. (A valid vote is a vote for a candidate). If that doesn't happen, the two most voted candidates go to a second election, and the one with more votes there wins. This guarantees that the elected candidate is the one chosen by at least over 50% of the voters who picked a candidate.

Re:Strange political power

[thisissilly]

or least negative

Even better, if no candidate gets a positive vote total, throw them all out and hold a new election that none of those candidates are allowed to run in.

Re:Strange political power

[Darby]

The only non-negligible contenders to the Repunazi Party, the Commiecrats, are as bad or perhaps even worse. They're even more corrupt,

What a bunch of idiotic crap.
I'm hardly one to defend the Democrats, but the idea that they are worse than the Republicans is complete and utter lunacy.
The idea that they are more corrupt shows that you have completely lost your grip on reality.

I mean seriously where to begin trying to explain something this simple and obvious to somebody as out of touch with reality as you are......

Yeah, you go on believing that the party that's made up almost entirely of 3 ( not necessarily distinct) groups the very rich: psuedo Christian extremists, and racists who openly support the destruction of our society and our way of life in order to institute a fascist theocracy, run concentration camps, is openly instituting big brother tactics, openly fans the flames of ignorant hatred, and starts wars to enrich a very few of its members at the expense of the rest of the nation and the world, is *less* corrupt.

Sorry, but the Democrats havve too diverse of a base to be organized enough to march in tight enough of a lockstep to accomplish the level of treason and corruption that the Republicans are currently wallowing in.

although the Republicans really went forward in this department during the last few years).

They've been leading the pack and pulling away since Reagan at least. Oh yeah, torture camps, murdering democratically elected leaders and funding terrorism doesn't count in your mystical fairy land.

Please. What color is the air on your planet?

Re:Strange political power

[Darby]

Even better, if no candidate gets a positive vote total, throw them all out and hold a new election that none of those candidates are allowed to run in.

Even better. Those candidates' parties can't enter another candidate.

Re:Strange political power

[sukotto]

Then we'd need meta-voting to make sure the regular voting goes well. And stop people from voting and making commentary in the same election.

Then you assign Friends and Foes based on their voting and it all just goes to Hell from there.

(Have you meta-voted today?) ;-)

Re:Strange political power

[toddestan]

The candidate with the most positive total or lease negative total wins.

The problem with that would be that some nobody that no one cares about would attract very few +1/-1 votes would end up winning the election with a score of near zero, as both of the major parties would be certain to get some huge negative score. I'm not saying that this would be a bad thing though.

Re:Strange political power

[DA-MAN]

1. You can vote from your phone for American Idol, you have to trudge out to the polls to vote for the next president, on a work day on top of it.

The people don't vote for the Presidency.

Re:Strange political power

[Godwin O'Hitler]

That's a very interesting and valid observation.

Maybe you could solve the problem by performing a second ranking of results according to the number of "deliberate" votes a candidate receives, whether these be positive or negative votes.
Then you could do something like eliminate the bottom quartile or tercile for not having enough mindshare to count in the result.

e.g.,

candidate a) 95+ 95- (total 190 votes)
candidate b) 95+ 75- (170)
candidate c) 40+ 60- (100)
candidate d) 35+ 10- (45)
candidate e) 10+ 5- (15)
candidate f) 3+ 12- (15)
candidate g) 0+ 0- (0)

total votes: 535

In the unmodified system, candidate d) would win with a net +25 even though only one voter in 12 paid him any attention; candidate g) would finish ahead of candidate b) even though not one single voter gave a damn about her.

But if you apply a bottom quartile rule (535/4 = 134), candidates d), e), f), and g) are eliminated due to lack of interest and candidate b) wins with a net +20.

Having said that, it all seems a bit airy-fairy to me.

Re:Strange political power

[TheLink]

" as both of the major parties would be certain to get some huge negative score"

What makes you so certain about that?

And we should let one of them win instead of someone else? That sounds really weird for a democracy. Why not be ruled by some evil but efficient and effective Dictator then?

Hey, if the voters really hate the big parties and you end up with a bunch of independents who can't agree on anything (there is no party line), that's not such a bad thing - because it makes it harder for stuff like the DMCA to pass, or the constitution to be amended etc.

Sure the country will go nowhere fast for a while, but shouldn't that be preferable to being led by people who are hated by millions of voters?

It wasn't the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet it was really ninjas.

Re:It wasn't the police.

[linvir]

Or even a bit of both

Re:It wasn't the police.

[gbobeck]

I bet it was really ninjas.

No. The Flying Spagetti Monster launched a preemptive strike in order to clear the bay for his chosen pirates.

Ramen.

Re:It wasn't the police.

[JonathanSulo]

Fördömda svenska ninjor :)

Re:It wasn't the police.

[idiotdevel]

nope... it was PIRATES... oh the IRONY

Re:It wasn't the police.

[Loquax]

Takk saa myket! I try my best to mangle Norwegian and Swedish (hell and English for that manner) whenever I can.

Re:It wasn't the police.

[CCFreak2K]

Well, at least I know what to vote in that Slashdot poll.

Re:It wasn't the police.

[pcgabe]

Oh, when will Pirates and Ninjas stop this pointless, bloody feud?
 
...

And join forces to take out those damn dirty Vikings!

Re:It wasn't the police.

[Tibor the Hun]

Ramen.

Re:It wasn't the police.

[Boxy Brown]

The headline would read: "Ninjas Own Pirates".

Re:It wasn't the police.

[bean123456789]

I bet it was really ninjas.

Or Perhaps it was the monkeys showing an underdog triumph!

Re:It wasn't the police.

[PakProtector]

Ramen!

Re:It wasn't the police.

[temcat]

Grammar police is coming after you and won't listen to any excuses!

"Tack så mycket" eller "Takk så mye" :-D

Re:It wasn't the police.

[temcat]

Ramen to that, brother!

Re:It wasn't the police.

[L0k11]

And now... Grammar police *are* coming after you and won't listen to any excuses!

Re:It wasn't the police.

[Loquax]

Thanks! I learned Norwegian orally and a little written, but I've heard more in Danish and Swedish (in movies) recently. I sometimes wish that Denmark, Sweden, and Norway would get over their national pride and admit that they essentially speak the same language and move on like the Itallians apparently have (that sound you hear is my granddad rolling in his grave). Maybe we could have an "open-sourced" Scandahoovisk written language... Ha det rollig (both peaceful and fun)!

Re:It wasn't the police.

[deathy_epl ccs]

The headline would read: "Ninjas Own Pirates".

Thus proving, once again, that the media is completely out of touch with modern culture. If they understood what was going on, the headline would read "Ninjas Pwn Pirates."

Re:It wasn't the police.

[Plugh]

It wasn't just "ninjas"... it was Border Ninjas!

Re:It wasn't the police.

[Ecifer]

It couldn't be pirates... global warming is still on the rise...

Re:It wasn't the police.

[tigress]

Oh, it was the police. I happen to know.

http://slashdot.org/~tigress/journal/136577

Re:It wasn't the police.

[Thing 1]

"A moose bit my sister once?"

Re:It wasn't the police.

[Cyrack]

Well, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian might seem the same written, but spoken, thats another story. I'm from Denmark, and I do understand a bit Swedish and Norwegian, but a conversation is only possible because Swedish and Norwegian people generally is more fluent in Danish than the other way around (Danish is the most difficult language of the three).

Making a uniform, written language should be possible, but higly unlikely since there is to much PRIDE! involved.

Instead English should be the primary language of instead, preparing Scandinavia for the takeover of the world (ninjas go home!).

Re:It wasn't the police.

[Loquax]

Nei, ved helvita! Drep ikke et spraak! One of my hobbies is linquistics, and I believe that when languages die out (which Scandinavian languages could over the years), ideas and concepts and the ability to express them also die out. I don't believe that there is a "English" language. The phenomenon people call "English" is to language what the Borg in Star Trek were to the cultures that they met. "English" began to die out with the Battle of Hastings in 1066. What came after was a hybrid creature ready to eat anything in its path.

One of the great things about English is that any word from any language can (and does). Gung-Ho(Chinese), OK/okay (African), pork (French)-(pig from Anglo-Saxon), facinate (from a Latin term meaning to charm someone with a penis shaped talisman), sky (Danish/Norwegian), ship (Danish/Norwegian), fjord (Norewgian), television (Greek and Latin), algebra (Arabic), shibboleth (Hebrew), hoosgow (Spanish), etc.

As a result, any language on the planet ought to be scared to death of the thing. The poor French are about to wet themselves in fear that English will eat their language alive. English is perhaps the most understoond language in Norway when you count immegrants and foreigners into the mix.

At the same time however, many of the things that makes Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish so elegant is that you all are forced to make due with a smaller number of words to describe very complex concepts. Television in Norwegian is fjernsyn (far-seeing) match is fyrstikk (fire stick). These languages (Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish) do preserve a lot of poetry in the language itself. I'd hate to see them disapear completly. It just would be nicer to have one written langauge to contend with though. Maybe we should all write in Chinese characters.....

Re:It wasn't the police.

[IndigoParadox]

That's lovely. An English pluralization to a Japanese word in a Swedish sentence. My head hurts.

I always use the pluralization according to the language the specific word belongs to. In the case of Ninja, I use the plural form "Ninja" because Japanese words have no plural form.

odd

[jflash]

Odd that they did this one year ago, when they went down for maintenance.

(coralized link)
http://www.btflux.com.nyud.net:8080/archives/news/ 000159.php?coral-no-redirect

Re:odd

[nbannerman]

It is one thing for an internet site to claim they've been hacked / taken down, but if a political party does it, I'm sure it is a different kettle of fish.

Re:odd

[Tolleman]

Well its not a regular political party. We've had a bunch of clowns in parties before here in Sweden.

Re:odd

[nordicfrost]

I got off the phone with Swedish police, they confirm raids in the Swedish file sharing community and at least two brought in for questioning.

I talkt to the Pirate Party leader, he confirms the raid, confiscated servers (Both Pirate Parties and The Pirate Bay), saying there were 50 policemen in the raid this afternoon (14:00 Cent Eur time).

Re:odd

[mwvdlee]

So either they "tricked us once, shame on them, tricked us twice, shame on us" or they are "the boy who cried 'wolf'"!

Re:odd

[diskis]

Antipiratbyrån, which is a site representing the music industry reports that the piratebay har been shut down. Apparently not a hoax.

(The text is in swedish but mostly useless propaganda, so I won't bother to translate)

Re:odd

[Jugalator]

Damn, there are a lot of guys involved in this joke then!! :-D

Well orchestrated, Pirate Bay!

Hehe..

Re:odd

[Wellington Grey]

50 policemen?! Why so many? Were they trying to take down Neo?

-Grey

Re:odd

[myspys]

maybe it should be added that http://istheshit.net/ is hosted at the same place, so their website is also down :-/

Re:odd

[TGK]

Your men are already dead

Re:odd

[shoolz]

It does seem improbable that the police would make a comment to a random caller, presumably from another country. We need a 2nd person to call and confirm; report back to this thread.

Re:odd

[hackstraw]

they confirm raids in the Swedish file sharing community and at least two brought in for questioning

Any particular charges? I'm not familiar with Swedish law, but do the police need warrants?

More details please.

Re:odd

[arbi]

It would be quite a big coincidence if they were really shut down after a hoax shut down at *EXACTLY* the same time last year.

Re:odd

[red_flea]

It does seem improbable that the police would make a comment to a random caller, presumably from another country.

The guy's nick is nordicfrost. To me, that and his lowish UID lend a bit of credibility to him being from the neighborhood? Sure he's a random caller, but why is it odd for police to disclose information like that especially if he speaks the local language with the local accent and has a local phone number according to caller ID? The police work for the public, no? Cheers for countries whose public serving agencies operate transparently.

Re:odd

[Surt]

That's not necessarily a valid presumption given the parent's username.
And the police in many countries are required by law to answer certain factual questions (in the US: call the police and ask if X is currently under arrest).

Re:odd

[ChiChiCuervo]

Why wouldn't you believe the swedish police would have a public information officer, especially for a situation affecting one of the largest and most public sites in the country?

It's not like they have Dick Cheney running things!

Re:odd

[houghi]

especially if he speaks the local language with the local accent

So If a foreigher would call they would not give the information? What if that person is somebody who has the nationality, but not the accent? What if he has the accent, but not the nationality?

What if he called from another country, talks English and works for the BBC? Either they have a public statement that they can make, or they don't. Finding a person that speaks English well enough should not be an issue.

Re:odd

[idonthack]

In the morning of 2006-05-31 the Swedish National Criminal Police showed a search warrant to Rix|Port80 personnell. The warrant was valid for all datacentres of Rix|Port80 and was directed at The Pirate Bay. The allegation was breach of copy-right law, alternatively assisting breach of copy-right law.

According to the temporary page at http://www.thepiratebay.org/

Re:odd

[neo]

Were they trying to take down Neo?


No, I'm fine.

Re:odd

[A Holstenson]

You're thinking of Piratbyrån not the Pirate Party (the later is a political party and the former is a non-profit organization).

I can confirm that the servers have been seized by police, and many other servers located in the same datacenter. And I know of atleast two servers that have nothing to do with TPB that have been seized, or are at least inaccessible.

Re:odd

[esper]

Finding a person that speaks English well enough should not be an issue.

Especially since the local language is Swedish.

Re:odd

[geekoid]

Neo? your about 4624 too late

Re:odd

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Does that mean CmdrTaco is The One? Scary thought!

Re:odd

[From A Far Away Land]

"50 policemen?! Why so many?"

In my experience, it shows either poor intelligence [information] on behalf of the law enforcement organization, or poor intelligence [dumb].

Legal?

[nbannerman]

So, from TFA;

According to The Pirate Party, a Swedish copyright reform organization, the raid also seized Piratbyrån's (the Pirate Bureau) servers. In addition, The Pirate Party reports "...the servers where located in a protected area, to which the police had no legal right to enter..." Approximately 50 police participated in the raid, which placed into custody two PirateBay.org personnel.

Now I remember reading the legal threats page, and the phrase normally went along the lines of "US Copyrights Mean Nothing Here".

What changed? Sending letters is one thing, but something pretty heavy must be going on to warrant that kind of response.

Can any of our swedish friends fill in the gaps here? I'm sure we're missing something.

Re:Legal?

[Jarlsberg]

This sucks for the people that got "busted", though they'll surely be able to sue the government for wrongful incarceration once they've been released. I'm guessing IFPI has a hand in this http://www.ifpi.se/ as they've threatened to do this sort of thing for a while now. It's definitely going to get messy.

Re:Legal?

[Eudial]

What changed? Sending letters is one thing, but something pretty heavy must be going on to warrant that kind of response.

Nothing as I can see it. It's still perfectly legal to link to copyright violating material in Sweden. The police probably hopes that they store some violating material on the servers. Which, hopefully, they don't.

That, or they're after the logs so that they can do it the American Way (tm) and start suing blind 90 year olds and quadriplegics.

Re:Legal?

[Asphalt]

Now I remember reading the legal threats page, and the phrase normally went along the lines of "US Copyrights Mean Nothing Here".

What changed? Sending letters is one thing, but something pretty heavy must be going on to warrant that kind of response.

Can any of our swedish friends fill in the gaps here? I'm sure we're missing something.

It's really quite simple.

Terrorists can download .torrent files. And if terrorists can download .torrent files, then terrorists can obtain unlimited copies of material by Britney Spears, Kelly Clarkson, etc.

This will (obviously) lead to a greater hatred of America, and western culture in general.

This will impact the safety of all of our children as terrorists with big boners from watching Britney in that video with the short skirt will erupt into testosterone-fueled rages ... and this will greatly impact our war on terror.

This has nothing to do with copyright law, and everything to do with the safety of the free world.

I don't understand what you don't get about it?

Re:Legal?

[Tolleman]

People doesn't sue in Sweden.

Re:Legal?

[Jarlsberg]

So swedes just bend backwards and asks for one more, then? ;)

Re:Legal?

[nstlgc]

I new copyright law was passed in July last year, as mentioned on Linux Reviews, but that doesn't really answer the question "Why now?".

Re:Legal?

[muffen]

What changed? Sending letters is one thing, but something pretty heavy must be going on to warrant that kind of response. Can any of our swedish friends fill in the gaps here? I'm sure we're missing something.

We are missing something. I've checked all Swedish newssites that I can think of but they all say the same thing; the police will not release any information about an ongoing investigation.

To be honest, there is still nothing in the Swedish law that forbidds linking to pirated material, so the only way they will have a case against the pirate bay, AFAIK, is if there was copyrighted material on one of the machines they took. However, as I said, not much info right now.

Re:Legal?

[Jonny_eh]

With BT, anyone attached to a torrent can see the IP of everyone else.
They don't need server logs to see who's downloading or sharing a torrent.
Bit Torrent does not provide any anonymity nor privacy, unless it's with a private tracker.
But even then, the authorities could still sign up.

Re:Legal?

[porkThreeWays]

How is this offtopic? Please explain. Just because you disagree doesn't give you the right to mod offtopic. I stated a fact. Just because you do something illegal doesn't mean you will suffer any sort of reprocutions. And I gave an example. By almost all legal accounts the NSA wiretapping was illegal, but it is doubtful anyone will ever go to jail over them.

Re:Legal?

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

No need to sue. They just send an request to the Chancellor of Justice (JK) to get compensated for any injust apprehensions. JK will then award them a sum of money to compensate for the hardship but only if they get aquitted or not procecuted for any wrongdoings.

This is how its done in Sweden. The sum is often not very large - unless one spend several years in prison and later on are deemed not gulty.

Sweden is a civilized country - no need to sue the goverment.

Re:Legal?

[pipatron]

Surely you meant forward!

Re:Legal?

[Asphalt]

>Problem is that terrorists are more clever than to use unencrypted information  sharing, so what you're proposing is that we allow the Gov. to listen in on us while the terrorists really doesn't care.

   o <- Joke

    O
   /--\  <-You
    |
   / \

Re:Legal?

[pointNumberOne]

Not to mention saving the poor defenseless children from all of the child pornography out there...

Re:Legal?

[tinkerghost]

Can we take bets this time on whether or not the **AA paid some hacker to break into the PB systems & hide CW works on them?
"But tinkerghost, that would be illegal and immoral," you say.
My responce is, "and ... 5:1 against for you then?"

Re:Legal?

[pipatron]

IANAL, but not much "adult" content is illegal in sweden, not even bestiality unless you actually hurt the animal (which would be illegal according to Djurskyddslagen, the animal protection law). Child pornography is of course illegal. Quoting the wikipedia article about Private:

Private magazine was established in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1965 as the world's first full-color hardcore sex magazine

Re:Legal?

[Tweekster]

No they just target 13 year olds and people without computers.

Re:Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Terrorists can download .torrent files. And if terrorists can download .torrent files, then terrorists can obtain unlimited copies of material by Britney Spears, Kelly Clarkson, etc.

This will (obviously) lead to a greater hatred of America, and western culture in general.

Not to mention that these terrorists could then walk into a bank, air port, mall, etc. and PLAY BACK THOSE FILES. I think that's the more pressing danger here.

Re:Legal?

[rbb]

Nothing as I can see it. It's still perfectly legal to link to copyright violating material in Sweden.

Actually, that's not true.

The Supreme Court in Sweden has, in a judgement of June 15, 2000, in criminal case against Tommy Olsson, stated that publication of links to already existing music files must be regarded as an act of performance or contribution to such act.

The situation with The Pirate Bay is of course different, since they're linking to the .torrent files and not directly to complete files.
 

Re:Legal?

[kimvette]

/. users use mod points like we Americans use votes; we throw them away on garbage (electing cretins into office) rather than voting sensibly.

Likewise, some /. users disregard the guidelines and focus on modding down rather than passing by offtopic posts or posts they disagree with. It's idiotic, yes, but it's been that way for ages.

Re:Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I sue dead people!" -- The RIAA.

Re:Legal?

[shish]

I don't understand what you don't get about it?

It all makes sense now you've explained it in full -- when the government are explaining they normally stop after the word "terrorists"...

Re:Legal?

[MrNougat]

Terrorists can download .torrent files. And if terrorists can download .torrent files, then terrorists can obtain unlimited copies of material by Britney Spears, Kelly Clarkson, etc.

This will (obviously) lead to a greater hatred of America, and western culture in general.

Following this logic (terrorists acquire torrents of mass-produced crap which leads to greater hatred of the West) -- I side with the terrorists in their hatred.

(Note to NSA - not with the blowing up of things, just with the hatred.)

Re:Legal?

[trewornan]

The point is that they still wouldn't have any illegal content on their servers - .torrent files just contain hash values, ip addresses and so on. As I understand it (and I'll admit I'm no expert on Swedish law) they wouldn't be doing anything illegal.

Re:Legal?

[MBGMorden]

Sounds like pretty much the same thing under a different name.

Re:Legal?

[erikdalen]

The Supreme Court in Sweden has, in a judgement of June 15, 2000, in criminal case against Tommy Olsson, stated that publication of links to already existing music files must be regarded as an act of performance or contribution to such act.

I'll counter with this case.

Re:Legal?

[rbb]

I'll counter with this case

Which proves that things in Sweden are confusing to say the least ;)

Re:Legal?

[euxneks]

Terrorists can download .torrent files. And if terrorists can download .torrent files, then terrorists can obtain unlimited copies of material by Britney Spears, Kelly Clarkson, etc.

This will (obviously) lead to a greater hatred of America, and western culture in general.

I agree. We should gut this problem at it's source. Eliminate Pop Culture for the greater good of america! It's teaching terrorists how to be terrorists!

Make of that what you will.

Re:Legal?

[Nickalreadyinuse]

Nothing as I can see it. It's still perfectly legal to link to copyright violating material in Sweden.

Actually, that's not true.

Actually that WAS true according to the very same Swedish Supreme Court decision which you are refering to! Public performance didn't at the time fall in to the exclusive right of the copyright holder in Sweden (Aricle 46 of 1960:729 Lag om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk), so it was legal. In the Olsson case the SSC affirmed the Appeals Court decision of not guilty!

However, this provision was removed in the July 2005 reform to conform with the EUCD (by adding provision 2 to the first paragraph as follows "except in cases where the communication occurs in such a way that members of the public may access the sound recordings from a place and at a time individually chosen by them").

This didn't fortunately affect the situation with links or other references to information stored elsewhere, because the "making available" definition was clarified in Article 2 so that linking can no longer be considered either "public performance" or "communication to the public", in accordance with the definitions in EUCD, so it falls completely outside the scope of the copyright law. Only if there is some collusion between the persons who actually make the material available from under their control, and the person who makes an online reference to it, can it be prosecuted for aiding and abetting.

So basically your precedent is now completely irrelevant and you are also wrong on the face of the text of the law and the preliminary works.

Re:Legal?

[rbb]

So basically your precedent is now completely irrelevant and you are also wrong on the face of the text of the law and the preliminary works.

IANAL, nor do I play one on /.

By raiding the pirate bay...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yarr! Imagine all the booty those law enforcement agents got their hands on!

Re:By raiding the pirate bay...

[Mayhem178]

Same deal as when they break up prostitution joints.

Re:By raiding the pirate bay...

[se7en11]

...is that the same thing as popping their knuckles?

The Pirate Party

[Honken]

The pirate party is probably nothing more than a publicity stunt, however the impact that this question had on other Swedish political parties is quite substantial. This weekend the rather influential green party decided that they were pro-filesharing (although with some restrictions) and earlier representatives from other parties have said the same thing. While it probably won't have a major impact on the upcoming election in September it will none the less be an important question for some people.

Re:The Pirate Party

[SlayerofGods]

The Pirate Party has a constructive and reasoned proposal for an alternative to pharmaceutical patents. It would not only solve these problems, but also give more money to pharmaceutical research, while still cutting public spending on medicines in half. This is something we would like to discuss on a European level.

And what is this plan?

Re:The Pirate Party

[Sylver Dragon]

Not sure that this will be resonded to, but a couple questions hit me as I read through this (I haven't hit the main site, it sounds like it was slashdotted enough):

The Pirate Party only has three issues on its agenda:

And how do you intend to deal with other issues? While it's nice to say that you only have three items on your agenda, other issues will come up. Do you intend to abstain on any other issue? If nothing else, you should work with your members and community to try and come up with answers to a diverse range of issues, so that you have some sort of answer when a person asks you about something.

We also want a complete ban on DRM technologies

This seems at odds with the idea of the "free flow of information". While DRM technology can and has been used for bad purposes, the technology and area of research can have valid purposes. For example, to protect personal private information. There will always be a need to expose personal information to companies and government to complete certain transactions. By using DRM technologies on such information it would provide an eaiser way to track and control the use of such information. Moreover, this seems like the first step in a slippery slope. Do you really want a government body mandating what areas of technology are valid and which ones are not? Do you want to have to pass any program you wish to distribute by a licensing body, who has the power to accept or reject technology as valid? That body would become the first target of attack by companies wishing to either kill competition, or hold back innovation. While it is distasteful to accept such technology as valid, it is easier to allow any technology to be researched and used; and then just allow anyone to also release a crack for such technology. If everyone is free to take technology in any direction, there is no worry about the direction being controlled in a bad way.


Other than those items, sounds like you're doing stuff that needs doing and I wish you the best of luck. Once the American Wall finally falls around us here in the states, it would be nice to know that somewhere on the other side there is a place that hasn't devolved into a police state.

Re:The Pirate Party

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea behind not taking a stance on other issues is important. You see in Sweden, you only need 4% of the vote to get seats in the parliament. Since the left and the right block are almost equal in seats in the parliament (and issues some would say), the small independent party can wield an unproportional amount of power.

So by coming to an agreement with one of the two major blocks, to cooperate on their issues if they agree to vote for your few core issues, the smaller party can pretty much decide which block gets to form governement since they hold the balance of power.

However if the small party would have fixed opinions on too many issues, their power would be weakened by the fact that they could only cooperate with one block, thus no longer holding the balance of power. Or if they have fixed opinions on too many issues that none of the blocks agree to, then government can't be formed and only solution will be a new election.

Re:The Pirate Party

[Lalo Martins]

I'd like to make public my support and thanks for the pirate party. If you get elected, I might make a point of emigrating to Sweden, although the cold might be a bit too much for me. Someone needs to start fighting the "copyright" FUD politically; it seems even here on slashdot, most fools seem to have been brainwashed by that particular kool-aid.

Re:The Pirate Party

[Psykosys]

You have a handsome head of hair. If that goes as far in Sweden as it does in the US, you'll have 0wned the Riksdag in no time.

Re:The Pirate Party

[MaXMC]

I'm being picky but... it's 11/9 since 9/11 is confusing and could just as well mean 9th of November as it could 11th of September. International date-time standards has the facts.

You Christian being from Sweden of all countries would know how to write a correct date.

Re:The Pirate Party

[Sepper]

The whole point of 9/11 is the similarity between the date and the Emergency call system in North America... like 112 in europe, 999 in the U.K., 111 in NZ, etc...

Re:The Pirate Party

[MrZaius]

The Pirate Party only has three issues on its agenda: And how do you intend to deal with other issues? While it's nice to say that you only have three items on your agenda, other issues will come up. Do you intend to abstain on any other issue? If nothing else, you should work with your members and community to try and come up with answers to a diverse range of issues, so that you have some sort of answer when a person asks you about something.

In a parliamentary system, a small third party can enter into a coalition with others, and shape the position of that coalition on the few topics they actually care about.
Parliament - Wikipedia
Coalition government - Wikipedia


This system inherently allows for much more diversity in government than our own, in the US.

Re:The Pirate Party

[MaXMC]

Sigh... I should have written a comment about that....
Why do as Usama want?
It's a Date, We should write them in a correct way.

But what can you expect from a people who still use an imperial system.

TEXT if slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

In their native Sweden, ThePirateBay.org enjoyed a level of immunity from copyright prosecution rarely seen in the file-sharing world. Often defiant in the face of those wishing to enforce their intellectual property rights, ThePirateBay.org would go on to become one of the premier BitTorrent indexing and tracking sites.

As one of the largest trackers, ThePirateBay.org largely replaced the demise of the SuprNova.org search engine. SuprNova.org met its demise in late 2004, when it was under pressure from the entertainment industry to shut it operation down. Conversely, such pressure has been ineffective against ThePiratebay.org.

When such political pressure fails, the use of force is typically the next course of action. In a move that many thought would never come, Slyck.com learned this morning that ThePirateBay.org was raided by Swedish police.

"...The police right now is taking all of our servers, to check if there is a crime there or not (they are actually not sure)," ThePirateBay.org spokesperson "brokep" told Slyck.com.

The seizure of ThePirateBay.org's entire server farm will guarantee this BitTorrent tracker will remain offline until the police complete their investigation. Whether this will keep ThePirateBay.org offline indefinitely is another matter.

"We are not sure when it will return, but we are moving it to another country if necessary," brokep said.

According to The Pirate Party, a Swedish copyright reform organization, the raid also seized Piratbyrån's (the Pirate Bureau) servers. In addition, The Pirate Party reports "...the servers where located in a protected area, to which the police had no legal right to enter..." Approximately 50 police participated in the raid, which placed into custody two PirateBay.org personnel.

The premature departure of ThePirateBay.org marks a significant turning point in the BitTorrent community. Although it's not currently known what, if any, entertainment entity is behind this raid, failure to secure ThePirateBay.org's permanent removal will only bolster this tracker's position of defiance.

Re:TEXT if slashdotted

[Jugalator]

The premature departure of ThePirateBay.org marks a significant turning point in the BitTorrent community.

Well, it's a web site taken down in a battle against a movement in modern society. Yes, it was a popular web site, but are we really calling the Suprnova take down the same in retrospect? All good that did was spawning many others.

Re:TEXT if slashdotted

[Pig Hogger]

In addition, The Pirate Party reports "...the servers where located in a protected area, to which the police had no legal right to enter..."

Now what the fuck was that "protected area"? A diplomatic zone???

Re:TEXT if slashdotted

[mobby_6kl]

>Now what the fuck was that "protected area"? A diplomatic zone???

Someone's house/appt? You know, cops can't just walk into any building and take what they want. Unless, of course, they don't like the person who lives there.

Re:TEXT if slashdotted

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Or, presumably, unless they have probably cause and a court-issued warrant, or whatever the equivalent is in Sweden...

Re:TEXT if slashdotted

[jeorgen]

Pig Hogger quoted and wrote:

In addition, The Pirate Party reports "...the servers where located in a protected area, to which the police had no legal right to enter..."

Now what the fuck was that "protected area"? A diplomatic zone???

I believe they mean the Swedish term "skyddsområde" or something similar, a term that I believe means that something is protected as critical infrastructure. Often used for military installations.

It is used so that police cannot barge in to an e.g. nuclear power station and shout "OK, everybody stop what you're doing! We are looking for a shoplifter!"

Re:TEXT if slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no court order is necessary if the the police have good reason to believe that a crime with could lead to prison is being committed or has been committed. There are two degrees of suspect, skäligen misstänkt (reasonably suspect) and sannolikt misstänkt (probably suspect), of which the latter, higher degree is required for a search.

The problem here is that the server room was designated a skyddsområde (protected area), as it contains business critical infrastructure and business secrets. In this case, a court order is indeed needed, and generally quite hard to obtain.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I do have a law degree (jur kand) and work as an assistant legal advisor at a Swedish company.

Re:TEXT if slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

They are referring to the BGC data center, which rents parts of its facilities to other operators, including the ISP that was hosting TPB. Since the site has been of national interest, a special kind of protection applies to that area, since it's a "proected object/facility" (skyddsobjekt in swedish). There are two kinds of "skyddsobjekt", civil ones and military ones. AFAIK only the military ones are off-limits to the police, and thus this claim that the police entered a facility that they are not permitted to enter is probably false.

More info, in Swedish, can be found here: http://www.ab.lst.se/templates/InformationPage____ 3877.asp

Re:TEXT if slashdotted

[_KiTA_]

Piratbyrån's (the Pirate Bureau)'s servers were clearly marked with a Civil Protection order seal. It is illegal to take down political websites and other such servers in the EU. By ignoring that order the police conducting the raid violated International law. After a few of them lose their jobs over this, do you think they'll ever help the Antipiratbyrån again?

By specifically ordering the raid over the objections of the prosecuting attorneys and lawyers in Sweden (who have repeatedly told him that The Pirate Bay is legal, and if he doesn't like it he should take it up with the voters who do), the Swedish Minister of Law violated their country's seperation of powers section of their constitution. Very specifically, the government cannot interfere with the day to day operations of law inforcement -- their only legal ability is to change the laws, the police and prosecution have to enforce them. I'd be quite surprised if he manages to finish his current term in office, the Swedish media is already openly discussing this as being a gross violation of Swedish law.

Make no mistake, this was an unmitigated disaster for the MPAA. They just don't know it yet. In 2 days or less The Pirate Bay will be back up, more arrogant than ever. In addition the MPAA's Swedish shell organization, Antipiratbyrån, has lost what little support they had in Sweden over this -- indeed, the Pirate Party's membership has more than doubled in the two days since this happened. Even moreso since they have admitted during an interview that they know The Pirate Bay is legal, they know they'll be back, but their main intent was just to harrass them and try and silence Piratbyrån (a consumer advocacy group focused on reforming IP law in Europe and Sweden).

Heck, there are now more registered Pirates in Sweden than there are registered Feminists!

An unmitigated disaster for the MPAA. They just don't know it yet.

An open letter to Sweden.

[Funkcikle]

Please let me finish freeing the flow of information, specifically Season 4 of Family Guy. Thank you.

Re:An open letter to Sweden.

[Jugalator]

http://www.torrentspy.com/torrent/745696/Family_Gu y_Season_4

This link was brought to you by the Useless Piracy Battle Coalition. :-p

Re:An open letter to Sweden.

[kimvette]

Actually, isn't it available on DVD now? I use Torrents as a form of timeshifting, but unless there's a movie or show I'm not sure I want to buy (e.g., THX1138 which I downloaded last week and watched, and decided I am going to order from Amazon if Sprawl*Mart doesn't have it - MPAA you have thepiratebay.org to thank for that sale, you know, that site you succeeded in bribing the Swedes to shut down. Oh, and thanks ro that action, I won't be buying DVDs for a while. I've been buying anywhere from 5 to 15 DVDs a month, now I will buy NONE until you STOP the proceedings and encourage thepiratebay.org to go back up, and STOP suing your customers and potential customers, assholes) I buy the DVDs.

Re:An open letter to Sweden.

[Sporkinum]

MPAA you have thepiratebay.org to thank for that sale
Same thing with me. Several HBO shows I got hooked on from bittorrent convinced me to subscribe to HBO. On top of that I have bought several DVD sets based on stuff I have downloaded. Season 1 of the new Doctor Who is coming up and will be buying that.

24

[fluxindamix]

thank god, 24 is finished !!

Re:24

[andersbergh]

And Lost! Usually, I watch Lost on TV but since TV4 decided to not send the (two?) last episodes of Lost I decided to download them instead. I couldn't wait until October or something.

Re:24

[whitehatlurker]

thank god, 24 is finished

So what? Do you want to send Jack Bauer to Scandinavia to ensure that movies once again flow on the networks of the free world?

Re:24

[goof21]

That's gotta be a good feeling - I have no idea how I'll get the next season of Gilmore Girls here in the UK now...

...um, for my wife... because she watches... yeah, that's it...

Re:come on, let's face it

[andersbergh]

Seeing as trackers don't actually have any copyrighted information on them... how can they be illegal? Sure they are illegal in the US due to the DMCA, but here in Sweden there is no DMCA.

They were too cocky

[gasmonso]

The should have stopped taunting the MPAA, RIAA, and just about every Hollywood movie house. Those entities combined have an enormous amount of influence and power. It was just a matter of time unfortunately.

http://religiousfreaks.com/

Re:They were too cocky

[linvir]

Ah yes, it's the cocky taunting you've got to avoid! Those RIAA and MPAA lawyers really get ticked off at that. You push them too far with your sarcastic ridicule and they'll really get serious about things.

Re:They were too cocky

[Tweekster]

And what is really sad is that the entire music and movie industry is actually quite small. They are so small no one should listen to them to the extent they do.

Re:They were too cocky

[masdog]

But they have money, and as the saying goes, Money talks.

Why do you think so many Americans listen to Hollywood stars on issues like politics, terrorism, and the environment??

Re:They were too cocky

[JourneymanMereel]

If the "MPAA, RIAA, and just about every Hollywood movie house" exert that much influance over the police... especially the police in a foreign nation, then we truely do live in a corrupt society. Unless there's something more than meets the eye (the next few days should be pretty telling), there's some major political clout to be won here.

Re:They were too cocky

[z0idberg]

listen to them, and then vote them into office. exhibit A - The Governator of California.

Re:They were too cocky

[masdog]

That's more like Exhibit B. Exhibit A is Ronald Reagan.

Mixed feelings...

[gowen]

Well, I feel the police are being heavy handed, but given the smug, supercilious and downright annoying tone of their responses to legal threats, its pretty hard not to feel a little schadenfreude that their bluster has been pricked and their bluff called.

Re:Mixed feelings...

[Vo0k]

Given Swedish law and the way this thing was processed, plus the tone and a fact that some of TPB crew is actually lawyers, expect a huge boost in TBP funding when they get a huge compensation from the Police for unlawful disruption of operation :D

Re:Mixed feelings...

[daff2k]

Why shouldn't they reply in any way they like? Just because those ridiculous threats came from the Big Media Entities like the IFPI, Sega, Dreamcast and what have you? How does that warrant anything but smug responses? As much as they'd love it (and apparently have conviced many people of it) the Big Media are not the supreme overlords of this planet (yet?). Heck, the "Content Industry" is even just a small subset of what we call IT industry, yet they manage to wag that dog just fine.

I welcome any opposition to that, and the PirateBay's replies were hilarious :)

Re:Mixed feelings...

[gowen]

Why shouldn't they reply in any way they like?

They can. Now, why shouldn't I react in any way I like?

Re:Mixed feelings...

[daff2k]

Point taken :)

Re:Mixed feelings...

[hkmwbz]

What bluff?

Re:Mixed feelings...

[linvir]

1. You can react any way you like within the law. Breaking a country's laws and ordering illegal arrests is not fair retaliation.
2. Too many people are concentrating on the entertaining letters as if they had a single fucking thing to do with any of this. They don't.

Re:Mixed feelings...

[gowen]

Breaking a country's laws and ordering illegal arrests is not fair retaliation.

And your expertise in Swedish law comes from ... where, exactly?

Oh, wait. Let me guess. The internet.

Re:Mixed feelings...

[gowen]

Well, they seemed pretty confident that they would never be shut down, and that the Swedish legal system protected, condoned and generally understood their actions 100%.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but having the door kicked down and all their servers seized by the Swedish Police would rather suggest that they were talking bollocks.

Re:Mixed feelings...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

...but given the smug, supercilious and downright annoying tone of their responses to legal threats...

Given the dishonest, beligerent, outrageous, overbearing and insulting nature of the legal threats in question, thepiratebay's response was completely justified.

Re:Mixed feelings...

[ichigo 2.0]

Well, ordering illegal arrests is by definition illegal, and therefore breaking a country's laws. ;P

Re:Mixed feelings...

[gowen]

No. Not really.
Firstly, people who wish to be taken seriously shouldn't generally behave like spoiled children. However cretinous your opponents, you make more friends behaving like a grown up.
Secondly, it would appear that their either their knowledge of or confidence in Swedish Law was not as great as they would like it to have appeared. Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall and all that jazz.

Hubris is a bitch.

Re:Mixed feelings...

[BFaucet]

Police capture innocent people all the time. That's why they aren't judges or juries. In fact the police have extremely limited legal power. It's the courts that will decide if the Swedish lawmakers are siding with them or not.

Seeing as the Pirate Bay fellows looked pretty damned hard at the law, I doubt they'd be dumb enough to actually have any infringing material on their servers.

Re:Mixed feelings...

[gowen]

And what makes you think these arrests are illegal?

Re:Mixed feelings...

[pipatron]

They don't care about being taken seriously, nor do they care about being friends with the big media companies. They just want to run a bittorrent tracker and follow the law, something that they have done but now are falsely accused of not doing. If someone accuse you of a crime, I hope the police atleast have the powers to question you briefly. In this case, though, they went way too far.

Re:Mixed feelings...

[cgreuter]

And entertaining.

I believe that unauthorized downloading is wrong (with some caveats) but the music and movie industries long ago burned out any sympathy I had for them. I get a lot of entertainment just from reading those responses to the legal threats.

If the Pirate Bay raises the entertainment executives' blood pressure and cuts into their cocaine budget, more power to 'em. I just hope that any resulting conniptions get filmed and distributed, preferable by BitTorrent.

Interesting to say the least!

[Rob T Firefly]

IANA(.se)L, but I wonder.. let's say I was using TPB's tracker to share some stuff I had full legal right to. Public Domain, Creative Commons, original material, and such. With TPB shut down, would people like me be able to file some sort of legal grudge against the Swedish police?

Re:Interesting to say the least!

[NtG]

I can't imagine why. The fact that you were using the free resource for a legitimate use doesn't have any bearing on their ability to sieze it due to illegal activity.

Re:Interesting to say the least!

[Mister Whirly]

IANA(.se)L, but I wonder.. let's say I was using Joe's CrackHouse to sell some cookies I had full legal right to. With Joe's CrackHouse shut down, would people like me be able to file some sort of legal grudge against the police?

Seems pretty clear in this light, no?

Re:come on, let's face it

[Gr33nNight]

It is illegal here in the United States, but it sure isnt illegal in Sweden. You would do well to not assume the whole world has the same laws as the United States.

TPB shutdown clearly visible in graphs

[Honken]

Have a look at http://stats.autonomica.se/mrtg/sums/Stockholm_GE. html. The fact that the pirate bay clearly affected the total bandwidth of the entire city of Stockholm says something of how big the site is.

Re:TPB shutdown clearly visible in graphs

[misfit815]

And on that note, I wonder how overall traffic across the net will be affected. I would assume there'd be a decline, probably linear over the next week or two. Anyone know where to go for numbers?

Re:TPB shutdown clearly visible in graphs

[Carthag]

How do you figure? From what I can tell, the bandwidth fluctuates pretty evenly on day-to-day numbers for the last several months.

Re:TPB shutdown clearly visible in graphs

[ichigo 2.0]

Looks like slashdot is now affecting the traffic of the entire site of stats.autonomica.se.

Re:TPB shutdown clearly visible in graphs

[strider44]

It is down a quarter from any of ther other peaks - it's pretty obvious the difference. Also remember that this is not just Pirate Bay that's down but a few other high-traffic sites.

Re:TPB shutdown clearly visible in graphs

[andersa]

True.. Seems like around 20% less than average load at peak times.

Re:TPB shutdown clearly visible in graphs

[christian.elliott]

Whats with the plummet at 1600? Aha, it rhymes.

Re:TPB shutdown clearly visible in graphs

[novus ordo]

Umm.. notice the big gaping hole around 16:00-17:00?

Re:TPB shutdown clearly visible in graphs

[bjoeg]

Sorry it shows nothing. Yes the graph shows an hour of no traffic, but traffic is back up and seems at a normal rate.

Re:TPB shutdown clearly visible in graphs

[A Holstenson]

The Pirate Bay is located in a large datacenter in Stockholm operated by Rix|Port80. The police did not only seize TPB servers but seem to have seized every server in that particular datacenter, which could explain the change in traffic.

Re:TPB shutdown clearly visible in graphs

[Carthag]

Umm.. notice that I posted about 15 minutes before 16:00 Swedish time?

Re:TPB shutdown clearly visible in graphs

[Gathers]

This has also been reported by various sources in Sweden. These 2 links are unfortionately in swedish but they both mention a 20% drop in traffic after the shutdown.

http://idg.se/ArticlePages/200605/31/2006053119292 7_PFA/20060531192927_PFA.dbp.asp
http://aftonbladet.se/vss/it/story/0,2789,834356,0 0.html

Re:TPB shutdown clearly visible in graphs

[ichigo 2.0]

I tried looking at the numbers, but it was difficult as the stats page was slashdotted. Now it works though.

Re:come on, let's face it

[spyrochaete]

Let's face it, it's illegal and they got caught.

Maybe some of the content was illegal, but what Pirate Bay did was not - at least by Swedish law (IANASwedeL). All they did was host tiny text files and provice a search database. They were a tracker, not a host.

This is basically the same as American cops raiding Bell because the Yellow Pages lists the phone number of a paper mill, and paper can potentially be used to write harassing letters.

Oh shit

[Anonymous Coward]

If file-sharing friendly Sweden can go down, what could happen for other countries? This doesn't bode well for private trackers. Some are hosted in the Netherlands (Demonoid, Empornium, Pure TnA) or Canada (BitMeTV). Sweden-based TvTorrents might be next. Maybe its time to stop donating funds to the private trackers lest one gets accused of funding piracy...

Re:Oh shit

[mockchoi]

Listing torrent sites in an open forum like this brings them one step closer to being shut down.

Re:Oh shit

[gkhan1]

Yeah, I'm sure the RIAA have never, ever heard of Demonoid.com. Make sure nobody says mininova. Damn! Now they're shut down too!

I would seriously doubt that there are any torrent sites with 500+ users that the RIAA/MPAA/whoever are not aware of. There is no risk whatsoever in saying a torrent-site's name in an open forum. Don't be a tool.

Re:Oh shit

[mockchoi]

Don't YOU be a tool. the **AA's method's aren't any more sophisticated than using Google and starting at the top and working down. The more people throw names around, the more danger they're in.

Re:Oh shit

[Mister Whirly]

Yeah, everybody knows security through obscurity is the safest and most effective method...

Re:Oh shit

[ahsile]

You're a member of one of the *AA's? You know how they operate? Well, why don't you give us heads up next time this sort of thing is gonna happen?

Oh, that's right, you're talking out of your arse... you really have no clue how they find sites or which ones are on their radar.

Re:Oh shit

[mockchoi]

Well, why don't you give us heads up next time this sort of thing is gonna happen?

Um, I just did.

You've gotta be the stupidest damn person I've ever come across here, and that's saying a lot.

Distributed tracking

[Meneth]

This, I think, clearly shows the need for a distributed publish/search mechanism for BitTorrent, like eMule's Kad network.

Re:Distributed tracking

[Xymor]

Welcome to 2004 Exeem tried that[distributed publish/search mechanism for BitTorrent], and failed miserably.

Re:Distributed tracking

[Meneth]

Exeem was a commercial piece of krap. What's needed is a free, OSS solution. It won't be picked up hella-fast, but I know it's technically possible.

Re:Distributed tracking

[Xymor]

Agreed, exeem was crap. Isn't there any azureus plugin with this funcionality?

Re:Clarification...

[lanswitch]

In Europe we call it "democracy".

Re:come on, let's face it

[Verteiron]

No, it isn't. That's the point. Where TPB is/was located, hosting torrent files is not illegal because torrents -contain no copyrighted data-. If these guys ever traveled to the USA, they'd probably be arrested (hell, they'd probably be called "enemy combatants" by the *AA and incarcerated for life without trial). But as long as they stayed where they are, and kept their servers where they are, they should have been fine, provided the local law did not change.

Not Shut Down, just taken away for a little while

[tgpo]

From TFA it stated that the servers were simply being taken to be searched for possible criminal actions. Torrent files are not illegal in Sweden, so I would think that servers will be searched and found clean and returned and hooked back up. I didn't see anything in TFA that said anything about them being shut down forever, just simply taken offline for a search.

No copyrighted infringement

[s31523]

with respect to:
The uncertainty on the part of the police may stem from the fact ThePirateBay.org's servers only host .torrent files, not actual copyrighted material.
I find it hard to beleive that copyright law will cover this. I wonder what USA law states, and I wonder if our laws can't prosecute anyone and that is why torrent file sharing is relatively untouched. It is almost like trying to prosecute the gun makers for criminals using guns, wait a minute we already did that!

Re:No copyrighted infringement

[tinkerghost]

In the US they can't charge you with copywrite infringement for hosting a torrent tracker. It's simple, there is nothing copywriten on you server. You have small text files that simply state what is available & some reference data.
So what they charge you with is conspiracy to commit, and accessory to - copywrite infringement.
Also, certainly remember that nothing so petty as laws can stop a DA in pursuit of publicity. I doubt it's any better in Sweden. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that someone with an agenda can't make it look illegal/immoral/unjust.
Telling people to go screw themselves because what they are doing is legal in their country might not have been the most PC thing for them to do. Then again, if the town miletant vegan showed up at my door and told me to stop grilling a steak, I would probably tell them the same thing.
Did the **AA have something to do with it - almost certainly. Like anyone else with an agenda, they shopped around until they found someone sympathetic to their view, and then pushed. Also, power in politics is concidered a zero sum game. In order for the Pirate Party to gain any seats & influence, someone else is going to have to loose it. I don't know of many politicians who are willing to loose power. Most would rather have a ringside seat to Armageddon than just a vote in Eden. So, we have huge money and politics coming together against a single entity.
Anyone still surprised they go raided? Big business feels their money is being threatened & politicians feel their power is threatened - did you really think something like a legal system is going to protect them? Both of these groups are used to getting what they want, and if they can't do it today, they change the rules so they can have it tomorrow. If they can't change the rules, they usually ignore them and apologize later - after they have what they want and a precident for getting it again next time without having to apologize.

The law doesn't have to change to change

[Douglas Simmons]

You'd be surprised how the US Supreme Court has warped the Constitution. These precedents get erroneously called the law of the land (even though it isn't the Court's job to write law) and with words like penumbra they may practically speaking write law.

Now with these guys, perhaps the DA (or equiv) is hoping to score himself some judicial activist judges who are not afraid to identify ostensible theft as theft. They may not care what a .torrent contains, instead they'll just see a festival of crime that needs to be dealt with facing little or no reprecussion from, say, a higher court overturning the verdict because the judicial branch does not wait for the legislative branch to tweak laws.

The Pirate Bay is banking on what I'm describing not happening. Of course I'm using the US as a model, I have no idea what this government is like, but I'm guessing that there are similarities.

Re:The law doesn't have to change to change

[TrekkieGod]

You'd be surprised how the US Supreme Court has warped the Constitution.

"Warped" by whose definition? When people have different interpretations of the text somebody has to have the final word, otherwise the text means nothing.

Re:The law doesn't have to change to change

[Jon Luckey]

You'd be surprised how the US Supreme Court has warped the Constitution. These precedents get erroneously called the law of the land (even though it isn't the Court's job to write law) and with words like penumbra they may practically speaking write law.

What the Supreme Court makes is called Case Law. Case law has been a part of common law legal system for longer than the U.S. has been in existance.

It is as much the law of the land as statutory law is.

Re:The law doesn't have to change to change

[Douglas Simmons]

Precedents are only precedents. New cases come along and sometimes decisions conflict with, or essentially overturn, past rulings.

Re:The law doesn't have to change to change

[Have Blue]

The court might use the same line of reasoning as a US court used in the Grokster case- declare that the site "encourages" copyright infringement and thus is responsible for any copyright infringement that occurs as a direct result of a third party accessing information on it.

Re:The law doesn't have to change to change

[Jon Luckey]

Precedents are only precedents. New cases come along and sometimes decisions conflict with, or essentially overturn, past rulings.

More rarely than you seem to think. Stare Decisis and Jurisprudence Constante are an integral part of our legal system.

For example, the infamous Dredd Scott decision was not overturned by judges going "Geesh, WHAT were we thinking?" and making a new ruling, but by the adoption of the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Re:The law doesn't have to change to change

[Douglas Simmons]

Stare decisis gets broken, just recently in fact, as Clarence Thomas has been demonstrating in his anti-Commerce Clause abuse crusade (EG US v Lopez.

Look Mr. Four-digit-UID, I made a decent point originally, stop breaking my balls :P.

Re:The law doesn't have to change to change

[Jon Luckey]

Stare decisis gets broken, just recently in fact, as Clarence Thomas has been demonstrating

How odd that you think a concuring opinion by Justice Thomas somehow overturned a precident, when the opinion of the court was the one written by Justice Rehnquist.

IMHO the language J. Rehnquist uses shows respect for the doctorine of Stare Decisis:

      To uphold the Government's contentions here, we would have to pile
      inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert
      congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police
      power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our
      prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great
      deference to congressional action. See supra, at 8. The broad language
      in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional
      expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would
      require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers
      does not presuppose something not enumerated, cf. Gibbons v. Ogden,
      supra, at 195, and that there never will be a distinction between
      what is truly national and what is truly local, cf. Jones & Laughlin
      Steel, supra, at 30. This we are unwilling to do.

Rehnquist's opinion has the court declining to expand congressional powers, but neither does the opinion contract back those powers already ruled constitutional. It declares no previous decision overturned. And you'll note the opinion citing supporting decisions. Stare Decisis in action.

btw I have no interest in breaking balls. Its just irksome to me that some people seem intent on undermining the purpose of the judicial branch. Its their job to fill in the gaps of statutory law, not to be mindless robots ruling on the letter of the law rather than the intent.

Re:The law doesn't have to change to change

[TrekkieGod]

See the first and fourth amendments, which used to be the law of the land.

Well, that's my point. The judicial branch isn't the one taking away your freedoms. That would be the legislative when laws are passed, and the executive when the NSA gets your phone call history. The judicial branch are the ones who can override them by declaring it unconstitutional. Whether they agree with the legislative and executive is besides the point. Without them, the interpretations of those currently elected are the only ones that count, and there's nobody checking their decisions.

Now, if you don't agree with how they interpret the constitution, that's the people's fault. They're not directly elected, but if you elect Bush, you should expect him to nominate justices which will be extreme moral conservatives and more likely to uphold the rule of big government "for the sake of security" over individual liberties in their judgements.

Which brings us to who is really at fault for our declining freedoms. Democracy is great, but it requires people to work to keep government in check. Or at least stay out of the way. Every election we see all these ads telling people to "get out and vote." It annoys the hell out of me. If you voted for Bush because you agree with what he's doing and what he plans to do, I have no problem with that. That's your choice as an American citizen, and your opinion isn't less valid than mine. If you haven't done your research, but you feel like you should go out to the polls to make sure your Christian candidate keeps those godless liberals away from power, but you have no idea what you're Christian candidate has been up to, you're screwing the voters who actually keep informed (and vice-versa if you decided you're a Bush-hater and will vote for "anyone but Bush", but can't tell me why you dislike him). I can't claim to always take the time to be informed about every aspects of politics, but when I haven't researched all the candidates for a position, I don't vote for that position.

this blows 8/

[axelsson]

as a swedish citizen and human this is like a slap in the face 8P

Re:come on, let's face it

[JudeanPeople'sFront]

Why do half-measures, let's close the internet while we're at it! Most of the traffic is porn and/or pirated.

Bad guys win after all?

[drgonzo59]

Microsoft willing to give away free licences for the govt. computers in exchange for the piratebay sMicrosoft willing to give away free licences for the govt. computers in exchange for the piratebay shutdown would do it, for example...

With any legal system there are a million of loopholes, that his how the lawyers make their big bucks. It seems like one of those MPAA/RIAA/Microsoft/Adobe lawyers found a loophole in the Swedish law after all.

It seems the like the guys at the piratebay.org has fun with the legal threats, insulting all those idiots, I wouldn't be surprised that a good number of them took it personally, knowing how big and inflamed their egos are. Does it mean the bad guys win after all?

Re:Bad guys win after all?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It seems the like the guys at the piratebay.org has fun with the legal threats, insulting all those idiots, I wouldn't be surprised that a good number of them took it personally, knowing how big and inflamed their egos are. Does it mean the bad guys win after all?

That depends on whom you consider to be the bad guys: the guys who deliberately helped to rip off half the world and then made a point of showing off about it and treating the authorities with contempt, or the authorities who bitch-slapped them for it.

Re:Bad guys win after all?

[shark72]

Or maybe the "bad guys" here are the people who've spent untold effort, time and money in producing the work that we enjoy, and then having the audacity to release it under their own terms.

Re:Bad guys win after all?

[green1]

>> the guys who deliberately helped to rip off half the world and then made a point of showing off
>> about it and treating the authorities with contempt, or the authorities who bitch-slapped them for it.

I'm confused... I can't tell which of those 2 is the pirate bay, and which is the media cartels? after all, the ultimate authority in any democratic country is "the people"...

Re:Bad guys win after all?

[Baki]

no no, they demand state protection for their business model, and even accept any violation on basic human rights as "collateral damage". sorry, even if they produce nice work, I equate them to traitors of human civilisation and guilty of high treason (taking the dismantling of democracy by buying layws and bribing politicians as necessary to reach their goals). should I ever have something to say politically, i'd lock all of them away for a long time.

Re:Bad guys win after all?

[shark72]

"no no, they demand state protection for their business model, and even accept any violation on basic human rights as "collateral damage"."

Nonsense. We all rely on state protection to do business. No matter what you sell, and in what quantity you sell it, there's always going to be somebody who wants it for free. This is why we have laws. Your corner grocery depends on the protection of the police. Your local businesses depend the FAA and the Coast Guard to help their trade go smoothly, and their employees rely on the SEC and state and federal labor laws to keep their employers in check.

The ability to get a free copy of the Fray CD and distribute it to all your friends with impunity is not a "basic human right." Nor is it a "basic human right" to buy a DVD and give copies to all your friends. Talk to some people who've come to the US as refugees, or who participated in the civil rights protests in the South in the 1960's, or who were interred in camps in the US or Germany about "basic human rights" and they'll check you right proper.

"I equate them to traitors of human civilisation and guilty of high treason (taking the dismantling of democracy by buying layws and bribing politicians as necessary to reach their goals). should I ever have something to say politically, i'd lock all of them away for a long time."

Really? I know several people who've owned copyrights on their work (books, poetry, even songs) and I wouldn't consider them traitors to human civilization. Are you talking about the industries that make their money with IP? Sadly, every industry buys laws. If you were to start locking up people in order of how much money they spend on lobbying efforts, the industries that represent artists, writers, coders, and singers would be far down on your list.

Re:come on, let's face it

[GrayCalx]

This is basically the same as American cops raiding Bell because the Yellow Pages lists the phone number of a paper mill, and paper can potentially be used to write harassing letters.

I think a better analogy would be cops raiding a house because the guy was distributing directions on where to buy [drugs,hookers,whatevers illegal].

Maybe they were warned about it...

[Garabito]

but swedish police officers might have not liked when they were told to "sodomize themselves with retractable batons".

Re:Clarification...

[rdoger6424]

[sarcasm viewpoint="right wing" nationality="USA"]
democracy? democracy is for communists!
[/sarcasm]

Story unfolds...

[Jarlsberg]

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789 ,834356,00.html
For the benefit of those who don't speak swedish, here's a short summary:
3 people have been arrested, age 22, 24 and 28. They have not been charged, but are taken in because they the police suspect they have violated copyright laws. The persons are directly connected to TPB.org. They are as of an hour ago still under interrogation. 50 police men have worked on the case.

Re:Story unfolds...

[Jugalator]

Wow, 50 police men... That's more than we have on duty in our city, and they're too few. And they're supposed to handle, you know, abuse and stuff. Something here feels pretty wrong.

Re:Story unfolds...

[myspys]

something is very very wrong if a country can "spare" 50 policemen to work on a case where they are not even sure if a crime has been committed or not(!)

"...The police right now is taking all of our servers, to check if there is a crime there or not (they are actually not sure)," ThePirateBay.org spokesperson "brokep" told Slyck.com.

Re:Story unfolds...

[int19h]

Actually, it's Kopps. Here's the Imdb-info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0339230/

However offtopic, I agree that it's funny.

Re:Story unfolds...

[Kjella]

something is very very wrong if a country can "spare" 50 policemen to work on a case where they are not even sure if a crime has been committed or not(!)

That didn't stop the Norwegian police from spending three years investigating DVD-Jon. And pushing it through two courts only to be shot down in flames. Btw, the same fruitcake was recently in the news for wanting to give copyright holders direct access to subscriber information. Basicly the same right as in the "Patriot Act" except to private corporations. I just loved the MPA (intl. MPAA) quote "Then we would not have to go through the police or the courts, which would make our job considerably easier." Exact quote for those that understand Norwegian:

"- Da ville vi slippe å gå veien om politi eller domstol, noe som ville gjort jobben vår betraktelig enklere, sier Tøndel."

Re:Story unfolds...

[Frogbert]

Actually I think it means that something is very right when a countries police force isn't streched to the limit 24/7.

Private Trackers

[Tx]

Big sites like TPB are too much of a target for the <local MPAA/RIAA equivalent%gt;. However one already sees masses of small private trackers with only a few hundred users. The disadvantages of lots of limited access private trackers are obvious, but good luck to the authorities trying to shut them all down.

Re:Private Trackers

[linvir]

Just like water... Bruce Lee must be lying completely motionless in his grave...

Aw shucks. . .

[CrtxReavr]

Now I feel guilty about ad-blocking the banners on there. . .

-CR

Re:come on, let's face it

[Vo0k]

> Maybe some of the content was illegal, but what Pirate Bay did was not - at least by Swedish law (IANASwedeL).

It was not illegal, and that's pretty sure, because some of TPB crew are lawyers. That's what allowed them to operate despite all these threats for so long, and that's why they knew they could do all they were doing. Now I'd say the Police is ears deep in shit :)

Re:come on, let's face it

[iDope]

This is basically the same as American cops raiding Bell because the Yellow Pages lists the phone number of a paper mill, and paper can potentially be used to write harassing letters.

Not quite! The correct analogy would be cops raiding Bell because the Yellow pages lists the phone number of a paper mill under the section "For help writing harassing letters". Its about the *intent*.

Re:come on, let's face it

[drgonzo59]

Welcome to the RIAA/MPAA world domination extravaganza. It just goes to prove that those who have the most money and more lawyers will win after all, no mater what the law says...

Re:A quote

[Jon Luckey]

"Vergoofin der flicke stoobin mit der børk-børk yubetcha!"

A Møøse once bit my sister ...

What the Swedish antipiracy firm (ATB) has to say

[entoke]

http://www.antipiratbyran.com/index.htm?id=news&p= p19#19

"The Pirate Bay nedstängd

Polisen genomförde idag en rad husrannsakningar mot lokaler där The Pirate Bay bedriver sin verksamhet. Klockan 12 30 stängdes sidan thepiratebay.org ned.

The Pirate Bay var fram tills igår knutpunkten för en stor del av världens illegala fildelning. Enligt egna uppgifter fanns det en dryg miljon användare som kunde laddade upp och ned främst filmer, spel och musik. Genom sin storlek och uttalade målsättning att hänga ut och håna berörda upphovsmän gjorde man The Pirate Bay känd över hela världen. Sverige blev internationellt känt som en fristad för dem som begick upphovsrättsbrott på Internet. Detta utnyttjades ekonomiskt för en omfattande försäljning av annonser, porreklam och insamling av donationer.

Det är bra att den svenska polisen nu prioriterar denna typ av brottslighet. Det är upphovsrätten som finansierar nyskapandet inom film, datorspel, musik och övrig kultur. Den som bryter mot upphovsrättslagen stjäl från framtidens kreatörer och biopublik. Därför är stängningen av The Pirate Bay bra för alla oss som uppskattar ny film och underhållning säger Henrik Pontén, jurist på Antipiratbyrån.

Svenska produktioner drabbas i hög grad av den illegala nedladdningen, säger Per-Erik Wallin, Föreningen Sveriges Filmproducenter. Om svenska filmer finns tillgängliga på nätet före premiären innebär det minskade chanser att filmerna ska spela hem produktionskostnaden och mindre medel för att göra nästa film. Det drabbar både manusförfattare, regissörer, skådespelare och filmarbetare."

Roughly translated

"The pirate bay closed

Today the police raided multiple places were The Pirate Bay conducts its operations. At 12.30 the site thepiratebay.org was closed.

The pirate Bay was until yesterday the center for a large part of the worlds illegal filesharing. According to piratebay itself there was over a million users who could upload or download foremost movies, games and music.

By its size and outspoken goal of ridiculing authors The pirate Bay got known all over the world.

Sweden got known internationally as an asylum for those who commited copyright crimes on the internet. This was use economicaly for a large scale sale of adds, pornadds and donations.

It is good that the swedish police now priority this kind of crime. It is the copyright that finances creation in movies, computergames, music and other culture. Whoever breaks the copyright steals from future auothors and cinema audience. Therefore the closing of The Pirate Bay is good for all of us that apreciate new Movies and entertainment says Henrik Pontén, legal advisor at Antipiratbyrån.

Swedish productions are very much affected by illegal downloading, say Per-Erik Wallin, Föreningen Sveriges Filmproducenter. If swedish movies are availible on the net before the premiere chances are smaller that the movies will get the production cost back and less means to make the next movie. It affects both scriptwriters, directors, actors and filmcrews."

Note that this truly is a crappy translation.

DNS attack

[gentimjs]

I must admit, I'm very surprised that it has come to this. I had expected the xIAAs to resort to blackmale/extortion/kneecapping to get the root name servers (in the USA) and such to just stop serving DNS records for them... you know, the whole reason everyone outside the USA is against the US Government retaining some form of control over the root servers?

same as a drug dealer

[ltcdata]

Imagine: An old man in a corner... i talk to him and he tells me where to get illegal drugs, but he does not have anything. Even he does not carry the drugs, isn't he guilty anyway?

Re:same as a drug dealer

[EGSonikku]

Guilty of what exactly? The First Ammendment?

Re:same as a drug dealer

[inetuid]

Guilty of what? Dealing drugs - nope.

Re:same as a drug dealer

[GFPerez]

Using your logic, any search engine could be interpreted as the drug dealer. I always suspected that was something nasty about this Jeeves guy.

Re:same as a drug dealer

[Guysmiley777]

No, he's not. Let's take your myopic case to the extreme, shall we?

A person walks up to a police officer and says "Sir, that man across the street is selling illegal drugs!" The police officer's response: "You're under arrest for providing information as to where illegal drugs can be purchased."

Re:same as a drug dealer

[dhasenan]

It depends.

In the one case, the old man in the corner has spoken to the actual vendors and has agreed to direct people to them. This is clearly conspiracy to commit a crime; he's an accessory.

In another case, the old man happens to know where to get illegal drugs (an exact address), but hasn't actually made any agreements. This is ambiguous.

In the last case, the old man knows where to get drugs in general, but not a specific address. This is not illegal, I believe. You'd expect people to know what's happening in their neighborhood.

Now. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, a commercial matter, not a federal matter. If I actually copy your movie and sell it on the streets, that's illegal, and you can sue me. If I know which streets tend to contain people who are selling pirated videos and tell people, then what have I done wrong? What if I know more precisely where to find the person in question?

Re:same as a drug dealer

[ltcdata]

Ir i can prove that the man is telling people where to get drugs, he's guilty. Imagine: A notary public and a riaa/mpaa agent sit down on a computer. They search and do find torrents for copyrighted material on thepiratebay. The notary takes note of everything. Done, proved that tpb is guilty of that.

Re:same as a drug dealer

[ltcdata]

The thing is that if you are standing with a sign that says "ask me for where to get movies" and you tell to anyone who asks where to get them. That is what tpb was doing. Knowing that in the neighbor some people "sell drugs" is one thing. Telling everyone who asks where to get the drugs, it's a different thing. "What if I know more precisely where to find the person in question?"

Re:same as a drug dealer

[Saint Fnordius]

Not really. The old man in your example has no connection to the pushers, he just knows that if you want weed, you go talk to Leon over there, and say you want oregano. In theory, the old guy will tell you whether you're a cop or a buyer.

Mind you, a more appropriate example would be the old guy telling you where to buy cheap rip-offs. He knows where to go to get bootleg DVD's but doesn't own any himself. "Oh, you want Pirates of the Carribean? Check out Jack, the guy in the coffee shop. He'll burn you a copy."

Re:same as a drug dealer

[LoyalOpposition]

Imagine: An old man in a corner... i talk to him and he tells me where to get illegal drugs, but he does not have anything. Even he does not carry the drugs, isn't he guilty anyway?

That's certainly true. The police should immediately arrest all informants.

Re:same as a drug dealer

[ltcdata]

Maybe i'm a little biased for the laws of my country (argentina), but here, if i tell, for example, for anyone to asks, where to get drugs, i can get accused of complicity with the drug dealer.

Re:same as a drug dealer

[ltcdata]

you are taking things to the extreme. If the police wants, they can sneak a camera, ask for drugs, and arrest the one that said where to get them (after a succefull check to see if there where a real drug dealer). At least in argentina, the can do that.

Re:same as a drug dealer

[gowen]

The police should immediately arrest all informants.

The police could charge an enormous number of informants.

They simply choose not to, in exchange for information, or help to sort out a plea bargain.

Re:same as a drug dealer

[ltcdata]

They simply choose not to, in exchange for information, or help to sort out a plea bargain.

exactly like in my country... the want to get the BIG RAT, not the little mouse.

Re:same as a drug dealer

[Saint Fnordius]

Well, I think the biggest problem is that you equate unlicensed copying with illegal substances. The unlicensed copying over the internet is more akin to cheap sweatshops passing off their goods as being from Nike or Adidas, or like somebody burning copies of his CD's and giving them out. The crime isn't theft per se, but fraud.

Now, to return to your example. The Pirate Bay was marginally like the old man, in that it was giving out free maps to all passers-by of the open-air market, not caring if the goods offered were authentic or ripoffs.

Re:same as a drug dealer

[Guysmiley777]

Unfortunately for the MPAA that isn't illegal according to Swedish law. Maybe they can bribe the President into invading Sweden on some falsified allegations. Naaaawwww, that could never happen.

Oh wait.

Re:same as a drug dealer

[drinkypoo]

This is also very much true here in the US. You are an accessory to a crime at this point. Of course, making drugs illegal only makes selling drugs more lucrative, and while estimates of improvements in potency are greatly exaggerated, the existence of many of our current strains of marijuana is directly due to the war on drugs that began in this country in the 1930s.

well...

[DoctorDyna]

Let's hope all their server's run free software. I wouldn't put it past them to vengfully do something like this and then "Al Capone" the owners with a law suit over a $20 peice of warez on their server and sue them into the ground over it.

Has it not occured to anyone

[TheDunadan]

that tommorrow last year the exact same thing "happened" and it was hoax. I haven't read the article because the server appears to be slashdotted, but it seems awefully suspicious that the same story of TPB being raided by Swedish police shows up again a year later almost to the day.

Re:Has it not occured to anyone

[entoke]

Well its on all the large news sites in sweden and on the Swedish antipiracy firms homepage.

I dont remember how much publicity it got the last time but this time it's all over the Swedish news.

Re:Has it not occured to anyone

[TheDunadan]

I don't know how much publicity it gto last time but it was a fair amount seeing as how a Google search for pirate bay raided has tops results being last years story. I'm not saying it hasn't been raided, just that it is an unlikely coincedence.

Re:Has it not occured to anyone

[Tired_Blood]

More likely, the police knew when TPB did their last maintenance shutdown and assumed a routine schedule.

The best time for the police to inspect an item that contains possible criminal evidence is before the owner does so themselves. For items that accumulate such evidence: the day before, if possible.

Re:Has it not occured to anyone

[Threni]

> I'm not saying it hasn't been raided, just that it is an unlikely coincedence.

Yeah, and the guy you're replying to says it's on Swedish TV news, plus the website of the Swedish anti-piracy organisation.

You're saying..what? That it would be a coincidence that it was raided because it wasn't raided last year?

Re:Has it not occured to anyone

[TheDunadan]

No I was saying that now that its more confirmed I believe it, just that at first it appeared more likely to be a hoax.

Re:come on, let's face it

[Bake]

Learning the basic difference between the Nordic (Scandinavian) country of Sweden/Sverige and a country called Switzerland/Swiss/Suisse/Schweiz/Svizzera located between Italy, France and Germany would be a nice start before tooting your horn about either country's laws.

Re:Hoaxed?

[porkThreeWays]

Please tell me they encrypted the filesystems...

Re:come on, let's face it

[cpt kangarooski]

The DMCA has nothing to do with it. They are illegal in the US, because the US treats contributory infringement (i.e. knowingly helping someone infringe), vicarious infringement (i.e. profiting by another's infringement), and inducement (i.e. strongly encouraging someone to infringe in conjunction with assistance) as being punishable just as much as direct infringement. The idea of secondary liability is fairly common in our legal system.

Whether Sweden has anything like this, I have no idea.

Re:come on, let's face it

[impossiblefork]

It would not be particularly surprising if they confiscated the servers to aquire the IP-numbers of their users, with copyrighted material on the suspects personal computers being used as a pretext for the thing. They do, however, most probably not actually keep any logs however.

Damnit!

[cimmer]

In other news, the global warming index increased unexpectedly by 1.2% this morning.

Re:Damnit!

[Gothic_Walrus]

Never you fear, though...this is all part of His plan.

After all, His Noodly Appendages work in mysterious ways. :)

Re:Damnit!

[Attrition_cp]

Clearly, we are being tested.

Re:come on, let's face it

[MyNameIsEarl]

Sweden does not equal Switzerland last time I checked. I do believe they might export some sort of fancy meatballs though.

Now thats my political party

[unity100]

Indeed. Albeit only im not swedish.

Re:Hoaxed?

[Agret]

It's probably not an encrypted filesystem and even if it was they'd have to decrypt it so the police could look at the data anyway. They weren't committing any crimes so they have to prove that to get their servers back...

Re:come on, let's face it

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

lets see...

1)compares digital copyright infingment to theft of physical item (check) 2)horrible analogy (check) 3)not realizing that just because someone does something that you don't like doesn't legal or right to 'kill' them (check)

congratulations you qualify as a **aa plant/employee

Re:come on, let's face it

[Jugalator]

As Slyck said, the TPB folks said the police wasn't 100% sure the confiscated computers had any illegal material on them.

I wonder if this is an attempt/hope that they'll have carried actual infringing material on the server to set a crime in stone. I mean, if all they needed was some stupid .torrent hashes, they could've done this months earlier?

First hand information here:

[giulietta masina]

The Pirate Bureau have set up a temporary news blog to inform the public about this whole incident: http://piratbyran.blogspot.com/

Shutting down The Pirate Bay can be compared to shutting down Google, by Swedish laws. Both sites supply a search engine with which you can find legal and illegal material on the internet. TPB will prevail.

Re:First hand information here:

[giulietta masina]

"The Pirate Bay exists SOLELY for the unauthorized distribution on copyrighted works."

First off, this is so wrong. Until today I was sharing my own independent movie production through TPB. So the "solely" part is incorrect.

But in any case, it is still not illegal to link to copyrighted material in Sweden. There are several precedental legal cases from the past years that establishes this. And this is the main point.

Re:First hand information here:

[VoxCombo]

First off, this is so wrong. Until today I was sharing my own independent movie production through TPB. So the "solely" part is incorrect.

Let's be real here. TPB is probably used 99% for unauthorized material. That's close enough to count as "solely".

But in any case, it is still not illegal to link to copyrighted material in Sweden. There are several precedental legal cases from the past years that establishes this. And this is the main point.

This may be true, so I am not disagreeing. However, the interesting thing about copyright law, is that it is constantly changing, both domestically and internationally. The internet is so relatively new, that the laws that govern it have not matured yet, and are constantly in flux.

So, let's be real again - while they may have skipped through a loophole in Swedish law, anyone can see that they are playing with fire by violating the spirit of international copyright law. Sweden has a vested interest in pleasing copyright holders in other nations if they wish to be a part of the global economy. It was really only a matter of time, and TPB must have known that.

Re:First hand information here:

[Threni]

> Let's be real here. TPB is probably used 99% for unauthorized material. That's
> close enough to count as "solely".

Nice use of the word "probably". You mean "in my opinion", right? I've read a lot of papers and journals on maths and I've never once seen your opinion use to assess the probability of an event occuring. And even if it were, it wouldn't follow that it therefore means "solely" because solely has a definition already.

Material is not authorised or unauthorised. It's the use that's important. If I've bought a CD and it's stopped working, or if you want to listen to it on your car cassette deck - then I'm morally - and in some jurisdictions legally - allowed to use a backup, or copy a friend's copy, onto a blank cassette tape etc.

Re:First hand information here:

[YU Nicks NE Way]

The actual _Betamax_ decision used one of those wonderful judicial words: "substantial", as in "substantial non-infringing uses". TPB wasn't used "solely" for infringing uses, but there's little doubt that it, as a site, had no substantial non-infringing use.

Re:First hand information here:

[VoxCombo]

Yes, I mean in my opinion. And I'd say my opinion is rather informed - I'm not a lawyer, but I've studied copyright and IP in-depth. I was a music business major in college, and I've written several papers on copyright law and internet filesharing.
Based on my experience and research, I feel that I am justified in making the estimation that I did. I did not try to disguise my opinions as facts. I feel very confident that others who are familiar with the issues at hand would make a similar estimate.

"Material is not authorised or unauthorised. It's the use that's important. If I've bought a CD and it's stopped working, or if you want to listen to it on your car cassette deck - then I'm morally - and in some jurisdictions legally - allowed to use a backup, or copy a friend's copy, onto a blank cassette tape etc."

I agree with you, that this is morally correct, and I agree with your feeling that it should be legal everywhere.

But, I'll state again: Let's be real here - that sort of use represents an insignificant minority of TPB users. Yes, I know that that is jsut another one of my opinions. I'll once again say that it is, at least, a relatively informed one.

Re:First hand information here:

[Threni]

> TPB wasn't used "solely" for infringing uses, but there's little doubt that it,
> as a site, had no substantial non-infringing use.

In fact there's no doubt at all that it had substantial non-infringing use. One such use is - recovering from lost/damaged media that people had obtained perfectly legally, like in the examples I have. It's not important how often this use occured.

If knives ended up being used far more often for crime than for cooking it wouldn't mean that they don't have a substantial non-infringing use.

Ditto for databases. If you discovered that most databases - including systems that used a database, or a system that could be described as such, like Outlook, Access etc - were used for illicit reasons - recording information about drug deals etc - you'd hardly say that databases were "solely" used for crime, or that they had "no substantial non-infringing use".

Also, in some countries, using piratebay to obtain music/movies/software you'd not paid for simply isn't illegal, so again, that would be a non-infringing use.

Re:First hand information here:

[YU Nicks NE Way]

Sorry, but you're wrong on all points. If you've destroyed a licensed copy of a copyrighted work, then...well, the retailer might by generous, but, no, you do NOT have the right to make another copy.

Re:First hand information here:

[kimvette]

What's the POINT of legal backups if you have to destroy the backup in the event that the original is destroyed or lost? Isn't that the whole POINT of a backup?

I hate that common sense is so scarce nowadays that someone has to point out the painfully obvious.

Re:First hand information here:

[YU Nicks NE Way]

You assume that you have a right to a "legal" backup. You don't -- in fact, making a backup copy or a copyrighted work is quite clearly illegal unless the copyright holder gave you explicit permission to do so.

Re:First hand information here:

[MikeBabcock]

You've actually bought that load? Of course you have a right to make a copy. You can make one for personal backups, you can also make the one on your PC (not just run it off the original CD). You are specifically told you have the right to install the software at all (make a copy).

In Canada and several other countries, you have the specific right to make a personal copy of music works for personal use.

In Canada and several other countries, broadcast media (radio/tv) are considered public and it is even legal to redistribute their content (so long as it is not modified in any way).

Re:come on, let's face it

[SQLz]

I like the analogy but, come up with one that doesn't include a physical item. 'Stealing' requires a physical item to be actually stolen. Its definately infringement on a mass scale, so base your analogy on that rather than physical theft.

Re:What the Swedish antipiracy firm (ATB) has to s

[entoke]

It should have read (What the Swedish antipiracy firm (APB) has to say)

Re:come on, let's face it

[mrchaotica]

With WIPO and whatnot, it's becoming a safer assumption every day.

Re:Not Shut Down, just taken away for a little whi

[marcello_dl]

Simply taken offline to be searched, hmmm... I wonder how common is this procedure by swedish police and what triggered it. If I had business there i wouldn't like to have servers hijacked, especially if the reason is that I legally pissed off some foreign IP nazis.

Re:come on, let's face it

[maniac/dev/null]

The Metaphor Cap'n! She canna hol' oop any langer! We don have enough powah!

Re:Hoaxed?

[martingunnarsson]

No, the Swedish Police has confirmed the raid.

Re:come on, let's face it

[impossiblefork]

Please excuse the horrid repetion, I did not know of the preview button.

Re:Hoaxed?

[lukas84]

It's the other way around. They have to prove that you did something wrong.

Ahhhhhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

It's as if millions of geeks cried out at once... and were suddenly silenced.

Re:Ahhhhhhh

[TeknoHog]

It's as if millions of Star Wars fans cried out at once, asking for the paraphrasing lamers to be suddenly silenced.

Re:Hoaxed?

[linvir]

They weren't committing any crimes so they have to prove that

Anyone know if this is true? Sounds dubious to me.

Re:come on, let's face it

[nolife]

To ways to word the same thing:

1) Looking for bootleg videos? Jimmy is selling them on the corner of 5th and Main, look for the guy with a red shirt. They are priced much cheaper then the stores.

2) Don't buy bootleg videos from Jimmy, that dude with the red shirt near 5th and Main, they are not authorized videos, the video quality is not good and he is ripping off the MPAA and what he is doing is illegal.

Both sentences give the same information. If you want bootleg videos, dude on the corner has them. If push came to shove, I bet the local authorities would charge the person in 1 with contributing to the illegal activity but not the person in 2. In both methods, the person is not actually distributing anything.

Uh, no.

[kkiller]

Please see: The Local in English. Aftonbladet in b0rk b0rk.

Re:Uh, no.

[Guysmiley777]

That's børk børk you insensitive clod!

Re:come on, let's face it

[Guysmiley777]

But... but... but... you HAVE to do what we say! You HAVE to! Waaaahhhh!!!!

Re:come on, let's face it

[Haeleth]

Let's say Americans steal something that's Swedish.

Please try to keep your analogies vaguely relevant. We're talking about copyright infringement here, not theft, so let's at least keep it IP-related. Examples of relevant crimes would be Americans infringing Swedish copyrights (downloading ABBA tracks or whatever), or violating other Swedish IP laws (maybe making fake IKEA furniture, or using industrial espionage to get illegal access to Saab trade secrets).

This remind me of the time....

[Duds]

...I ran a sweedish bittorrent tracker with James Woods and the 1989 Denver Broncos.

Re:This remind me of the time....

[mfrank]

I thought the manatees lost the "James Woods" ball.

The Pirate Bay

[GauteL]

I can sort of believe that they had no illegal copies of anything in the office where The Pirate Bay was located. It makes it easier for them to wipe their hands of any wrongdoing.

However, as the main goal of the pirate bay is to facilitate copyright infringement, I find it very hard to believe that none of these guys had any illegal copies of stuff at home, on their laptops, etc.

Since their homes apparently also were raided, this is probably a way for the authorities to get to them, even if the Pirate Bay itself does nothing illegal. When you are involved in something like The Pirate Bay, it is too tempting to use it yourself.

Of course, if Swedish copyright law allows for downloading copyrighted material for personal use, then this will be fine as well.

Re:The Pirate Bay

[extintor]

The thing with swedish law AFAIK is that the posession of "pirated" materials are not illegal. Just sharing it. So having 60 GB of MP3's on your laptop is perfectly legal.

Re:The Pirate Bay

[hyfe]

However, as the main goal of the pirate bay is to facilitate copyright infringement, I find it very hard to believe that none of these guys had any illegal copies of stuff at home, on their laptops, etc.

Exactly due to the risks involved, I'm willing to bet quite alot they kept their own computers clean.

Even if they had stuff on their own computers, I'm very unsure if they actually could be charged. I imagine Sweden, as Norway, have pretty stricts laws on how police can gather information, and in which situations the information gathered can be used. After all, we don't want any random policeman with a grudge to be able to ruin somebodies life.

Stallman isn't anti-copyright.

[babbling]

Stallman isn't anti-copyright. He does want shorter copyright terms and non-commercial sharing allowed, though.

now what

[jaimz22]

now where am i going to buy my software!?

Re:come on, let's face it

[SilentChris]

Where did you get "kill" from my post, exactly?

Also, I know it goes against Slashdot "fashion", but digital copyright theft DOES have analogues to physical theft. That's why I used the newspaper example. The newspaper company is telling you where to get the chocolate -- it doesn't contain the stolen chocolate. You get the newspaper to stop hosting the ads (kill the torrents). Simple and effective means to get to the real crooks (going back to the analogy, the ones physically stealing the prerelease copies of the movies out of the studios).

Re:come on, let's face it

[dhasenan]

And yet this is suspending TPB for possibly months. If TPB wants to run over the summer, they'll need new servers. This means that less money goes to the Pirate Party, which means it has far less influence during the next round of elections.

The Pirate Party is a new party, so it doesn't have sufficient clout to raid any other parties in retaliation. Thus, their opponents get away with it.

At a minimum, even if politics wasn't involved to that extent, the IFPI is glad to have TPB offline until they can get new servers, and to strongly encourage bittorrent trackers to leave Sweden.

God bless these dudes!

[hrrY]

These guys are TRUE patriots. They at least have the guts to question the status quo and actively practice their philosophy(bringing joy to the masses)It's impossible for me to think that these guys didn't see it coming and am very sure they have made provisions for a situation like this...All the cops want is the logs and I highly doubt they are stored on-site, in fact just on the measure of volume and efficiency it wouldn't make sense to dump that stuff locally. I also smell a conspiracy with the stench of something much more insidious. Let's *just say* that these guys are/were successful with starting a political party that was recognized by a government, any government, do you know how dangerous that is to the status quo? Others would eventually notice, and possibly follow.

Blackmale?

[freakmn]

Man, I hope you meant blackmail, 'cause blackmale as a form of retribution is totally different. Not a topic for a family-friendly board such as this.

If I download...

[a_greer2005]

only shows that are availible in my cable package but that I forget to DVR, am I a criminal? I am already paying to watch the shows, and archiving is fair use...if others DLing dont have the legal right, that is their problem!

Re:If I download...

[Carthag]

Copyright is the right to publish/distribute, not the right to obtain. If you download via bittorrent, you're most likely publishing to the rest of the swarm, thus violating copyright law. But no, you're not a criminal, this is civil law.

Re:If I download...

[stripes]

only shows that are availible in my cable package but that I forget to DVR, am I a criminal? I am already paying to watch the shows, and archiving is fair use...if others DLing dont have the legal right, that is their problem!

If those shows are normal "over the air" broadcast, and they come to you with the original commercials, then whatever laws the cable companies used when they started up are on your side...unless those laws have been repealed or superseded.

However if the shows had the commercials stripped from them, or were from HBO or something, then there isn't as much on your side (I'm not saying it is illegal, I wouldn't know). Does anyone know of any bittorrent feeds of TV shows that still have commercials in them? They may be bigger files, and more awkward to watch, but hey, but far more likely to be legal, and definitely morally no different from what cable companies did 20~30 years ago.

I felt a great disturbance in the Net...

[ttys00]

...as if millions of downloads suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Re:come on, let's face it

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

yea, digital copying is totaly like actualy depriving someone of thier goods. Maybe if i had a machine that made perfect copies of that chocolate and I gave them away, then you might have an analogy.

Re:Just a Hoax -- dunno

[Svartalf]

When I see reports from people that would stand to gain by crowing about a raid
saying that they got raided, along with it peppering the news feeds over there
in Sweden, I have some reservations about it being just a hoax.

That's not to say it's not- it's just I wouldn't be so certain as there's too much
going on right at the moment that run counter to that assessment.

A disturbance in the force

[Alcimedes]

As if a million seeders and leechers cried out in agony, then were gone.....

It's the cover up, stupid !

[elpapacito]

The hypothesis is that it is easier to raid a bunch of real "hippies" than a group of lawyers-paying, well politically connected individuals and their limited liability companies.

Considering TPB probably wasn't obtaining money from the alleged infringement of copyright, they probably don't have the resources and organization of well prepared criminals or people operating borderline criminality.

It seems that if you steal an apple, harm yourself with drugs , copy a good without stealing it you are worse then a violent offender, certainly far worse then a white collar criminal. Except that for each Kennet Lay apparently-convicted we still have one thousand dangerous financial felons devouring society in absurdly, but almost legal ways.

Don't be afraid

[namtog]

Greetings,

The important Pirate Bay site is still up
http://www.puretna.com/

All is well.

LOL INTERNET

[linvir]

Have I strayed onto your preciously guarded intellectual stomping ground of Swedish Law of Fair Retaliation? I don't see how my post implies that I'm claiming to know anything about Sweden. I'm just saying that "react in any way I like" is limited by the law, and that these events don't sound like normal law enforcement to me.

Re:LOL INTERNET

[gowen]

You describe the arrests as "illegal".

Unless you're simply parroting someone else's opinion, this would suggest that you knew a little of what you were talking about. What about the arrests make you think that they were illegal under Swedish law?

Re:LOL INTERNET

[linvir]

Door number 1 for me, parrotting someone else's (the Slashdot collective's) opinion. Welcome to Slashdot. There are no new ideas here, just old ones in new and mysterious HTML presentation.

And if this all turns out to have been 'backed' or 'spearheaded' by the RIAA/MPAA (which I am assuming it is), it'd better be illegal.

Re:come on, let's face it

[SilentChris]

"Please try to keep your analogies vaguely relevant. We're talking about copyright infringement here, not theft, so let's at least keep it IP-related. Examples of relevant crimes would be Americans infringing Swedish copyrights (downloading ABBA tracks or whatever), or violating other Swedish IP laws (maybe making fake IKEA furniture, or using industrial espionage to get illegal access to Saab trade secrets)."

See, this is the classic Slashdot response and it's totally faulty.

How do you think sites like Pirate Bay get their material? I'll give you a few examples:

1.) A guy walks into a CD store, pockets the CD and walks out. The CD store eats the loss.
2.) A worker at a major motion picture steals prerelease cuts and takes them home. Not along has he stolen physical goods, but he and his coworkers may lose their jobs in the process.
3.) A worker at a game store opens a game and makes a copy before it's released. The consumer buys the now scratched-up version, returns it, and the game company eats the loss.

In all cases, physical theft DOES occur at some point. In nearly all cases, people get fired -- often having nothing to do with the theft. Not to mention all the copies the companies could have sold if hundreds of thousands of teenagers didn't download it for free.

The common Slashdot mistake is to isolate copyright infringement as its own event. It isn't. It's part of a circle of events that involve physical loss, loss of jobs, etc.

Really, is it any wonder?

[Anonymous Coward]

The way they've antagonized corporations, it was just a matter of time. From Google cache:

thepiratebay.org's response to Dreamworks:

As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the United States of America. Sweden is a country in northern Europe. Unless you figured it out by now, US law does not apply here. For your information, no Swedish law is being violated. Please be assured that any further contact with us, regardless of medium, will result in a) a suit being filed for harassment b) a formal complaint lodged with the bar of your legal counsel, for sending frivolous legal threats. It is the opinion of us and our lawyers that you are fucking morons, and that you should please go sodomize yourself with retractable batons. Please also note that your e-mail and letter will be published in full on http://www.thepiratebay.org./ Go fuck yourself. Polite as usual, anakata

You just know that everyone corporation and their lawyer quoted on the pirate bay website has been determined to find a way to get them.

Re:come on, let's face it

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

oh and Aka: kill the torrent site.

Intent means little if...

[Svartalf]

...the content has no infringing info and they don't happen to have a DMCA type law on the books (Which Sweden doesn't, to the best of my understanding- it's why they were so defiant on the "DMCA" takedown notices they got...) because the bulk of Copyright law, internationally speaking, is only concerned with the actual act of infringement, not the "enablement" of it- so I don't know what the Police there are reaching for on this.

Re:Intent means little if...

[kimvette]

Svartalf, that is a great signature. I love it. :)

Møøse bit...

[bagofbeans]

..where exactly? We should be told!

and they'd be right...

[C10H14N2]

instead they'll just see a festival of crime that needs to be dealt with facing little or no reprecussion.

I get really tired of people gleefully circumlocuting around this issue. Yes, the technology exists to make this sort of thing easy to get away with under laws meant for less complicated times. No, copyright infringement should not be a _crime_ -- it is (or should be returned to) a tort. But, the bottom line is, if you want the product and want more of it to be produced, this sort of activity, barring some other form of payment, is not economically sustainable.

All these asinine "adapt or die" arguments don't really help, unless you want everything to have more gratuitous product placement than an Austin Powers movie and, frankly, what the hell is with such a shiatty attitude toward the companies that produce the products people just can't seem to live without? If I felt that hostile towards, say, my car manufacturer, I wouldn't go around stealing their cars or making knock-off copies, I'd simply take my business elsewhere and wash my hands of them completely. It all smacks of 4yo's toy store tantrum after they've been told they can't have some stupid, useless, overpriced trinket they'll be bored with in five minutes anyway.

Re:and they'd be right...

[pla]

I get really tired of people gleefully circumlocuting around this issue.

As do I... This doesn't involve the rights of "consumers", or the subtleties of copyright law. We have nothing short of a war going on, between natural inhabitants of the planet Earth and fictional entities that, under ideal circumstances, would have us all as slaves, and to which society has accidentally granted far too much legal power.



what the hell is with such a shiatty attitude toward the companies

First of all - Shitty. Shitty shitty shitty. If you want to swear, do so. Mommy won't wash your mouth out for posting bad words on Slashdot.

Second - Compare the price of CDs to the price of tapes, and explain why the far cheaper one to produce costs more. Consider in that explanation the original excuse by the recording industry for the higher price.

Third - Explain to the retirees and soon-to-have-retired employees of Enron, Worldcom, United, and the other employee-friendly companies we've heard so much about in the past few years how they should support themselves.

Fourth - If you or I kill a man out of negligence, we go to prison. If Union Carbide kills thousands for the same reason, we won't even extradite the former CEO to face charges in India.

Why do we living, breathing humans hate corporations so much? Because they exist solely for the purpose of extracting labor from us, for the least compensation possible, for the purpose of making something which those companies then sell back to us for the most compensation possible. They consider product safety an expense to minimize vs the expected cost of liability lawsuits. They rob us of our best years, and, if we get lucky, they fully funded the 401k containing our own money, which we'll get back and hopefully lasts long enough for us to hurry up and die. When they break the law to an extent that most of us would never see the light of day again, they get fines painwise-comparable to a speeding ticket for we naturally evolved schmucks.



I'd simply take my business elsewhere and wash my hands of them completely

Boycotts don't work. Period.

Furthermore, although you can call one car model more-or-less equivalent to another in the same price class, you can't say the same for CDs, unless you would you also hold the Mona Lisa as "equivalent" to a Pollock.

Re:and they'd be right...

[kayser_soze]

This is pretty much the best explanation I have ever heard.

Ever.

[C]

Re:and they'd be right...

[cdrguru]

Well, the truth of the matter with Enron is very simple. There was no "pension" as such. There was an employee-directed 401K plan. The employees that lost everything they had in the plan did so because they placed all of the money into the company stock.

Most companies will tell you that if you do that you are making a mistake. Any financial advisor worth anything will tell you putting all the money into even the same "sector" is a mistake and all the money in a single company sheer idiocy.

WorldCom the situation is somewhat less clear what is going on. United is just using the Federal Government to take over their underfunded pension program because they can either fund it or fly airplanes. Perhaps mistakenly, they chose to remain in business. For some reason the government allows this kind of decision.

Re:come on, let's face it

[SilentChris]

"You mean like the jets, avionic engines and rockets, trucks and cars made by the little known companies like Saab and Volvo?"

Saab is owned by GM, an American company. Volvo is owned by Ford, also an American company. The American military buys some of their parts overseas, but builds 90% of the final planes on American soil.

So, like I said, give me an example with commercial value. Preferably one not owned overseas.

Voting as a message

[WoodstockJeff]

Why not? Unless they get the majority (do you think they will?) they should make a nice counterbalance.

If you don't think they can make a majority, then voting for them based solely on this one issue as a protest is useless. Single-issue candidates can always stir emotions, but they rarely can do anything worth while on other issues that have a more profound effect upon your life. What are their positions on anything other than copyright issues?

Too many people already vote based upon pet peeves, rather than "the whole package". Which candidate for the job will do the least damage to you overall is the way to go. Some years back, an aviation organization I belong to endorsed a particular candidate as being "friendly to our cause", neglecting his record on economic issues. While he has occasionally voted pro-aviation, his real track record neutral at best. And his stance on other issues can best be summarized as, "anyone who can afford to fly needs to be sending that excess capital to Washington for ME to spend!"

Re:Voting as a message

[cHALiTO]

I agree that you should know the party's complete set of politic viewpoints if you're going to vote them.

I disagree however with the idea that one should only vote for parties that 'have a chance' of winning or anything like that. People should vote for the party that represents them and their interests the better, no matter how important they are right now. Small parties usually are small just because of people thinking that way. If you think something, and believe some party is proposing a good response to your expectations, you should put your vote where your mouth is, and vote them. Otherwise, don't complain when the government does something you don't like, because they will be doing it with your implicit approval (except if they deviate from their own political viewpoint).

Re:Voting as a message

[Threni]

> If you don't think they can make a majority, then voting for them based solely
> on this one issue as a protest is useless. Single-issue candidates can always
> stir emotions, but they rarely can do anything worth while on other issues that
> have a more profound effect upon your life. What are their positions on anything
> other than copyright issues?

Irrelevant. If this party got a lot of votes - say 20% - then it would send a message to the other parties there's an issue that people feel strongly about. If people didn't vote for this party, then all the bitching on slashdot or wherever is just a bunch of wasted finger movements, that won't inform the candidates and voters of other parties - let alone everyday people - that there's an issue that people feel strongly enough about to want to use that years quota of democracy on.

Re:Voting as a message

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweden's parliament is based off of porportional representation. This means that if the pirate party gets 20% of the vote they get 20% of the seats offered in that election. Unlike America's single member districts, which means that each district votes for their representative. Usually leading to one of two parties winning an election, thus giving all the seats to the winning party.

Furthermore, governments in a country that uses porportional representation are typically coalition governments. The few top parties get seats in offices, making concessions to each other on grounds of control within the government. A 20% control could in fact, be a very large chunk of the government, especially in countries where there are many sucessful parties.

Re:Voting as a message

[say]

If you don't think they can make a majority, then voting for them based solely on this one issue as a protest is useless.

But in Sweden, they could end up at the tipping point between the blocks with a single mandate, and bargain their way on copyright law, giving support to whichever block that gives them more. After all, the issues is rather un-important to most parties.

In addition, if they get a lot of votes, populist parties are going to hijack their opinions to get their voters. And populist parties are, well, popular.

Re:Voting as a message

[falcon8080]

But what happens when you are voting in a two party system (USA), for example I believe in the right to an Abortion, and I believe that the Death Penalty is correct. Unfortunatly that means I can only vote for half of my choice. Independants dont count, as their is no guarantee that they have the same view points as myself, nor is there a guarantee that there will even be an appropriate independant in my voting area.

So yes in an ideal world you should know your parties entire political ideals and vote based on that, but unfortunatly out here in the real world we have to vote on a few key issues that matter to us at that point in time.

Re:Voting as a message

[merreborn]

"People should vote for the party that represents them and their interests the better"

You know, I agree with that completely, in theory. However, in some political systems, it's just not practical. I voted green in the first two elections after I turned 18. Then I realized what a waste of a vote that is in the US. Specifically, when Bush took office by such a slim margin, I realized that nigh every green vote is a vote that probably could have otherwise kept him out of office.

Some countries aren't nearly so two party dominated. And in those, voting for third parties makes all kinds of sense. The US's two party system, and lack of congressional term limits really limits the available choices for those of us with non-mainstream points of view.

Re:Voting as a message

[inKubus]

I disagree however with the idea that one should only vote for parties that 'have a chance' of winning or anything like that

In America the Democrats and Republicans are both part of a larger group, a power monopoly. They take "sides" in order to make it seem like there's a choice. The last several elections were almost exactly 50-50 divided. The media and the politicians like to say this means the country is "Strongly" divided. I say that it means the two "sides" are closer together than ever, so it doesn't really matter which side you pick, you are voting for people who are part of a single group, the power monopoly.

Voting for some wierd outsider would be great for the country. We need to get 2 or 3 totally weird outsiders into the senate and congress. These weirdos would not necessarily have any influence with their few votes, but you know for a fact they are going to:

1. Attend every vote
2. Read and understand every bill
3. Debate every pork barrel/hidden law/etc etc.
4. Generally put all the other people on the spot.

Those people up there are supposed to represent our states and help to make the country a better place also. Instead, they all live in Washington, DC, go to the same parties, and rarely if ever come back to their states to find out what's really going on. And if they do talk to someone from the state, it'll be some rich millionaire or business that probably does more than it's own share of subverting the will and freedom and comfort of the residents.

A weirdo elected would

1. Not be invited to those parties
2. Would not be able to find a place to live in Washington DC
3. Would not know any millionaires

Therefore he would probably come back to his house in the state he's from during the recess and actually talk to people and find out what's going on.

The only real problem is that he would shake things up so much that the power monopoly would hire one of their many hit squads and he would die in a tragic "accident".

I want to see some Henry Clay style beatings in congress though. Put someone like a Jessie Ventura in and have him PHYSICALLY BEAT people like Tom Delay (not just a clever name), Orrin Hatch, John Kerry, etc. BEAT THEM INTO SUBMISSION like the frail moneyed frat boys they are. Instead, it's just getting more aristocratic up there, because the American people think they have to go with a sure winner--when really going with the weirdest person running would be the best for everyone.

Re:Voting as a message

[MBGMorden]

Specifically, when Bush took office by such a slim margin, I realized that nigh every green vote is a vote that probably could have otherwise kept him out of office.

Or helped to put him in. Most people seem to associate particular parties with being "really part of the big two", when in reality they often aren't.

I often frequent sites that are primarily Republican (namely, a lot of firearms/shooting sports sites), myself being a Libertarian. Too often during the last presidential race I'd get blasted by people claiming that "voting for a third party is voting for Kerry", or that "the Libertarians should just join the Republicans because as it is they're just taking away votes we may need".

To which my response was: Huh? Why in the world would they assume that I'd want to vote Republican. SOME Libertarians might vote Republican if they had to vote one of the big two; others would very well vote Democrat (I personally hate both of the big two parties). Too many people though assume that a party will automatically swing one way or another though. Personally I'll be damned if I'll vote for anyone who will restrict my second ammendment rights (there went Kerry), or anyone who will restrict my first ammendment rights (there went Bush). Both groups are about restricting our freedom, they only differ in what areas they want to restrict.

Re:Voting as a message

[coffeechica]

Or you found your own party and support abortion as well as the death penalty. You're certainly not the only one with that political stance.

Re:Voting as a message

[pi_rules]

Politically speaking Ron Paul (R-TX) is pretty "out there" and I try to pay attention to what he says.

If you want just loony there's Cynthia McKinney (D-GA). Probably your best candidate for a beat-down on the House floor too. Apparently she clocked a capital police officer when she tried rushing passed a security gate without wearing the pin (or is it a badge?) that identifies who's a congresscritter and who isn't.

Re:Voting as a message

[Politburo]

Instead, they all live in Washington, DC, go to the same parties, and rarely if ever come back to their states to find out what's really going on.

First off, a lot of them live in Virginia, and some live in Maryland. Second, most of them do go home for the weekend and recesses. Third, I'll posit that it is impossible to read and understand every bill that is passed by the Congress. Give it a try someday.

People who try to buck the system get sidelined. You only serve on committees at the pleasure of party leadership. Piss off the leadership and you'll be yanked from committees, and that is where most of the power lies in Congress.

Re:Voting as a message

[saltydogdesign]

IMO, the problem with third-party candidates is this: unless a third-party sweeps the two elective branches of government, and third-party candidate elected to office is going to find his or herself completely isolated and unable to get anything accomplished. With no accomplishments, the individual has nothing to run on in the next cycle.

Third parties have got to make a good strong showing in many state elections before they can make a serious impact on the national stage. They have to show they can actually govern. A bunch of weirdos got elected in Palestine, and now everyone is having serious misgivings about whether governance is among their skills.

True, the folks in power right now aren't too good at governance, but in the absence of all the money and influence, any third-party candidate faces a steeper standard when it comes to the national stage.

As I said, just my opinion.

Re:Voting as a message

[Petrushka]

Single-issue candidates can always stir emotions, but they rarely can do anything worth while on other issues ... Which candidate for the job will do the least damage to you overall is the way to go.

Your viewpoint is very robust and works well in a place where the electoral system leads to a "winner-takes-all" kind of government. In places that have some form of proportional representation, the situation is very different and usually leads to a situation where no one party has complete control, and most parties have a say. (Personally I approve of this, on the principle that a good government is a weak government.)

Re:Voting as a message

[fizyxman]

I live in a state that has just such, I will use the expression "outsiders" representing it. I completely support most of your views and opinions, when my local town has it's yearly Maple Festival Bernie Sanders is there asking people what they think and (this is where he's different) listening to the answers. And when Jim Jeffords(R) effectively told Bush to pound sand by 'becoming' independent (I feel only the title changed) he was reflected the views of his constituents, after all we re-elected him. Both of the people are considered powerless outsiders from the tiny state of Vermont (What state is that in?) and I feel both have made themselves heard and made a difference in the big picture. Peace.

Re:Voting as a message

[pseudochaotic]

Well, I just can't let this go by without mentioning Preston Brooks, the South Carolina Senator who nearly beat abolitionist Charles Sumner to death with a cane.

Re:come on, let's face it

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

ok, now I know you are astroturf.

Why people really are reading this thread is...

[andi75]

...they're hoping that someone posts a link to a repacement site...

Re:Why people really are reading this thread is...

[Lord_Dweomer]

You sound like you're trying to make us feel guilty for that. Of COURSE we're looking for a replacement site (well, not me personally as I have several others I can go to). We all loved the Pirate Bay and had some "brand loyalty" towards them if you will, but they provided a service, and no longer do, so of course people are going to look for an alternative.

But I think that's just a secondary reason for reading this thread. The Pirate Bay has really done a lot to speak out against all the idiocy that has been going on with copyright laws. Hell, they were even going for a political party, but now they have been apparently wrongly been taken down. There are many more reasons for concern over this other than where to get your next .torrent fix.

Re:Why people really are reading this thread is...

[thelost]

there are plenty of alternatives to thepiratebay and always have been. torrentspy.com comes to mind, mininova.org, newnova.org, isohunt.com, newtorrents.info, eztvefnet.org.

Re:Why people really are reading this thread is...

[skrolle2]

Hell, they were even going for a political party

I'm really confused why people have been mentioning the Pirate Party here. They have nothing to do with The Pirate Bay other than a shared view on copyright matters.

Re:Why people really are reading this thread is...

[sukotto]

meh. I'm just waiting for a link to the Google cache.

it's so obvious...

[Lazy Jones]

With their political ambitions growing and the backing of a significant part of the population becoming obvious, the government (the ruling party) and its lackeys within the police have a very good reason to bust them, whether in accordance with the law or not. Let's hope for a good backlash in the next elections.

Re:come on, let's face it

[zerocool^]

And here's where you're wrong and trolling:

We're not talking about the DMCA, we're talking about basic theft.

NO, NO, NO, WRONG.

Theft is when YOU HAVE SOMETHING, SOMEONE ELSE TAKES IT, and YOU NO LONGER HAVE IT.

This is copyright infringement. It is NOT the same thing as theft. In a way, the copyright owner has something, someone else takes (an exact replica of) it, but the copyright owner STILL HAS IT.

It is not as simple as "reduce the problem down to something you can understand and digest easily", and "repeat it often enough, it becomes true". You can't make a simple analogy out of this; it is not a simple problem. Attempt to understand it. Bring yourself to it's level; not vice versa. This works for all complex problems, be it micro v. macro kernel, evolution v. creation, pro-choice v. pro-life, etc. Elevate your understanding.

~Wx

The Pirate Party

[Christian Engstrom]

Unfortunately our server has gone down right now (overload, not police raid), so I'll post the English description of our political agenda here.

The Pirate Party

The Pirate Party is a newly formed political party in Sweden. We want to fundamentally reform copyright law, get rid of the patent system, and ensure that citizens' rights to privacy are respected. With this agenda, and only this, we are making a bid for representation in the Swedish parliament in the upcoming national elections in September.

Not only do we think these are worthwhile goals. We also believe they are realistically achievable on a European basis. The sentiments that led to the formation of the Pirate Party in Sweden are present throughout Europe. There are already similar political initiatives under way in several other member states. Together, we will be able to set a new course for a Europe that is currently heading in a very dangerous direction.

The Pirate Party only has three issues on its agenda:

Reform of copyright law
The official aim of the copyright system has always been to find a balance between the interests of publishers and consumers, in order to promote culture being created and spread. Today that balance has been completely lost, to a point where the copyright laws severely restrict the very thing they are supposed to promote. The Pirate Party wants to restore the balance in the copyright legislation.

All non-commercial copying and use should be completely free. File sharing and p2p networking should be encouraged rather than criminalized. Culture and knowledge are good things, that increase in value the more they are shared. The Internet could become the greatest public library ever created.

The monopoly for the copyright holder to exploit an aesthetic work commercially should be limited to five years after publication. Today's copyright terms are simply absurd. Nobody needs to make money seventy years after he is dead. No film studio or record company bases its investment decisions on the off-chance that the product would be of interest to anyone a hundred years in the future. The commercial life of cultural works is staggeringly short in today's world. If you haven't made your money back in the first one or two years, you never will. A five years copyright term for commercial use is more than enough. Non-commercial use should be free from day one.

We also want a complete ban on DRM technologies, and on contract clauses that aim to restrict the consumers' legal rights in this area. There is no point in restoring balance and reason to the legislation, if at the same time we continue to allow the big media companies to both write and enforce their own arbitrary laws.

An abolished patent system
Pharmaceutical patents kill people in third world countries every day. They hamper possibly life saving research by forcing scientists to lock up their findings pending patent application, instead of sharing them with the rest of the scientific community. The latest example of this is the bird flu virus, where not even the threat of a global pandemic can make research institutions forgo their chance to make a killing on patents.

The Pirate Party has a constructive and reasoned proposal for an alternative to pharmaceutical patents. It would not only solve these problems, but also give more money to pharmaceutical research, while still cutting public spending on medicines in half. This is something we would like to discuss on a European level.

Patents in other areas range from the morally repulsive (like patents on living organisms) through the seriously harmful (patents on software and business methods) to the merely pointless (patents in the mature manufacturing industries).

Europe has all to gain and nothing to lose by abolishing patents outright. If we lead, the rest of the world will eventually follow.

Respect for the right to privacy
Following the 9/11 event in the US, Europe has

Re:come on, let's face it

[shotfeel]

Don't know about their country's laws, but in the US the scope of the search has to be specified on the search warrant. You can't tell the judge who signed it you're searching for one thing, when you're really after something else. That gets evidence tossed out of court and using it for any other purpose can get you into trouble.

Re:come on, let's face it

[Turn-X Alphonse]

A better one still would be.

This is like a guy being arrested for selling a guy a gun he knew was going to be used to kill 10 people.

Murder isn't the same as stealing some crappy video content, but it's the same deal other wise. Piratebay know what they're doing and know what will happen when they've done it. A guy going "go buy drugs here", doesn't know what them drugs will be used for or what could happen through them.

Re:come on, let's face it

[debest]

Look, we agree that TPB is shady as hell, and certainly has no right to claim a moral high ground as they obviously exist (and prosper? maybe) on the back of content that they should not have the right to help distribute. That is what they do: they facilitate parties to commit copyright violation.

But to have a functioning society of checks and balances, you simply cannot have a situation of police enforcing "laws" which do not exist on the books of the country that TPB is in. As I understand it, in Sweden, what TPB does in entirely *legal*. Ammoral, probably (depends upon one's own moral compass), but not illegal. If the law of the land is inadequate, make "the powers that be" change the laws.

BTW, we certainly haven't heard the entire story here. I don't know anything about Swedish law, but it is plausible that they have a system of searching and seizing with warrants, and a warrant for the seizures may have been granted based on evidence and testimony that pointed to an action that actually is illegal in Sweden (such as, perhaps, a locally stored copy of a movie on their servers that they downloaded themselves without purchasing a copy?). Yes, I'm just making this up, but my point is that the police could shut down the operation from serving its primary, legal purpose if TPB was also committing a minor, illegal offence.

Slyck.com has been slashdotted!

[Van Cutter Romney]

This is what you get... phpBB : Critical Error Error creating new session DEBUG MODE SQL Error : 1062 Duplicate entry '-1' for key 2 INSERT INTO slyck_sessions (session_id, session_user_id, session_start, session_time, session_ip, session_page, session_logged_in, session_admin) VALUES ('01e207d6214a048921383472c54a584a', -1, 1149085890, 1149085890, '4366a42b', 0, 0, 0) Line : 189 File : sessions.php

Re:come on, let's face it

[d!rtyboy]

"Saab is owned by GM, an American company. Volvo is owned by Ford, also an American company. The American military buys some of their parts overseas, but builds 90% of the final planes on American soil."

That only proves your original statement flawed where you said you don't think Sweden has anything of commercial value. Surely, GM and Ford think differently if they spent millions of dollars aquiring Saab and Volvo. Besides, Saabs and Volvos were only good cars before our sales teams took over.

Re:come on, let's face it

[SilentChris]

"ok, now I know you are astroturf."

Seriously, I'm not. I've pirated (and continue to pirate) a fair share in my day. That was back when I was a kid, of course -- as an adult I have a different perspective (although if a friend brings over a DVD, occasionally I'll copy it -- I think the DMCA is moronic).

I do get a little perturbed when sites like this thumb their nose at the establishment, though. They're just asking for trouble. It's better to keep this kind of stuff quiet.

Vikings are Norwegion

[geeksdave]

The vast majority of Vikings were Norwegion not Swedish. My Viking ancestors kicked your ancestors buttocks. Be nice or I'll throw lutefisk at you.

Re:Vikings are Norwegion

[Ch_Omega]

It's spelled Norvegian. :)

Re:Vikings are Norwegion

[Ch_Omega]

Damn, commenting someones bad spelling of the name of my country, and I manage to get it misspelled myself. Hehe.. Ofcourse it's "Norwegian". :)

Re:Vikings are Norwegion

[geekoid]

But the vast majotiry of people from Norway were not Vikings. PIF they didn't like vikings and were glad to see them leave when they went raiding.
The odds that your ansestors were actual vikings are extremely small. Unless your ansestory goes back to a villiage rading by vikings.....and she was raped...and lived, and didn't play the baby game with the offspring. Unlikly since they would have left after thr raid.

Re:Vikings are Norwegion

[bakes]

Damn, commenting someones bad spelling of the name of my country, and I manage to get it misspelled myself. Hehe.. Ofcourse it's "Norwegian". :)

Oh, you are from Norwegia? I hear that the climate there is similar to that in some parts of Canadia.

Re:Vikings are Norwegion

[pcgabe]

grab one about Irish history.

Holy crap! So, what you're saying is, he's a doctor, AND a ninja, AND a Viking?!!

Those pirates are screwed.

Re:Vikings are Norwegion

[ThatFunkyMunki]

Norway?

Re:Vikings are Norwegion

[Ch_Omega]

Yes, I'm from Norway. The climate here varies a lot, with a long coast, mountains in the center/south of the country, and woodlands in the south/east. Some parts of Norway have the same climate as some parts of Canada, but there really isn't just one type of climate here. :)

You missed a couple there, friend...

[Svartalf]

4) Person pirating buys the copy of the game or music for himself and decides to share.
5) Person pirating borrows the copy of the game or music from his buddy and decides to share.
6) Person rents the movie or game and rips the content from the disc.
7) Person pirating sneaks into a movie/concert with a recording device and makes a recording.

In reality, 4, 5, and 6 happen more often than any one of the previous three- it's where the bulk of the pirated stuff that's not screeners or bootlegs comes from.
In reality, 7 happens for most of the pirated movies floating about that are not ripped from the DVD release. It's why they call them a "screener" or a "bootleg".

In the above three cases, which are actually the most common, the piracy did NOT involve ANY loss of property. It involved an act of infringement , which is a completely different act from theft- on the books and in reality. But then, you frame it that way probably to make you feel better about the intermingling of legal concepts that the BSA, RIAA, and MPAA have tried to promulgate over the years now.

And, before you go off on me, saying I'm a pirate- I'm a content and "IP" producer that takes great exception to how things are progressing in the world. I've written SF short stories. I've written software as works for hire and independently. I've got one US (soon International) Patent pending, with about 6+ more about to be filed. You can be upset about it being infringement- that's the proper term, etc. and is what is actually going on in most cases. You shouldn't be upset about it being "theft"- because it isn't.

Re:You missed a couple there, friend...

[Svartalf]

Depends on jurisdiction...

In the US, technically, it's all the above because of the DMCA- which may be unconstitutional and doesn't map to anyone else's law.

Elsewhere, it'd be the people making the actual acts of infringement. Since thepiratebay.org doesn't host the protected works in question, the only people actionable, would be the people bittorrenting it, as that's the actual act of infringment.

Re:You missed a couple there, friend...

[Svartalf]

That wasn't my understanding of the term, but that'd be picking nits- most of the pirate movies not ripped from DVDs are caught via camcorder or via a feed capture in the case of a digitally distributed and shown movie.

Not unprecedented

[Anonymous Coward]

For powerful pirates to be regarded as popular heroes among a local community, even to the point of having semi-official protected status, is not without precedent. The pirate Edward Teach, also known as Blackbeard, could not have operated for so many years in the Bahamas without numerous safe harbours and local bigwigs on his side, including the governor of the British colony of North Carolina.

But then, the British Crown gave protection and rewards to many pirates. Of course, the politically correct term was "privateers". Guys like Sir Francis Drake, Sir Henry Morgan, and Governor Woodes Rogers may have been regarded by other nations as murderers, thieves, slavers, and rapists, but to the British they were plucky men of renown.

So for ThePirateBay.org, this may not be the end, but only the beginning!

Re:come on, let's face it

[tomhudson]

Not quite! The correct analogy would be cops raiding Bell because the Yellow pages lists the phone number of a paper mill under the section "For help writing harassing letters". Its about the *intent*.

Another bad analogy. Check out your newspapers' classified section - lots of ads for escorts a.k.a. prostitutes.

So why aren't they shutting down the newspapers if its all about "intent"? Oh, right, the **AAs don't mind people sharing a bit of crack* ...

* For those who don't get the "sharing a bit of crack" reference ...

Q. What's the difference between a drug dealer and a hooker?
A. The hooker can always wash her crack and resell it

- If you can make a bad analogy, I can make a worse joke ... and no, the torrent files themselves are not theft, any more than the escort ads are themselves prostitution. Both just tell you where to get what you're looking for.

Here's one for you.

[sketchman]

So, if I search Google for free full copies of copyrighted software, is it Google's fault if I download one of those free copies?
If I understand Bittorrent correctly, one is downloading from other people, not TPB. So, TPB is like Google for Bittorrent, right?
In which case, they can't fairly shut one down without doing the same thing to the other.
TPB and Google provide a service. What people do with that service should be the people's fault.

Re:come on, let's face it

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

Well I for one am glad for people who "thumb thier nose at the establishment". If it was upto you we would prolly still be british subjects. You are probably the type who says "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the government spies on you?"

Re:Just a Hoax -- dunno

[unix_core]

Yep, also the biggest evening newspaper in Sweden, Aftonbladet, has written about it (at least on their site, Aftonbladet.se the article is in Swedish).

Re:come on, let's face it

[SilentChris]

American produce the largest quantity of exportable corn in the world. I wouldn't consider that a good export, as most overseas countries that need that corn own the farms and farming companies here. Being a commerical success means little if you're owned overseas.

Re:What the Swedish antipiracy firm (ATB) has to s

[Gothic_Walrus]

One minor correction to the (admittedly rough) translation...

By its size and outspoken goal of ridiculing authors The pirate Bay got known all over the world.

I don't believe that TPB ever mocked the AUTHORS of material. Rather, they mocked the COMPANIES and the lawyers that tried to enforce the copyright laws. Deservedly, too - even if there is some way to prosecute TPB, they should have known they can't hold American laws over their head as a threat. That just doesn't make sense.

wait

[szo]

You making it sound like dealing drugs is in some way wrong!

Re:same as a drug dealer(Offtopic)

[ltcdata]

i was talking about illegal drugs only, like cocaine, etc.

Re:come on, let's face it

[SilentChris]

"Aka: kill the torrent site."

As in shut it down, not physically kill the people running it.

Dumbass.

Re:come on, let's face it

[reneky]

Let's face it, it's illegal and they got caught.


Maybe some of the content was illegal, but what Pirate Bay did was not - at least by Swedish law (IANASwedeL). All they did was host tiny text files and provice a search database. They were a tracker, not a host.

This is basically the same as American cops raiding Bell because the Yellow Pages lists the phone number of a paper mill, and paper can potentially be used to write harassing letters.


I think the pirate bay will be deemed illegal if the case comes up in front of a jury. It's clear to everyone that they knew they were facilitating piracy - indeed, that was the overwhelming majority of the content they pointed to. If the yellow pages were basically a list of where you could get illegal drugs, and the front page said "Get your illegal drugs here!", I'm sure it would be illegal as well. Even though you wouldn't actually get any drugs along with the yellow pages themselves.

In general, any off-site link might go to illegal material, the content the link points to can be changed at any time, and it's out of your control. You can not be held responsible for this. But if you're main activity is to knowingly link to illegal content, you are in a different category.

That is my interpretation - it will be interesting to see what happens.

civil vs. common law

[emmons]

You misunderstand how the common law system works, as opposed to civil law that is used in Sweden and most other European countries.

More powerful than you ever imagined

[ylikone]

By killing Pirate Bay, you will make them more powerful than you ever imagined. Ok, whatever, off to the MANY other bittorent sites to get me some illegal media.

Re:come on, let's face it

[SilentChris]

You didn't read my post.

Physical theft of CD/DVD/etc : physical theft of chocolate
Pirate Bay : Newspaper that tells you where to get the chocolate

At some point, a physical item IS stolen. To take the analogy further, there's a lot of different kinds of chocolate out there. Every time a new one comes out, someone HAS to steal it.

Slashdotters forget that part. They think the process starts with a digital copy. It doesn't. It starts with a physical theft.

Google is your friend

[ylikone]

There are MANY other sites for torrents... not difficult to find. Ever 1 that is shut down, 2 more open.

Re:Clarification...

[kimvette]

Well here in America, we call it a "republic" - well, at least the educated folks do (this rules out Duhbya). The USA is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. ;)

*nitpicks*

Corroboration?

[Cid Highwind]

Not to offend someone who might be an accomplished long-time net journalist or anything, but who the fuck is slyck.com? Does any other news site (or even a well-known blog) have this story? TPB has faked being shut down before, and some fourth-rate news sites bought the story last time, too. I wonder if anyone has checked with the Swedish authorities to see if they're claiming credit...

Re:Corroboration?

[DragonTHC]

slyck.com covers news on the torrent scene.

Re:Corroboration?

[Swift(void)]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32082
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060531-6949 .html
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/business/14707951.h tm
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8923
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20 060531084202128

Want some more? I dare say they are easy to find.

Re:come on, let's face it

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that until recently Armenian industry was pretty much completely controlled from Russia, I don't see that you Armenians have much to boast about.

closed a political party, freedom of speech

[zypres]

Sooo, the police actually closed the website of a legal political party?
The only reason is that the server where in the same room?
This should really be a big discussion, at least with the Swedish laws and their point of view on freedom of speech.
Can anyone tell us if this will lead to a big political case? Or a case for the court?
I guess the party now will do a nice election.

Re:closed a political party, freedom of speech

[tpwch]

No, they didn't close the website of a political party. The Piracy Bureau and The Pirate Bay are not affiliated with The Piracy Party, as I've seen so many wrongly post here today. They are completly separate, run by different people at different locations.

Re:come on, let's face it

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

ok lets try this on for size....I buy dvd(with real dollars), I copy dvd. Now wherein did a physical theft take place?

Re:come on, let's face it

[RsG]

"I'm getting really tired of this "Not in my country" defense. It doesn't hold water."

So you'd prefer another country to have hold over what is and is not legal in your own?

What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if the law being violated was, for example, Iranian, and the website was American? I'm sure there are thousands of porn sites hosted in California that are just as blatantly illigal in repressive countries as TPB is in America. Would you be so quick to say "It doesn't matter what country they're in, it's still illegal in the prosecuting country, so that makes cracking down on them OK" ?

And no, it doesn't matter that the prosecuting country in question is "unfreindly" - in case you missed the memo, what matters legally are local laws and possibly extradition treaties. Plus, many Swedes would undoubtably view American law as repressive on IP issues, just as many Americans would view Iranian law as oppressive on free speach issues.

The "not in my country" defense is otherwise known as national sovereignty. Don't like it? Tough. You either abide by it, or accept the idea that another nation can enforce it's laws upon you remotely. If you wish legal sovereignty for your own nation, you must allow others the same right. To grant them any less makes you little more than a hypocritic shill.

Re:come on, let's face it

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

and thus why I put "quotes" around kill, douchebag. you started the name calling.

Re:What the Swedish antipiracy firm (ATB) has to s

[entoke]

Yes but the Swedish Antipiracy Firm actually put it like The Pirate Bay was mocking the authors.

"Genom sin storlek och uttalade målsättning att hänga ut och håna berörda upphovsmän gjorde man The Pirate Bay känd över hela världen."

Through it's size and expressed goal of hanging out and ridiculing famous authors The Pirate Bay was made famous all over the world.

Maybe thats a better translation. Ofcourse the text is mostly BS probably comparable to something the **AA could have written.

Re:come on, let's face it

[SilentChris]

"ok lets try this on for size....I buy dvd(with real dollars), I copy dvd. Now wherein did a physical theft take place?"

That's perfectly within your right. I never said the DMCA should be followed. You're free to make as many copies as you want -- for yourself.

Except that's not what we're talking about here. Take a look at the stuff on these sites. Most aren't store-bought copies -- they're cuts released before the theatrical debut. SOMEONE has to PHYSICALLY STEAL the item from the studios. There is actual theft going on, whether you like it or not.

Re:Clarification...

[lanswitch]

A constitutional republic could be based on democracy. They are not mutually exclusive, at least over here in Europe.

Libertarian party

[kenyee]

There is party that is closer to that than you think in the US...the Libertarian party. Too bad the Repub/Dem media suppresses any chance they get at face time so they never get enough mindshare :-P

Re:Libertarian party

[twistedsymphony]

Actually I vote Libertarian ^_^

Re:come on, let's face it

[pipatron]

Again; the Pirate Party has nothing to do with The Pirate Bay. Not the same people, not the same servers, they only share the same country of origin and a word in their name.

Re:come on, let's face it

[wheany]

If I buy a CD, rip the songs to mp3 and distribute them, where's the theft? When am I physically stealing something from someone?

Re:come on, let's face it

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

All copyright infringment is in the form of movies ripped from studio masters copied by employes of the studio, news to me. oh and for the record most of those are copied and return as to not say "HEY SOMETHING WAS STOLEN" I sure as shit wouldn't want you as a partner in a criminal endevor.

Re:come on, let's face it

[SilentChris]

"So you'd prefer another country to have hold over what is and is not legal in your own?

What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if the law being violated was, for example, Iranian, and the website was American? I'm sure there are thousands of porn sites hosted in California that are just as blatantly illigal in repressive countries as TPB is in America. Would you be so quick to say "It doesn't matter what country they're in, it's still illegal in the prosecuting country, so that makes cracking down on them OK" ?

And no, it doesn't matter that the prosecuting country in question is "unfreindly" - in case you missed the memo, what matters legally are local laws and possibly extradition treaties. Plus, many Swedes would undoubtably view American law as repressive on IP issues, just as many Americans would view Iranian law as oppressive on free speach issues.

The "not in my country" defense is otherwise known as national sovereignty. Don't like it? Tough. You either abide by it, or accept the idea that another nation can enforce it's laws upon you remotely. If you wish legal sovereignty for your own nation, you must allow others the same right. To grant them any less makes you little more than a hypocritic shill."

If someone in my country was doing something illegal in another country -- something that nearly every country in the world had a law against -- I would support extraditing them so they get a proper punishment. If some studio in Sweden produced music that Americans were stealing, the Americans should be held absolutely accountable and face Swedish justice.

To give a real world example, some years back an American was going to get caned in Singapore for a crime. I had absolutely no problem with that. If you break the law, you deserve the punishment.

Re:Not Shut Down, just taken away for a little whi

[Kiffer]

Taken down searched and returned... but how long does it take to search them... I'm sure they can drag it on for months.
I know it's not the same thing but remember what happen with SJgames?
http://www.sjgames.com/SS/

It'll be months before they get some of their gear back, if the cops don't find anything and if they do they'll never get the machines back ... even if it was on the personal machines of the arrested staff, who will more than likely have lots of pirated stuff on their home machines.

I'm guessing that ThePirateBay is down for good, it'll be months before they get there gear back even if they don't get charged and if they don't have some off site back ups of their website and server set up, then they won't be able to set it back up in a hurry should they be able to afford new machines.

Well that's my guess anyway.

Re:come on, let's face it

[h2d2]

Putting aside the fact that you came out as a complete idiot during your confrontation with other posters, please note that GM and Ford are the worst performing automakers in the US. GM is near bankruptcy, and the only thing keeping the company afloat is it's foreign acquisition's like Daewoo in Korea & Saab, just like Volvo is doing for Ford.

Re:come on, let's face it

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Well that a really bad analogy (and geography) and many have pointed out many reasons why, but a couple things I haven't seen mentioned yet.

and you couldn't find the guys who were stealing the chocolate out of the stores (although you could probably find them if you asked the newspaper guys), what would you do?
You'd question the newspaper, make sure you got the info needed to get the theives and make sure ads like that stopped appearing. Aka: kill the torrent site.

First, in the case of torrents there is no secret information about who is doing it. Every IP address seeding or downloading via a torrented file are publicly viewable. No need to even bother the "newspaper".

They didn't "question the newspaper" they shut it down (at least for now).

"make sure ads like that stopped appearing" OK, if we want to run a society based on what arbitrary people think is the right thing to do in a given case then that would be fine. However, if you perfer living in a place that is governed by some set of laws you'd better make sure there is a law on the books saying that posting such ads is illegal. If not, I think your computer should be siezed for writing REALLY bad analogies on /. Sure no law would back me up on that, but it sure "feels" like the right thing to do so lets just do it.

Re:TOMORROW IS APRIL FOOLS DAY

[sammydee]

This is so ironic it has me in tears... april fool's day is tomorow huh?

So we're all gonna feel really foolish while your the one laughing... yeah that's it... lmao...

Nah, no political power

[Lars Arvestad]

What's really interesting about them is the strange political power that they held in their homeland.

I am Swedish and I don't think that TPB has had much influence at all, laws and attitudes would have been just the same if this was an organization outside Sweden. My guess is that the presence of the organisation is simply reflecting current attitudes in general in Sweden today. It is notable that a minister in the socialdemocratic government downloaded mp3s, burned them to CD, and gave it to friend as a birthday present (Swedish article) already in 2000, without seeing any wrong with it.

An explanation to this phenomenon could be a tradition of relatively strong consumer protection laws (and traditions), and that the "personal use" clauses in copyright have always been defended here.

Re:come on, let's face it

[SilentChris]

Take a look around, dude. Do you think you get those clean DivXes from store bought DVD rips? That no artifacts from MPEG2 -> DivX compression occurs because the piraters are SO good they can remove them?

Get real.

Most of these stuff is direct from the uncompressed studio master. How do you think they get them out before the movies are out?

Re:come on, let's face it

[Tibor the Hun]

Let's not forget the massage equipment, beds, and buffet tables.

June = the new April?

[localroger]

/nt

Re:come on, let's face it

[RsG]

Thw difference with the Singapore case was that the person actually was in Singapore. Hence the distinction drawn for "local laws".

The pirate bay people are in Sweden, and are following Swedish law. If they were operating in the US, that would be different.

To continue with the previous analogy, if an American opened up a porn site overseas in a repressive nation, he's be charged (under local law). If he opened up that site in the US, and people went there from repressive countries, he could not be charged (though his customers would be another story). TPB is like the latter example, not the former. The Singapore case was like the former. Apples and oranges.

Re:come on, let's face it

[Lord Kano]

Difference is that it's against the law in the US to be an accessory to the crime of theft.

Apparently accessory to copyright infringement isn't a crime in Sweden.

If an American were to help a Chinese dissident express unpopular views in public, US law enforcement would never arrest the person for violating Chinese law.

LK

uh, what's up with this? There is a benefit though

[kimvette]

from http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=3955&date=20 060531 :

Police have been monitoring the website and the men behind it for some time. Computers were taken during raids on the men's homes and offices to secure evidence.

Evidence? What evidence?

Oh, evidence that they were engaging in 100% legal activities? No need to gather that evidence; the operators admitted quite freely that they were engaging in operating a web site which distributed content which was copyrighted. Now, if they come to America the US government might have chosen to (illegally) convict them since our government seems to think that we ought to police the entire world, but they were still in sweden.

OBVIOUSLY someone got paid off to authorize this BS.

There is a huge benefit though:

It is very likely that once the operators are cleared of BS charges (what are they going to be charged with -- complying with the law?!?!) and the judge says "carry on then" that they'll go right back online, only they would likely do a major purge of all of the dead/unseeded torrents on the site.

(With that said, I miss suprnova :( It was THE best torrent site for finding rare/unavailable TV shows and abandonware)

I had a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a problem with The Pirate Bay, their cocky ways, and seemingly arrogant attitude against other people's property. It didn't feel right. It may have been legal in Sweden, but that doesn't make it right, just as much as something being illegal makes it wrong. I felt that this "information free" bullshit was just a cover, and thus I didn't use them. Even when I intended to pirate something out right. So until yesterday, I had a serious problem with The Pirate Bay.

Today I have an even bigger problem with the Swedish police. Unless there's something they know and I don't, it's still legal to link to copyrighted property in Sweden. Whether I like it or not, it's right or wrong, it's legal. So if that's all they're doing, why did the ops get busted?

I do NOT agree with The Pirate Bay's operator's personal beliefs. But I will voice my disagreement with those who wrongly opress the operators who have (to the best of my knowledge) not broken any laws. This is public, national power brought down on an individual. It's neither fair, nor right. Even less right than what the Pirate Bay did. I would compare it to the U.S. vs Iraq. Iraq may be in the bad, may have broken internation laws, but just because they did doesn't mean the U.S. can act lawlessly as it pleases. (FYI, I'm American, in case my previous comments were't obvious enough.)

Re:I had a problem

[muuh-gnu]

> arrogant attitude against other people's property.

It isn't their "property". They may have have some govermental institutions force people to stop exchaniging material so he can make momeny by copying it and then selling copies to them, but it isn't his "property". The only reason this word is used is to fool people in believing it were the same as material property, which it simply isn't. So stop that bullshit already.

> It didn't feel right.

Oh yes, and how it did.

> It may have been legal in Sweden, but that doesn't make it right,
> just as much as something being illegal makes it wrong.

Copying being illegal somwhere or you considering it wrong doesn't make it wrong.

> I felt that this "information free" bullshit was just a cover

You felt wrong. It wasn't.

> Iraq may be in the bad,

They weren't.

> may have broken internation laws,

They actually haven't.

> but just because they did doesn't mean the U.S. can act lawlessly as it pleases.

They can, and how they can. Everybody saw how they can, and everybody heard them threatening various other countries and threatening to do it again.

I don't have further objections with the rest of your comment. Have a nice day.

Better translation here:

[SiggyRadiation]

Desh born, der ritt de gitt der gue, Orn desh, dee born desh, de umn børk! børk! børk!

We-a teke-a 50 cops. A geeve-a zem ell feereerms. Let zem etteck ze-a serverroom. Add e-a leetle-a hostage-a teckeeng. And spen zhree veeks copyeeng ell ze torrents zet conteeen pr0n.

And then ve putta Ze Pirates into ze stew.

Re:Better translation here:

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Meesa tingkin youssum tryin too hard. :-)

Re:Better translation here:

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

That looks more like dutch than swedish to me. (if you want authenticity: remove the double vocals. they're rare in swedish)

Re:Better translation here:

[LordEd]

In case you don't actually know, the phrase "børk! børk! børk!" indicates that it is being translated into swedish chef, and not actually swedish. The swedish chef is a muppets character that essentially made fun of cooking shows.

Re:come on, let's face it

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

you fail at reading. here was what i was describing.

guy takes studio master->copies->returns master->goes home and does some encoding

now with a laptop he doesn't even have to take the master off site, so no real theft occurs.(or if the studio has a leaning twoard the modern they keep movies in raw mpeg form on raid arrays and he just copies from there onto something he can take home)

Re:come on, let's face it

[drinkypoo]

It's too bad you have no idea what you're talking about. I've uh, "seen" numerous prerelease telecines. They use hardware similar to that which is used to produce the actual DVD in order to create their video stream. Sometimes this is done inside the studio by employees, sometimes it happens at a contractor (or by an employee of a contractor) who is tasked with making the DVD for the studio. And, more often than any of this for screeners in particular, it comes from a DVD in the first place. Before the movie is even in theaters, the distributor makes their own DVDs and sends them out to those people who receive screeners. These DVDs are copied just as easily as any other DVD. Sometimes they have a bit of text that rolls across to let you know you're watching a screener, sometimes they don't.

Doubtless, SOME rips begin with physical theft, but they are by far in the minority.

Re:come on, let's face it

[Lord Kano]

The only way that they can be alright is if the servers are truely dedicated- no surfing the net, no downloading from P2P, nothing other than hosting torrents. Even computers in the building that aren't servers need to be 'clean.'

I've done some home piracy a time or two and just to be smart, I've never used "work" machines for it. The level of liability is so much higher when dealing with business machines that it's not worth the convienence.

LK

Unless...

[phorm]

Unless TPB users or admins were downloading items from the torrent lists themselves. Not entirely an impossible scenario, and in that case you go from being purely a linker (in the technical sense) to actually being in possession of the copyrighted material.

I'm hoping they were smarter than this, but with their "you can't touch us" attitude it wouldn't be impossible for somebody to have strayed across the line. Hopefully we'll get an update on this soon.

Could be a hoax?

[mlwmohawk]

If the servers are gone, shouldn't I get a no conection error and not a polite "site temporarily down. please check back later" message?

I mean, come on, 404 not "check back later."

Re:come on, let's face it

[Tibor the Hun]

I am no "BadAnalogyGuy" but wouldn't it be more like the cops raiding a house because the guy was distributing directions on where to get free copies of movies and music, as opposed to drugs and hookers.

Let's face it, most of us have broken the law at one time or another (speeding, not returning the 20 found on the street...) but have not really been into drugs or hookers.

Do more people break the maximum safe speed laws, or DUI, or infringe copyrights? And which one of these gets more press coverage?
Every buck spent on rounding up pirates could be spent on keeping people driving safer.

I ride a motorcycle, so I'll let you figure out which one matters more to me and my family.

Re:It can just be ignored

[kimvette]

Worse than that, what do you do when the government simply ignores the law? No need to mess with re-interpreting it. Just ignore it, like Bush, Cheney, and Gonzalez

They have the attitude that the War Powers Act (which itself is unconstitutional) gives them unlimited powers when carrying out military actions, all the way up to declaring curfews and suspending the Constitution.

You're right

[weierstrass]

Democracy serves the people so much better when there are only two parties to choose between.

Re:You're right

[mapkinase]

Thank you for participating in the flame I just baited.

Re:You're right

[ceoyoyo]

True, but two parties is still kind of confusing. Why not cut it down to one? MUCH simpler! The citizens won't be nearly as confused at elections.

Re:You're right

[Zoshnell]

I'm the master of the baited.

No, not really

[phorm]

Likely:

a) The information on TPB was in a large-part posted by the members, but not the owners, of the site
b) Not all the information led to infringing torrents (there are lots of things that require large downloads, after all)
c) Therefore, while knowledge is in the hands of the owners, the supposed abuse is likely in the hands of the users.

Re:come on, let's face it

[drinkypoo]

And again, that doesn't affect my analogy. We're talking about the newspaper that tells *you* where to get the stolen goods. The governments don't go after the torrent sites just to take them out -- they're after the guy physically *stealing* the CDs/DVDs/etc out of the stores/recording studios/etc. The torrent sites just help find them.

Look dude, don't assume that because YOU used to steal shit before you distributed it that all others do. SOME copyright violation probably follows theft, of course; but this is probably not the vast majority of sources. In fact I happen to know that some of the audio rips come out of music stores; they unwrap a CD for in-store preview (when it's just been shipped) and some employee sticks it in the laptop... bingo! Copyright violation without theft.

It's not that we haven't considered your scenario, it's that we've dismissed it as insignificant.

I can even rationalize it away if you like; for every piece of media stolen for the purpose of mass redistribution, hundreds of people without backups scratch their DVDs and do not have them replaced by the publisher, who claims that you are licensing the content, not purchasing it. Forget this theft, they owe us (the people) literally thousands of damaged pieces of media by their own logic.

Re:come on, let's face it

[Apotekaren]

How about they copy the item, without removing it from the studio's premises? Nothing stolen. And on what statistic do you base you accusation that people steal CD's/DVD's that they share? Your theory is flawed in thinking that movie-copies/CD's are always stolen. Alot of bootlegging is done in the studio, either somewhere along the sound-editing or video-editing. Few people would dare walk out the door of a studio carrying a finished copy of an unreleased movie. And mind you, even more movies are ripped and shared when reviewcopies are sent out, on DVD. These sources are called "insiders", and are the nr.1 source for pre-release material.

Bullshit.

[C10H14N2]

Tapes cost less because they are of lesser quality and no one would purchase them if they cost more than CDs--they'd simply buy the CD and MAKE A TAPE.

You can call this a war or whatever and say that boycotts don't work, but talk of circumlocution, what the hell is defiantly ripping your music/movies/porn whatever without paying for it but a boycott?

You talk about "what are the retiring old folks supposed to do?" Well, christ, what about the old folks who WORK IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY? Not the mega-gabillionaires at top (be they "artist" or "suit"), but the armies of workaday S.O.B.s who will be first to feel the pinch come cost-cutting time?

The rest of your screed is simply "why the world sucks in general in the 21st century." Well, that's just dandy, but if your fucking CDs and DVDs are at the top of that list, I humbly suggest you have a MAJOR priority problem--quite akin to the aforementioned 4yo having a tantrum in a toy store.

Re:Bullshit.

[pla]

Tapes cost less because they are of lesser quality

So why did the industry feel the need to justify the cost with some line of BS about recouping R&D costs? Simple - Because most people didn't mind the quality of tapes. If they had pushed the "quality" angle as the justification, without dangling the carrot of "prices will plummet in just a year or two", CDs would have gone the way of Betamax.

Now, you will of course rationalize that as just a way to placate the market. Some of us would use the phrase "lying through their incorporated teeth to milk humans for as much as possible".



what the hell is defiantly ripping your music/movies/porn whatever without paying for it but a boycott?

Nothing more and nothing less than reclaiming one of the stakes in this war - Access to our own culture.

Remember that really cool show you used to watch as a kid - The one that few others even remember and, at times, you wondered if you had ever actually seen it or just made it up?

Guess what - Not only won't its creators ever release it on DVD due to lack of a sufficient market, but when it flopped after four episodes, they just chucked every existing copy in the incinerator.

You have thusly had a small part of your culture taken away from you as part of this war. The creator of that show would rather watch it burn than give it away for nothing to the few fans it had.

And if you consider that hyperbole, try obtaining the complete run of pre-1970s Dr. Who episodes - Oh, sorry, you can't, because the Beeb did exactly what I just described.



Well, christ, what about the old folks who WORK IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY?

What about them? Wars have civilian casualties. I'd rather at least go down fighting, than watching the battle from the sidelines and get hit by a stray bullet.



Well, that's just dandy, but if your fucking CDs and DVDs are at the top of that list, I humbly suggest you have a MAJOR priority problem

I don't believe I put them at the top of my list. Just illustrated my deeper point with examples from the topic at hand.

Re:Bullshit.

[Mister Whirly]

"Remember that really cool show you used to watch as a kid - The one that few others even remember and, at times, you wondered if you had ever actually seen it or just made it up?

Guess what - Not only won't its creators ever release it on DVD due to lack of a sufficient market, but when it flopped after four episodes, they just chucked every existing copy in the incinerator.

You have thusly had a small part of your culture taken away from you as part of this war. The creator of that show would rather watch it burn than give it away for nothing to the few fans it had."

Isn't it the creator's right to do what they want with what they have created?? You are not automatically entitled to something just because it was released. If the BBC owns the rights to Dr. Who, and decides to chuck them all out, why shouldn't they be able to?

Re:Bullshit.

[pla]

Isn't it the creator's right to do what they want with what they have created??


No. They have one and only one "right" by which to control the distribution of their work - Never commit it to any form accessible outside their own head.

Once they accept the idea of utilizing legal restrictions on distribution for the purpose of making a profit, they have accepted an implicit (and to some degree explicit) contract between themselves and society.

Originally that meant that I as a human would not copy your (a fellow human's) work without permission or some form of compensation. In exchange, you turn a buck (hopefully thereby allowing you to create more) and eventually the work goes into the public domain to benefit us all.

When "you" no longer refers to something born of woman; when "eventually" means "so far into the distant future that we have a good chance of no copies surviving long enough"; when "the work" refers to something so laden with DRM that even if a copy existed, no one could use it - Then "you" have failed to uphold your end of that social contract.



If the BBC owns the rights to Dr. Who, and decides to chuck them all out, why shouldn't they be able to?

I don't mean this caustically, but if you don't see why we should consider an act of uncreation as nothing short of "evil", I don't think I can explain it to you.

Official statement from the Pirate Party...

[Stentapp]

...can be read at http://www.piratpartiet.se./ English one to come.
Here is my very rough NON-OFFICIAL translation:
"PRESS RELEASE
For immidiate publication
31 may 2006

For more information, see party webpage at http://www.piratpartiet.se/ or contact Rickard Falkvinge, +46733555293

The Pirate Party critizises the police for illegitimate intrusion

Swedish police has today taken all the servers of The Pirate Bay into custody, along with the servers of a number of other unrelated web hotel customers. The police chose to do this despite the fact that the services provided by the world's largest bittorrent tracker has been deemed fully legal in Sweden.

The police means, according to an operator of the site, that the police wants to test the legality of the activities.

"Which company would have accepted this treatment?", says Rickard Falkvinge, party leader of the Pirate Party. "Which Company would have accepted that the police arrived and ceased all company activity, before proven guilty of crime?. In this case the Pirate Bay has not commited any crime. They are disliked by large american media interests, that is true. But it is not a crime to be disliked, and definately not a reason for the swedish police to enter and shut down one of the worlds' largest communities for youth people."

"This is exactly the kind of raids that the Pirate Party wants to stop", concludes Rickard. "When the society sends the police on its youth population because they listen to music and watches movies, then it is not the youth that are wrong. Then it is the society that has to do better."

About the Pirate Party:

The Pirate Party is the largest of the new parties for the national elections in Sweden 2006. The party was founded 1 january this year and promotes an open information society, shared culture, and protected private life.

Nothing Illegal in Sweden

[David Webb]

It appears as if the Pirate bay hasn't broken any laws in Sweden. I feel that this raid was politically motivated and will amount to nothing more than a hefty amount of free publicity. Whats the monetary value of that in todays world? One would think that the operators will be released and the equipment returned once this baseless action has reached completion. This may also lead to any munber of lawsuits for being falsly detained and/or the unwarranted seizure of property. At best this is a trivial matter that should be resolved soon.

Re:come on, let's face it

[Lumpy]

You would do well to not assume the whole world has the same laws as the United States.

can you please explain that to our president?

Re:Do something about it

[karnal]

This needs a -1, Makes my eyes hurt moderation...

English quotes from Swedish police, Pirate Party

[praps]

Full article in English here with recent quotes direct from the Swedish police and the leader of the Pirate Party. Apparently it's a very early stage in the investigation - so maybe more arrests to come?

Blog updated,

[xtracto]

There has been an update in the blog (http://piratbyran.blogspot.com/):

Polisen utförde idag en razzia mot The Pirate Bay, världens största Bittorrent- tracker. Sidan har i flera år varit en knutpunkt i världen för kulturintresserade människor i länder över hela världen. Allt från egenproducerade uppsatser till obskyr japansk musik till videos av Schlagerfinalen har spridits med hjälp av tekniken.

På själva servrarna har inget illegalt material funnits. Torrent-filerna, länkar som folk använder för att kopplas ihop och ladda det önskade materialet innehåller blott text som knappast är upphovsrättsskyddat.

"Antipiratbyrån har uppenbarligen vilselett polisen i det här fallet" uppger Tobias Andersson på Piratbyrån. "Man tycks ha intalat it-inkompetenta poliser att servrarna i fråga är fyllda med upphovsrättsskyddat material. Detta är ett grovt missbruk av skattepengar."

"Samtidigt har ett flertal andra sidor som funnits på närliggande servrar beslagtagits. Häri ligger det grövsta övertrampet. Antipiratbyrån har tydligen lurat polisen att samtidigt stänga ner sina antagonister, Piratbyrån."

"Piratbyrån har i 3 år verkat för en öppen debatt kring upphovsrättsfrågor och patent. Vi är mycket upprörda över att filmindustrin inte törs ta debatten, utan vill lura politiker och polis att kriminalisera motståndare och en stor del av svenska folket."

"Rent praktiskt innebär det här såklart ingenting för världens fildelare. Det finns
tusentals andra sidor eller nätverk för dem att få det de vill ha. Folk byter bara ställe.
Fildelningen fungerar likt en hydra, huggs ett huvud av växer det snart ut 2 nya."

Piratbyrån startades sommaren 2003 för att belysa och diskutera upphovsrättsfrågor. Piratbyrån menar att upphovsrätten i många fall har spelat ut sin roll och istället för att skydda tex artister snarare hindrar skapandet och göder ett fåtal. Sedan starten har cirka 60 000 medlemmar registrerat sig på hemsidan där man debatterar i forum och byter tips. Piratbyrån har även hållt föredrag i riksdagen, fört olika kampanjer och startat världens största bittorre

nt-tracker ThePirateBay.org

Can anyone translate this please?

Re:Blog updated,

[giulietta masina]

This is a very rough translation of The Pirate Bureau's press release:

PRESSRELEASE
For immediate release
31 may 2006

Police tricked by movie industry to shut down The Pirate Bureau

Today the police carried out a razzia against The Pirate Bay, the world's largest Bittorrent-tracker. The site have for several years been a gathering point for culture-interested people all over the world. Everything from homeproduced papers to obscure Japanese music to Eurovision-videos have been spread using Bittorrent-technology.

The servers themselves have never contained any illegal material. The torrent-files, links that people use to connect to each other and transfer the material, only contains text that is hardly copyrighted.

"The Antipirate Bureau have obviously mislead the police in this case" says Tobias Andersson at The Pirate Bureau. "It seems like they have convinced IT-incompetent policemen that the servers are filled with copyrighted material. This is a serious misuse of tax money."

"Meanwhile, several other sites on nearby servers have also been confiscated. This is the most serious escapade. The Antipirate Bureau have obviously convinced the police to shut down their antagonists, The Pirate Bureau, while their at it."

"The Pirate Bureau have for 3 years worked for an open debate on copyright and patent laws and questions. We are very upset that the movie industry does not date to participate in this debate, but instead wants to trick politicians and police into criminalize opponents and a huge part of the Swedish population."

"Of course this means nothing in practice for filesharers around the world. There are thousands of other sites and networks for them to get what they want. People just change place. Filesharing is like a hydra, if you cut of one head two new ones will soon grow out."

The Pirate Bureau started in the summer of 2003 to focus on and discuss copyright topics. The Pirate Bureau means that copyright in many aspects have played put their role, and instead of protecting artists blocks creativity and feed a lucky few. Since the start, about 60 000 members have registered at the site where discussions and idea sharing take place in forums. The Pirate Bureau have also given talks in the parliament, created campaigns and started the world's largest Bittorrent-tracker, ThePirateBay.org

Why I am pro-closing ThePirateBay.org

[mapkinase]

Plain and simple. People who provide use the technology or provide the technology, must take precautions against abusing the technology.

If you buy a marketspace in Moscow, you are in charge of making sure that no illegal activity is going on in the market.

Hit me with your mods.

Re:Why I am pro-closing ThePirateBay.org

[kimvette]

By that reasoning, your landlord is responsible for making sure you don't infringe on the law by smoking pot?

Microsoft should be held liable for producing a product (M$ Word, M$ Outlook) which can be used to document and disseminate documentation of methods by which terrorist activities could be carried out?

GM should be held liable should some wank use his Camaro as a getaway car for a bank robbery?

I. Don't. Think. So.

Re:Why I am pro-closing ThePirateBay.org

[mapkinase]

Well, have you seen an apartment complex called PotBay?

Re:Why I am pro-closing ThePirateBay.org

[mapkinase]

I have a better answer. The landlord should not be responsible for you smoking pot, but if half of the condos are used to sell it, I will have no pity for the landlord if the authorities will level poor bastard's property deeper into the ground than Twin Towers.

Re:Why I am pro-closing ThePirateBay.org

[fishbowl]

What's wrong with pot? So wrong that it justifies destroying buildings? What?

Re:Why I am pro-closing ThePirateBay.org

[mapkinase]

If you disagree on me that pot is wrong and it is wrong to infringe copyrights - that is another subject.

Re:Why I am pro-closing ThePirateBay.org

[fishbowl]

>If you disagree on me that pot is wrong and it is wrong to infringe copyrights - that is another subject.

Pot is no more wrong that coffee or peanut butter (far safer than either).

As for copyright infringement, I want my copyrights to carry the exact same weight for me, that they do for big corporations, then I'll say the system is just and fair. As it stands, large corporations get much more authority from their copyrights than individuals get. That's neither just nor fair, and should not be useful in a system that has a strong "equal protection" doctrine.

Re:Why I am pro-closing ThePirateBay.org

[mapkinase]

May be you should work on increasing the weight of your copyrights, instead of attacking copyrights of others.

Piracy won't break RIAA or MPAA. (and vice versa). It will be just endless war.

Re:Why I am pro-closing ThePirateBay.org

[fishbowl]

>May be you should work on increasing the weight of your copyrights, instead of attacking copyrights of others.

I'm not attacking anything, just pointing out the inherent injustice in a system where a corporation can
force people out of business, have the put in jail, etc., and individuals cannot.

Re:Why I am pro-closing ThePirateBay.org

[mapkinase]

I am aware of this intrinsic problem of market economies/democracies. But fighting with this problem by supporting scum like PirateBay, former Napster, free speech of pornographers and marijuana junkies does not help the cause.

How about starting a civil disobidience campaign?

Re:come on, let's face it

[stud9920]

Personally, dude, if my neighbor was stealing millions of dollars of (let's say) Korean music, I'd be glad to see North Korean knock on his door and take him away.

Dude, are you actually advocating ANYONE get arrested by a horrible police of a horrible prison state for a non-violent crime ?

You must be a very, very sad person. Do you have friends ?

SIlver Lining...

[Dot Solipsism]

At least they waited until after all the season finales before raiding.

Re:This is the sort of accessories you can't buy.

[geminidomino]

Just call losing the "smug smile" a down payment on the "shit eating grin" they'll have when they get back up and running.

Re:TOMORROW IS APRIL FOOLS DAY

[amrust]

That's gotta be a joke, right? Yeah, that's it. A joke.

Nooooo! Where will I go Now to get my Linux ISOs?

[syntap]

That site was one-stop shopping for all my distro needs. Why would they raid and take down a legit service?

Storm in the glass

[mapkinase]

http://news.google.com/news?oe=UTF-8&client=firefo x-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&ie=UTF-8&ta b=wn&q=+%22pirate+bay%22&btnG=Search+News

Apparently noone cares for Pirate Bay except for techno-savvy juveniles.

Re:punish google, then! Re:come on, let's face it

[cpt kangarooski]

Seems unlikely.

Contributory infringement requires that Google know of infringing activity and materially contribute to it with that knowledge. But they don't really know all that much; do they know, when they give search results to a user, that the user is going to infringe? No, because they don't know that what they've pointed to in the search results is there legally. The mere capability of their search engine to be used for infringing purposes won't be held as sufficient by itself to impute knowledge to Google, if it has substantial lawful uses, which it does.

Vicarious infringement requires that Google have the right and ability to control the behavior of the direct infringer, and that they get a direct financial benefit from the infringer. This seems unlikely, as Google seems to make money simply by being a large and easy to use search engine, rather than one that is focused on infringing material. Still, there is a credible argument to be made here.

Inducement to infringe requires that Google provide its service with the intent of promoting its use to infringe as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps to foster infringement. The facts to support the argument that this is what they're doing just aren't there. Google doesn't encourage people to use their search engine for unlawful activities.

Nevertheless, these theories fail, because Google has taken the necessary affirmative steps to protect itself with the 17 USC 512 safe harbor. Essentially, Google is protected so long as they respond to proper takedown notices, maintain a section 512 designated agent, etc. So long as they're within the protection of 512, it doesn't matter whether they'd otherwise be liable.

Trigger Happy

[Lillesvin]

From the take-down notice on http://piratebay.org/ "The police took down all servers in the rack, including the non-commercial site Piratbyrån, the mission of which is to defend the rights of TPB via public debate."

Wtf?!? Did Piratbyrån have anything illegal on their servers or were they just supporting TPB by means of debate? Did the police just think "hey, there's the server hosting that annoying organization morally supporting piracy, let's take that down now that we're here anyways."?

I have to admit that I'm a bit afraid that they might succeed in closing down TPB. The allegations apparently are "breach of copy-right law, alternatively assisting breach of copy-right law." - the alternative is probably how they're going to get them.

I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that something will go wrong in the trial and we'll gte PirateBay back.

Backups?

[Tom]

How long until the last backup goes live on some other server somewhere else?

Re:Backups?

[klang]

a torrent of the backup of a torrent site .. now THAT's a concept we haven't seen .. yet

Re:come on, let's face it

[spyrochaete]

I think a better analogy would be cops raiding a house because the guy was distributing directions on where to buy [drugs,hookers,whatevers illegal].

No, because there are many legal uses for bittorrent but few legal uses for hookers.

Re:come on, let's face it

[mccoyspace]

I know it's a mistake to bite at a troll, but I can't resist.

Large Swiss based companies ( courtesy of swissworld.org : Nestle -- world's largest food company, Novartis -- huge pharmaceuticals producer, Logitech -- there is a one in three chance they made your mouse, Swiss Re -- one of the largest re-insurance companies in the world, they underwrite everybody.

Large Swedish based companies (courtesy of visit-stockholm.com: IKEA -- they invented flat-packed, home-assembled furniture in the 50s. Ericsson -- way more than mobile phones, Electrolux -- they make Frigidiare and Eureka appliances

But I'd be surprised if these facts change your views.

Ask Steve Jackson Games.

[Valdrax]

I don't know; is there some sort of law that they could be charged under (and be innocent of)? In that case, as long as there's a criminal investigation, most countries allow the police to seize a group's property for evidence gathering. Depending on the country, they might not even have to bring it back for years.

I, of course, can only speak of the US as in the case of Steve Jackson Games vs. Secret Service where a game company's computers were raided for connections to a hacker ring due to their research for their cyberpunk game. It took them years to get their stuff back and to get awarded damages.

Re:Do something about it

[CogDissident]

Hey buddy, I like data dumps as much as the next guy, but make it readable, please.

You are absolutely right, this is great publicity for piracy and piracy organizations. And we can make sure that even more persons hear about this, and make people understand just how many persons there are that care about this question and want the pirate bay to stay up. Here are some e-mail and postal addresses to the Swedish police, the anti piracy bureau (a swedish lobby organization like the riaa), and some important swedish politic organizations. If you're Swedish please pick a few of these and email/post a message and tell them what you think about this. Or even if you're not, do it anyway. It can't hurt. You can make a difference!
If you're worried about åäö in the postal adresses, just use aao, it will get trought.

The Goverment (postal): Sveriges riksdag 100 12 Stockholm Sweden

Important Politicians: Göran Persson Fredrik Reinfeldt Lars Leijonborg Göran HÃgglund Lars Ohly Maud Olofsson Peter Eriksson Maria Wetterstrand

Political Organizations (postal): Socialdemokratiska partistyrelsen 105 60 Stockholm Sweden Moderaterna Box 2080 103 12 Stockholm Sweden Folkpartiet Box 6508 Drottninggatan 97 1tr 113 83 Stockholm Sweden Kristdemokraterna Box 2373 103 18 Stockholm Sweden Centerpartiet Box 2200 103 15 Stockholm Sweden Miljöpartiet de Gröna Prästgatan 18 A Box 2136 103 14 Stockholm Sweden

The Anti Piracy Bureau: Postal Adress: Antipiratbyrån S:t Eriksgatan 117A Box 23021 104 35 Stockholm Sweden Swedish police (different adresses are for different districts):

e-mail: polismyndigheten@blekinge.police.se
polismyndigheten@dalarna.police.se
polismyndigheten@gotland.police.se
polismyndigheten@gavleborg.polisen.se
polismyndigheten@halland.police.se
polismyndigheten@jamtland.police.se
polismyndigheten@jonkoping.police.se
polismyndigheten@kalmar.police.se
polismyndigheten@kronoberg.police.se
polismyndigheten@norrbotten.police.se
polismyndigheten.skane@polisen.se
polismyndigheten@stockholm.polisen.se
polismyndigheten.sodermanland@polisen.se
post@uppsala.polisen.se polisen@varmland.police.se
polismyndigheten@vasterbotten.police.se
polismyndigheten@vasternorrland.police.se
polismyndigheten@vastmanland.polisen.se
polismyndigheten@vastragotaland.polisen.se
polismyndigheten@orebro.police.se
polismyndigheten@ostergotland.police.se
rikspolisstyrelsen@polisen.se
skl@skl.police.se postals

(the first one is the national one, so if you send do several of them, always send to this): Rikspolisstyrelsen Box 12256 102 26 Stockholm Sweden
SKL - Statens Kriminaltekniska Laboratorium 581 94 Linköping Sweden
Polismyndigheten i Blekinge lÃn Box 315 371 25 Karlskrona Sweden
Polismyndigheten Dalarna Box 739 791 29 Falun Sweden
Polismyndigheten Gotland Box 1153 621 22 Visby Sweden
Polismyndigheten i Gävleborgs län Box 625 801 26 Gävle Sweden
Polismyndigheten i Hallands län Box 1031 301 10 Halmstad Sweden
Polismyndigheten i Jämtlands län Box 707 831 28 Östersund Sweden
Polismyndigheten i Jönköpings län Box 618 551 18 Jönköping Sweden
Polismyndigheten i Kalmar län Box 91 391 21 Kalmar Sweden
Polismyndigheten i Kronobergs län Box 1211 351 12 Växjö Sweden
Polismyndigheten i Norrbotten Box 50135 973 24 Luleå Sweden
Polismyndigheten i Skåne 205 90 Malmö Sweden
Polismyndigheten i Stockholms län 106 75 Stockholm Sweden
Polismyndigheten i Södermanlands län Box 348 631 05 Eskilstuna Sweden
Polismyndigheten i Uppsala län Box 3007 750 03 Uppsala Sweden
Polismyndigheten Värmland Box 157 651 05 Karlstad Sweden
Polismyndigheten i Västerbottens län Box 463 901 09 Umeå Sweden
Polismyndigheten i Västernorrlands län Box 720 851 21 Sundsvall Sweden
Polismyndigheten i

Re:TOMORROW IS APRIL FOOLS DAY

[Falkentyne]

Was this supposed to be funny because I'm just saying WTF since you know.. June is next.. as we are not going back in time.

Is this true?

[Espectr0]

Last time they were "shut down", turns out they were redesigning the page, and soon became grand theft pirate bay, when they released san andreas.

They sure got a laugh out of that

It all makes sense now!

[WelcomeToTheFallout]

I was wondering why it was so hot this morning!

I bet...

[JFMulder]

... I bet if this was the Ninja Bay instead the police would have never been able to penetrate their fortress and arrest them.

Re:I bet...

[Yaotzin]

Pfft... The ninjas would be to busy flipping out to notice the police raid. And then when they were arrested and the police were all like "Gotcha!" and htey would go like "Nuh uh!" but then they would all go to jail anyway.

Delusional

[C10H14N2]

You have FAR, FAR more access to all those old cultural tidbits than at any time in the history of the industry. What are you, 19? 20? CDs now cost LESS than they did when I was in college -- and if I need to explain the economics of that, you need to go back to class. Movies that used to take YEARS to come out on video are now on the racks before they've left the 2nd-run theaters. All those old T.V. shows you claim are being held hostage and thrown into incinerators are now being pumped out like crazy on DVD when just fifteen years ago, no one would even THINK about putting them out -- and they come out on DVD practically instantaneously after season end and an entire season on eight DVDs costs HALF what a single VHS used to -- NOT adjusted for inflation.

It's so indicative of a spoilt rotten pubescent culture when they get more for less and scream that something's been taken from them, so they want it all for free. Fark that. I know people whose lives depend on their paychecks from the movie and music industries. If you want to make them casualties in your petty little war, then grow up and fuck you.

real ultimate misinformation!

[Andy Gardner]

While this has all the hallmarks of totally pumped up ninjas (on a super secret mission), who as we all know are awesome and totally flip out and kill people all the time. I have reservations. As for pirates... Ha! everyone knows pirates were created by the great flying spaghetti monster to prevent global warming.

I fear there is a greater enemy afoot. After carefull consideration and a flurry of domestic calls its obvious this is the work of a mockingbird. Unfortunately there is no way to kill a mockingbird... or is there?

For the most part

[Belial6]

For the most part you are correct. My problem comes in when you consider that these "content creators" have taken and used other peoples ideas, or "Intellectual Property" if you will, without consent to create their works. It's a little like the old joke, "You can't rob me! I stole this money fair and square!"

Re:For the most part

[shmlco]

So? Ideas are plentiful, worth a dime a dozen, and that they're probably overpriced even then.

Hey! I have an idea. Let's create the world's best web browser. Cool. And now where are we? Well... nowhere. Now, let's talk about people who did just that, and the dozens upon dozens of man-years it took to write FireFox and get it to the point where it is now.

Hey! I have an idea. Let's write a book about wizards and elves and hobbits. And now that we're done with the idea, why don't we talk about JRRT, who spent the better part of his life actually creating that story and that world and those characters.

Hey! I have an idea. Let's make it into a movie! But how many people had that idea, and did nothing about it? Now let's talk about Peter Jackson, and the, what... nine years it took to actually make that film trilogy.

The fact is that IP law is NOT and never has been about protecting ideas. It is, however, about protecting a specific implementation of those ideas, and about protecting the people who did so. It's about protecting and encouraging that time and effort and skill and talent and investment.

That's why all this talk about "ideas" is nothing more than a straw man, and again little more than an attempt to trivialize the situation. Actually write that book or software, or produce that movie, do the work and spend the years and resources needed to implement an "idea", and then--and only then--will we have something to talk about.

Re:For the most part

[Belial6]

Well, your wrong. IP law is supposed to be about furthering the arts and sciences. You know. Like the Constitution says.

Secondly, "IP" law as it is implemented does not cover only "specific implementation" of an idea. If it did, you could create a brand new Star Trek show, and sell it. You can't though. Why? Because it is not specific implementations that are "protected".

Not to mention that you seem to be confused as to what an "idea" is. The only difference between "Lets write a book about orcs and dwarves", and "Lord of the Rings" is how far the idea was fleshed out.

Re:For the most part

[shmlco]

Huh. So then, your original statement that 'these "content creators" have taken and used other peoples ideas, or "Intellectual Property" if you will, without consent to create their works', is false.

Because either all of those "ideas" are protected and can't be stolen, as you've just said, or they haven't been taken at all, in which case your "problem" is solved.

Get Greenpeace on the case

[wiredlogic]

Someone should get Greenpeace on the case. The last thing we need for the planet is to wipe out the last of the true pirates. arrr.

Dead giveaway

[McBainLives]

Maybe the cops wouldn't have been on to them so quickly if they had gone with a more subtle domain name.

search warrant ?

[Martin Spamer]

Do the Swedish Police need a search warrant to conduct this raid/ seize servers? I would assume so, normally evidence is required that the law has been broken before a warrant is issued. Can somebody enlighten us about Swedish law on this point ?

Re:search warrant ?

[gknoy]

No doubt they need that, so they must have gotten it.

That's like saying, "No doubt they need warrants for the wiretaps, so they must have gotten them". It doesn't logically follow. We'd LIKE it to be, and it's necessary for them to be LEGAL, but it doesn't mean it necessarily happened that way.

Note: I'm not saying that the swedish police did NOT have warrants, I expect that they did as well. I'm jsut saying be careful what you assume. The occurrence of a search or wiretap does not logically imply the existence of a warrant (or the legal equivalent in $Country).

More like...

[ThePyro]

It's more like reading books in the store without buying them.

It's more like photocopying the entire book and taking the copy home with you. You get to enjoy the content any time you want without going back to the store. And although reading the book in the store might be legal (but rude), photocopying the whole thing is certainly copyright infringement and against the law.

Re:More like...

[Il128]

Recording a song off the radio...

Re:More like...

[Eideewt]

That's not an excuse for downloading any more than it's a condemnation of reading books in the store.

I didn't use photocopying as an analogy because most book stores don't contain copy machines, but yes, it's like that too. Ethically, reading it there and copying it to read later are the same thing. Copying is certainly more convenient if you want to read it again or don't like hanging out in bookstores, but in both cases you're getting the content without paying the author. You might say that photocopying it is different because you could share it, but it's not like you couldn't (with superhuman memory) repeat the story word for word to someone else. Is difficulty a measure of morality? It doesn't matter at all to me what the law says (for philosophical purposes; it matters a bit more when choosing my actions). Whether it's copyright infringment or just rude, I'm doing the same thing to the author. That's what I'll consider when deciding whether what I'm doing is right. Laws can't encompass everything that's wrong, and laws can prohibit things that shouldn't be.

Re:More like...

[DanQuixote]

Reading the book in the store is not rude, it is WISE!

If it's really worth paying for, then I will do so AFTER I have verified it is:

• A - What I want/need and

• B - Well done

I've had enough of the pay-to-look-inside-the-box game.

Re:More like...

[da_guy2]

Well actually photocopying isn't always illegal. In fact under canadian law photocopying for personal us IS legal and is making up a large defence of file sharing in Canada.

Re:More like...

[BubFranklin]

It's more like photocopying the entire book and taking the copy home with you. You get to enjoy the content any time you want without going back to the store.

It's more like your friend bought the book, went home, read it, then you come over to his house (not the store) and photocopy it.

Doesn't sound really so bad as you make it out to be when you describe it without any spin...

Re:More like...

[shark72]

"Recording a song off the radio..."

Nope. You can prove this yourself by doing a thought experiment: think of any arbitrary song that you'd like to have a copy of. Being an "information wants to be free" sort of dude, buying it is out of the question. So, you make a bet with your friend on who can get a copy first, with each of you trying a different method:

• Your friend uses a P2P service.
• You record it off the radio.

Now, what will likely happen is that your friend will take all of two minutes searching on a tracking site, and even if he has a few false starts, he'll very quickly have a CD quality, digital rip of the song that's indistinguishable from the version he'd have bought. Meanwhile, you'll be sitting there with your radio attached to your PC, patiently waiting for the song to be played. After much waiting, if you're lucky you'll get a substandard, analog version with the beginning or end cut off, faded out, or otherwise messed with -- even if you're pulling it off of XM. It's not a very good substitute at all for the pristine digital quality version that your friend pirated.

This is why free radio exists. The quality just isn't that great, and you don't get much choice of what you get to hear and when. It's an inducement for a sale, not a replacement. Compare this to the high-quality MP3s you get via BitTorrent: they sound just like the original, and you can get whatever you want, and listen to it whenever you want, as much as you like. It's a substitute for a sale -- after all, why would you go out and buy a copy on the iTMS or buy the CD, once you have your own free copy that's just as good?

If you're still not getting it, think of it this way: if collecting MP3 files via P2P were just like the radio, then there wouldn't be a demand for pirated MP3 files. We'd all just be listening to the radio instead!

Re:More like...

[Maximilio]

It's more like photocopying the entire book and taking the copy home with you.

Speaking as a published (albeit POD self-published weenie) author myself, I believe I'll take free readers over no readers any day. I think that's what most people don't get -- the more widely your content is being spread, the more enthusiastic people are about it. Annoying, useless crap typically doesn't get pirated. The challenge is for the creators of content (that sounds so sterile!) to figure out ways to encourage people to support them.

Re:More like...

[Snaller]

Nobody is saying what they did isn't illegal - only that the law is wrong and should be changed.

Re:More like...

[PsychoSlashDot]

>> It's more like reading books in the store without buying them.
>It's more like photocopying the entire book and taking the copy home with you. You get to
>enjoy the content any time you want without going back to the store. And although reading
>the book in the store might be legal (but rude), photocopying the whole thing is certainly
>copyright infringement and against the law.

What if you just memorize what you read in the store?

I ask this before I go all prophetic, but it's important. We are realistically on the brink of massive advancements in technology that will dramatically change the nature of retention of experience. It's almost possible to manufacture cameras so small that they could realistically be implanted in the body comfortably. It's definitely possible to do the same with microphones. We have successfully performed experiments that intercept signals coming from a cat's eye via the optic nerve and display some of what's seen on a flat screen. We've got low multipixel displays being injected onto the optic nerve of some blind patients, enabling them to "see" things.

It is only the matter of a very short amount of time before Joe Average will realistically be able to digitally "remember" anything he ever sees or hears. He will be able to retain any sight or sound and replay it in perfect fidelity at will. I'm not talking about VR, but RR; replayed reality.

It's your experience. You had it once. Just because your grey cells alone can't retain it perfectly isn't a long-term profit market.

It may be a generation, or two, or even three, but it's going to happen that the entertainment industry won't be able to sell you an experience twice. Books, music, live performances of plays or concerts and virtually all other audio/visual markets will radically change. Forget peer-to-peer. This is just the start.

As an aside, really, strip clubs will be able to maintain themselves, happily, since consumers of pr0n tend to want to see NEW things each time.

Re:More like...

[Trogre]

I think the point is that it's not illegal in Sweden.

Re:More like...

[DarkEdgeX]

It probably shouldn't be against the law then, should it?

Re:More like...

[Petrushka]

Annoying, useless crap typically doesn't get pirated.

Ummm, I don't buy that bit, but the rest of your argument is both interesting and informative.

Re:More like...

[owlstead]

With a bit of misfortune, they stick a bit of DRM in your head, and make you remember their side of the story, including advertising :(

Re:More like...

[stephanruby]

This is a good example you brought up (never mind that most bookstores don't have photocopy machines within them). Photocopy machines were seriously fought by the publishing industry. Photocopy machines were the symbol of the publishing industry's demise. After all, the pro-copyright organizations can't just fight all copyright infringement, that would mean that they would have to stand over your shoulder every time a buddy of yours loans you a book for you to photocopy -- they can only fight the tools and the toolmakers that make copyright-infringement easier.

Re:More like...

[Maximilio]

OK, amended: unpopular content does not get pirated. Value judgments are in the eyes of the beholder.

Re:More like...

[Sparr0]

Which "what they did", and which "they" are you referring to? Many people, including the staffs of thepiratebay.org and piratbyran.org, say that they did not break the law by hosting a tracker.

Re:More like...

[Snaller]

Those people. And I think its unlikely they didn't break the law, however if by some obscure chance they didn't it's because there was an oversight in the law which will probably soon be changed (money rules)

Art19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[zaroastra]

Art19 of Human rights: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.


Now who is the pirate again? As I see it, people that call us pirates because we gladly spread information through informatic media are really violating one of the most forgoten articles in the bill of human rights, which in fact was signed by almost all the countries in the world.

Please spread your ideas throught europe and the rest of the world, because we need paladins for a cause that most people wont even see it until we reach a police or fascist state.

Cheers: Z

Re:come on, let's face it

[tinkerghost]

No, because there are many legal uses for bittorrent but few legal uses for hookers.
[pulls out map of Nevada]
left onto ... right onto .. go about 12 miles, big bunny sign, can't miss it.
Um, just to slap you around a bit, hookers are quite legal in many places. Nevada here in the US, and I believe prostitution is legal in Belgium and a few other European countries. Just because it's illegal where you live, doesn't mean it's illegal everywhere.
Hemp cannot be grown in the US because of the drug laws, but it's grown like cotton in other countries as a cash crop for the fibers. It's actually more profitable/acre than corn (as an industrial product - not a drug) from what I understand.

[subject change]
Substantial Non-Infringing Uses means that there are a significant number of legitimate uses for something which do not infringe on copyrights. It does not mean that there are a significant number of people actively engaged in those uses. Way back in the day, the judges ruled that "Not everyone is a criminal, so people who are not can use this. If someone is, then take them to court."
Nowdays of course everyone is a horrible rotten pirate depriving the *AA of their profits, and no method of distributing any form of content should be allowed. Except the sneakernet distibution of their authorized product through the malls.

Re:This is the sort of accessories you can't buy.

[dual_boot_brain]

Depends on the states criminal code. In some states the getaway driver can only be found guilty if the prosecution shows by clear and convincing evidence that they intentionally acted in such a way as to assist with the commission of a crime. If, for example, I am driving a RIAA lawyer around town and and he asks me to stop at a certain house and wait and I do and while inside the house he sodomizes the owner's poodle then leaves and I drive him back to his BDSM club where he is arrested for sodomizing the poodle I will not be charged with the commission of a crime because I had no idea he planned to sodomize the poodle. I did not have the requisite intent to assist him in his poodle sodomizing crime. On the other hand, if an MPAA lawyer is driving the RIAA lawyer around looking for a poodle to sodomize and the MPAA lawyer knows they are looking for a poodle to sodomize and the RIAA lawyer does, in fact, sodomize the poodle, then the MPAA lawyer can be charged with a crime.

Re:punish google, then! Re:come on, let's face it

[SlayerofGods]

I feel it important to point out that 17 USC 512 was added by the DMCA.
So despite all the bad mouthing about the DMCA (which mostly I agree with) Google is technically protected by the DMCA. Crazy, no?

What planet are you from?

[Cybrex]

Wow! You're an idiot!

How DO YOU THINK they GET THE ORIGINAL ITEM?
Typically, they buy it in a store, it's given to them by the studio as a screener/review/demo copy, or (less often) copy it at the studio.

Shoplifting != piracy
Shoplifting !-->piracy

I "know people" who pirate movies, music, and software. If you broke into their houses you'd find shelves and shelves of store-bought movies, music, and software. Why? Because they're not shoplifters or thieves. They buy the things they love, and frequently make copies for their friends. Sometimes they set up torrents for them.

This is the norm- not your hypothetical thug who does a smash & grab at Best Buy. You're trying to tie together two crimes (theft of a physical item and copyright violation) that are fundamentally different and unrelated. Stop it. You're wrong, and you're making yourself look like an asshat.

Re:What planet are you from?

[this great guy]

You still don't get it. You said "every person who gets a copy from their friend is one less sale to the record company/television studio/etc". In what reality are you living in ? It has been repeatedly demonstrated that this is incorrect. Sure, some people who pirate things would have legally bought them if pirate copies weren't available, but this is only a minority of people. Most people who pirate stuff are people who wouldn't normally have bought these things. Hell, just look at one of the numerous studies showing the boom of CD sales when piracy is actually going up !

(Note that I am not judging whether piracy is a good practice or not, I am just reporting facts that you get wrong. Please stop spreading your incorrect views on how piracy affect sales.)

Re:What planet are you from?

[arevos]

And it's perfectly ok to infringe on copyrights?

The parent poster said no such thing.

There's laws for a reason, dude

Many of the current copyright laws are there due to the lobbying by large publishers. Copyright laws in the US were originally 14 years, with an optional 14 year renewal. 28 years was considered enough incentive for authors to produce more works before falling into the public domain.

All extensions to this have largely been the result of lobbying by wealthy publishing corporations. In this, you are correct that the laws are there for a reason: the reason is to make publishing companies more money. Some people consider the goal of buying a CEO a new private jet to be less important than enriching the public domain, and thus, consider today's copyright laws to be excessive.

There IS loss when copyrights are infringed upon. Every person who gets a copy from their friend is one less sale to the record company/television studio/etc.

Again, you're incorrect. In standard economic theory, a person will buy an object if the price of the object is less than or equal to the perceived value.

For instance, if I happen across a DVD of a box-office flop on sale for $5, I might consider buy it because it is inexpensive. If I ran across that same DVD for $20, or even $10, I would not buy it because I would consider it not worth the money. Therefore, the peceived value of the DVD is $5.

Thus, piracy will only result in a lost sale if the price of the item is greater than the perceived value. And piracy itself will only occur if the cost of downloading (in terms of bandwidth, time and risk of being sued) is less than or equal to the perceived value.

You appear to be assuming that the perceived value of any copyrighted materal, for every consumer, is exactly equal to or greater than the price. This is clearly not the case, otherwise everyone would spend all of their non-essential income on buying DVDs and so forth. Since people spend their money on objects that are not copyrighted material (for instance, I'm investing in a holiday), this assumption is clearly false.

Re:What planet are you from?

[Cybrex]

*sigh*

And it's perfectly ok to infringe on copyrights?
Did you read my comment, or are you replying to someone else's comment in the wrong place? I said nothing of the sort. What I did was address a fundamental flaw in the argument that you're posting all over this thread- that piracy involves depriving the store (or wherever) of physical media. Re-read your comments. I'm not making any statement one way or the other regarding the moral implications of duplicating data. There are solid, logical, defensible arguments against copyright infringement, but your inane rants haven't even touched upon them.

There's laws for a reason, dude: enough people think it's right to follow them.
Again your reasoning is flawed. Laws exist because lawmakers decide, for varying reasons, to propose and ratify them. Laws aren't passed simply because >50% of the population is already behaving a particular way, and often laws are passed against the wishes of the majority of the informed population. Sometimes the courts strike bad laws down. Less frequently, juries do. (Look up jury nullification if you don't know what I'm talking about.) Unfortunately, it seems that with increasing frequency bad laws are being permitted to stand.

I really don't know where you were going with that statement. Please take a moment to clarify your thoughts before posting again. A well thought out response will be much more persuasive than a quick, sloppy one.

There IS loss when copyrights are infringed upon.
There is a potential loss of revenue, but nobody is being deprived of physical material. This may seem like a subtle distinction, but it's a very important one, and is therefore covered by an entirely different set of laws. You continue to confuse the two- hence my original comment.

Every person who gets a copy from their friend is one less sale to the record company/television studio/etc.
I'm duplicating another response here, but it's worth repeating since your reading comprehension skills seem to be weak. X pirated copies does NOT equal X lost sales. It's more complicated than that. A pirated copy is only a lost sale if the recipient would have otherwise purchased a copy, and it's well-documented that this usually isn't the case. Additionally, factor in the fact that pirated copies of whatever often serve as "demos" that people use to try out a product to decide if they want to purchase it or not. On top of that, a pirated copy of a product (be it movie, music, or software) can generate exposure to audiences that would otherwise have never been made aware of it. This is a powerful marketing mechanism.

I'll go out on a limb and confess that my 3 favorite video games of all time (no, I'm not naming names here) originally came into my possession via pirated copies. In all three cases I ended up deciding to purchase legit copies, and in the case of two of them I've purchased multiple copies for different platforms. My recommendations to friends have directly led to almost a dozen sales that I know of. In all three cases I never would have given them a second look had I not been given a (long since deleted) pirated copy.

Additionally, I came to be aware of one of my favorite bands through a CD that a friend burned for me. I've since bought their entire collection, seen them in concert twice, picked up a concert DVD, and regularly wear one of their t-shirts. I've also exposed several others to their music.

Again, I'm really not intending this as a defense of piracy- just highlighting the factual errors and oversimplification of your argument.

People don't think of this shit.
Maybe on your planet, but it sounds to me like you've been listening to the PR spin by the **AA instead of thinking about the issue for yourself.

I assume you're a child, because that's the only way I can see someone wanting to defend this practice.
Once again you're incorrect. However, I assume you're either functionally illite

Re:What planet are you from?

[SilentChris]

"This thread is a masterpiece. Abstruse argumentation, but always very close to the real thing, never giving away too much. Full of subtle yet irresistible hooks. You, Sir, are truly an american trolling icon. I commend you on your prowess."

Thanks, they haven't figured it out yet. lol

Re:What planet are you from?

[zerocool^]

Yeah, ok, ok - ya got me. Ya got me.

Everyone, I fed a troll! /me slinks off into obscurity.

Re:What planet are you from?

[wheany]

Oh, so instead of actually being a dumbass, you only look like a dumbass in everyone's eyes.

Way to go, champ!

From their website...

[Ngwenya]

TPB (good luck getting to it!) is claiming that the warrant for search and seizure was :

In the morning of 2006-05-31 the Swedish National Criminal Police showed a search warrant to Rix|Port80 personnell. The warrant was valid for all datacentres of Rix|Port80 and was directed at The Pirate Bay. The allegation was breach of copy-right law, alternatively assisting breach of copy-right law.

So, obviously Swedish law does have the notion of secondary infringment (ie, even if no infringing materials. Now, whether the hosting of torrent files constitutes assisting breach according to Swedish law remains to be seen. I seem to remember that previous case law said that it wasn't - but my memory could be faulty.

Interestingly, they conclude with:

The TPB can receive compensation from the Swedish state in case that the upcoming legal processes show that TPB is indeed legal.

So, with all the fevered speculation, all we can really do is sit and wait for more details to emerge. I don't know if there is any sort of donations which can be made in the case that all of this is not a hoax, but if anyone knows, details would be appreciated. (Of course, this is an open invitation for any Swedish bloke to play the "I'm Spartacus! Donate to my ...err... TPB's account" card.)

--Ng

(Poorly) translated blog text

[geobeck]

Courtesy of Systran web translator:

PB/TPB down
PRESSRELEASE
For immediate publication
May 31, 2006

The police defrauded of the film industry to close down Piratbyrån

The police carried out today a razzia against The Pirate Bay, the world's bigest Bittorrent - tracker. The side has in several years been a node in the world for culture interested people in countries over the whole world. All from own produced essays to obscure Japanese music to video's of Schlagerfinalen has spridits with the aid of the technology.

On the actual servrarna has no illegal material existed. Torrent-filerna, länka as people uses in order to be meshed and to load the desired material contains only text that meagre is copyright protected.

"Antipiratbyrån has clearly misleaded the police in this case" states Tobias's Andersson on Piratbyrån. "one seems to have convinced it-inkompetenta police that servrarna in question is fulfilled with copyright protected materials. This is a coarse misuse of wealth money."

"concurrent has a majority other sides as existed on nearby servrar been confiscated. Häri lies the coarsest övertrampet. Antipiratbyrån has evidently defrauded the police to at the same time close down your antagonists, Piratbyrån."

"Piratbyrån has in 3 years seemed for an open debate around copyright questions and patents. We are a lot of agitated over that the film industry does not dare to take the debate, without wants to defraud politicians and police to outlaw antagonist and a big part of the Swedish people."

"purely practical means this såklart nothing pursues the world's file splitters. The exists other thousand's sides or networks for them that few the the wants to have. People change only place. Fildelningen functions equally a skin to draw, a cuts' head of grows the soon out 2 new. "

Piratbyrån was started the summer 2003 in order to elucidate and to discuss copyright questions. Piratbyrån means that the copyright in many cases has played out their role and instead in order to protect tex artists nearer prevents the creation and göder a few. Since the start has approximately 60 000 members registered itself on the homepage where one debates in forums and changes advice. Piratbyrån has also hållt presentations in the parliament, pursued various campaigns and the started world's bigest bittorrent-tracker ThePirateBay.org

__________________________________________

The Pirate Bay wild duck piratbyran ice down after a raid on our National Inspectorate of Strategic Products, our wild duck more customers server's are hold. We will post office mother INFO carcasses soon carcasses we know it.

post office curse village Piratbyran at 5:28 AM 47 co intended
About Me

Note: Don't ask me about the parts that didn't translate; I just copy and paste. I have no clue what the "wild duck... carcasses" in the last paragraph are about.

Re:(Poorly) translated blog text

[giulietta masina]

Uhm, I've already translated the text (for real). Look a few posts down.

I'm surprised it took this long

[v3xt0r]

Anyone who knows anything about distributing warez (or in this case, torrents) should know enough not to do it from a static domain name, much less via HTTP protocol.

Although, I'm equally amazed that archaic/old sites like FOSI are still up, after all these years.

Re:What the Swedish antipiracy firm (ATB) has to s

[Overzeetop]

Pretty amazing that we even had music, drama, and literature even before the invention of the respective recording technologies, isn't it.

Re:This is the sort of accessories you can't buy.

[spectre_240sx]

That analogy doesn't really work because copyright isn't a criminal offense in most cases.

What finances new movies?

[geobeck]

"It is the copyright that finances creation in movies, computergames, music and other culture... the closing of The Pirate Bay is good for all of us that apreciate new Movies and entertainment..."

Does anyone really believe this? A good movie makes money because people want to see it in the theater, and buy products based on it. For a current example, Pixar's "Cars" comes to mind. Is there any doubt that the toys alone will pay for the movie's production? Even when you consider the non-trademarked knockoffs that cheap toy manufacturers will produce? (Look out; they'll be the next target.)

As for "all of us that apreciate new Movies and entertainment", does anyone really believe that the theaters showing the newest Rob Schneider movie (for example) will be any less empty with TBP shut down?

An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[Christian Engstrom]

And what is this plan?

Basically this.

I apologize for not having a more complete translation of our proposal ready, but this is the basic idea.

At least in Europe, over 80% of the pharma companies' revenues come from the government (since we have universal medical coverage). The pharma companies claim that they have to charge several times more than the production costs in order to fund research. But they only spend 15% of their revenues on research. Most of the money they receive from the government actually goes to marketing (around 50%) and profit (around 15%).

If the government would fund research and the buying of the pills separately, the total bill would drop by at least 50%, since there would be no need for the excessive marketing any more. And there would be no need to keep the research results blocked by patents, since they would have been paid for already.

So there would be no need to threaten third world countries with economic sanctions just because they try to do what they can to provide AIDS medicine to their own population.

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[SlayerofGods]

A noble goal no doubt. But perhaps you've heard this before 'If medical research were left up to the government we'd have best iron lung in the world but not a polio vaccine.' (or something to that effect) Medical companies have so far been pretty effective at coming up with the drugs we need. If you remove their economic incentive and put control of research into the hands of bureaucrats and politicians you could be looking at a disaster in the making. Why mess with success?

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[CodeBuster]

So there would be no need to threaten third world countries with economic sanctions just because they try to do what they can to provide AIDS medicine to their own population.

How do you propose to solve the Free Rider Problem or do you mean to suggest that Swedish taxpayers should fund a disproportionate share of the worlds' medical research costs while giving away the fruits of that labor?

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If you remove their economic incentive and put control of research into the hands of bureaucrats and politicians you could be looking at a disaster in the making. Why mess with success?

Because it's screwing a lot of people. How about giving the pharma companies 5 years, more or less to sell their wonder drug (when funded by gov't cash), then open it to everyone? It's not like we should be paying for the drug twice.

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[Christian Engstrom]

But perhaps you've heard this before 'If medical research were left up to the government we'd have best iron lung in the world but not a polio vaccine.'

If someone does indeed say that, it appears that he is wrong.

The polio vaccine was discovered by Dr. Jonas Salk, who was a medical researcher at the University of Pittsburgh. Much of the funding came through the "March of Dimes", which was a grassroots organization founded by president Roosevelt.

So the polio vaccine was in fact developed through public funding rather than by the big pharma companies. And it still counts as one of the biggest medical achievements ever, if you look at the number of people that it saved.

Possibly because the vaccine could be produced freely once it had been discovered, since it was not restricted by patents.

References:
PBS: A Science Odyssey
"Access Excellence" at The National Health Museum

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[Christian Engstrom]

How do you propose to solve the Free Rider Problem or do you mean to suggest that Swedish taxpayers should fund a disproportionate share of the worlds' medical research costs while giving away the fruits of that labor?

Good question.

The answer is that Sweden couldn't possibly do this alone. If nothing else, the US would hit us so hard with economic sanctions that we'd be forced to stop before we could even begin.

But if Europe does it together, there is nothing to stop us. US companies would be free to manufacture pharmaceuticals researched and developed in Europe, but European companies would be equally free to take advantage of the research carried out in the US.

Even if the US would keep the patent system (and it will, for the foreseeable future) the US patents only cover manufacuring and marketing in the US. European companies would be free to do whatever they wanted in Europe.

Europe is big enough, and spends enough money on pharmaceutical research, to refute any claim that we are freeloading on others. And if other nations wanted to freeload on us, that wouldn't be a problem under our proposed system. Indeed, it would be the objective!

And more importantly, in the real world: Europe is big enough to withstand any attempts at economic sanctions from the US. When you are talking economic warfare, size is all that matters. The smaller player get hurt the most, and will eventually have to surrender.

But the European Union is just as big as the US in economic terms. The excellent CIA Factbook has the answer, as ever.

Europe and the US each have 20% of the world's GDP. The rest of the world has 60%. And "the rest of the world" includes Brazil, India and China. Who's side do you think they would be on in a scenario like this?

So to summarize: You're quite right that Sweden couldn't do this alone. But Europe can.

And once we have Pirate Parties in parliament in most of the member states, we will.

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[SlayerofGods]

I found the exact quote
'If it was up to the NIH to cure polio through a centrally directed program you'd have the best iron lung in the world but not a polio vaccine.'
Samuel Broder, Former Director of the National Cancer Institute

Regardless of who actually came up with the vaccine the point of the quote remains the same. Governments aren't exactly the best places for innovation; all the failed communist economies around the world tend to prove that. (not that they can't just normally don't and to believe other wise is naïve IMO)

Besides doesn't this exact situation basically prove that patents don't stifle public advances of science? If we want more discoveries like this we simply need the lobby the government to give more money to universities, not abolish the patent system.

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[CodeBuster]

Hmmmm...so if the Indian and Chinese pharma companies take the medical research that Europeans have paid for, create knock-off drugs, and sell them cheap in Europe to undercut the European pharma companies then you would be fine with that? The United States is not "out to get you" with our patent system, but it is surprising to that so many Europeans would be willing to simply pay more than the rest of the world for the same products (through higher taxes to support the research that everyone else is free riding and benefiting from). I am sure that the Chinese and Indians would be happy to have you pay for all the research so that they can knock-off your products for pennies on the dollar when the research actually turns up a useful new drug. Please forgive me for saying this, but your assertion that Europeans are willing to endure such obvious unfairness strains credibility.

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[CodeBuster]

Sweden doesn't lose anything if other countries use the results of their pharmaceutical research

They lose in the sense that the Swedish tax money that paid for the medical research could have been spent on other things, what economists call the Opportunity Cost. Suppose that we Americans "free ride" on this Swedish research so now we can enjoy the benefits of the research that you paid for AND spend our surplus tax money on other things. Remember also that by taxing the citizens you are forcing people to spend a portion of their incomes, and in Sweden that non-discretionary portion is quite large, on goods and services that, if left to their own devices, people might otherwise chose not to purchase or purchase in less quanity. Some taxes are necessary, of course, to fund those few things which the public needs, but which suffer from the aforementioned free rider problem. However, I am not convinced that medical research falls under that category.

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[shutdown -p now]

Governments aren't exactly the best places for innovation; all the failed communist economies around the world tend to prove that.

Communist countries (the USSR, in particular) made a very strong scientific contribution especially in the realm of theoretic sciences. Don't forget the Space Race either.

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[ichigo 2.0]

Hmmmm...so if the Indian and Chinese pharma companies take the medical research that Europeans have paid for, create knock-off drugs, and sell them cheap in Europe to undercut the European pharma companies then you would be fine with that? The United States is not "out to get you" with our patent system, but it is surprising to that so many Europeans would be willing to simply pay more than the rest of the world for the same products (through higher taxes to support the research that everyone else is free riding and benefiting from). I am sure that the Chinese and Indians would be happy to have you pay for all the research so that they can knock-off your products for pennies on the dollar when the research actually turns up a useful new drug. Please forgive me for saying this, but your assertion that Europeans are willing to endure such obvious unfairness strains credibility.

The thing is, that even though we would end up paying more taxes, we would save money by having to pay less for medicines thanks to more competition among the pharmaceutic producers. I don't see the downside. No, losing a couple of jobs to China isn't a downside, the saved money will create other jobs in Europe.

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[barawn]

so if the Indian and Chinese pharma companies take the medical research that Europeans have paid for, create knock-off drugs, and sell them cheap in Europe to undercut the European pharma companies then you would be fine with that?

Wait... so if the Indian and Chinese can produce the drugs cheaper than Europe (with appropriate duty, of course - drugs companies in Europe pay European taxes, drugs coming in from outside Europe should have a duty charged to make up for those taxes) - why shouldn't they? Why does this hurt the pharmaceutical companies? They'd be getting money directly from the government (which, in any case, they do now anyway - find me a drug that didn't have its origins in a university hospital and I'll find a thousand others that did) for the research whether they sell the drug or not.

Any pharmaceutical company in Europe will have a few years head start on foreign companies, because they've got experience with making the drug - that, and they'll also have the quality control stuff out of the way. Presumedly foreign drugs would also have to have quality controls to ensure that they're equivalent to European-produced drugs. And when/if the other countries can start making the drugs cheaper, then it's time to move on.

I have to agree that splitting research and production of pharmaceuticals is probably an ideal way to go. Drugs should be cheap if they're cheap to make. Morally, it's just wrong to keep them expensive to pay for new, future drugs.

And believe it or not, financially, it's probably wrong, as well. In the long run, it's easy to believe that an economy could be healthier with universal, cheap health care due to the increased productivity and lifespans of the population.

I am sure that the Chinese and Indians would be happy to have you pay for all the research so that they can knock-off your products for pennies on the dollar when the research actually turns up a useful new drug.

Again, I say: who cares if they do? If they can actually make the drugs cheaper, then the European economy saves money, especially if the proper duties are assessed, because the European people end up paying less for the drugs.

One company in Europe that makes the drug might get hurt, but really, whose fault is that? Why should it be the government's job to protect a bad business model?

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[barawn]

Suppose that we Americans "free ride" on this Swedish research so now we can enjoy the benefits of the research that you paid for AND spend our surplus tax money on other things.

Well, given the inevitable manufacturing delays and difficulties in figuring out processes, a free-riding country would always be a few years behind the forefront of the non-free-riding country. There's nothing that says that Europeans have to go and teach other countries how to use the technology. You're just not protecting it legally.

And given that medicine's an immediate need - someone dying of cancer won't buy the "well, just wait a few years, we'll have it then" - the medicine will be imported, and Europe will make some of that money back. So there's no complete free ride anyway.

This should sound remarkably like the current situation, and it is. You're just removing the ability of the companies to make money by artificially extending that barrier to cheap drugs - which as I mentioned elsewhere, is akin to the government protecting bad business models.

Remember also that by taxing the citizens you are forcing people to spend a portion of their incomes, and in Sweden that non-discretionary portion is quite large, on goods and services that, if left to their own devices, people might otherwise chose not to purchase or purchase in less quanity.

That's a very good point - but it only stresses why medical research should be funded by society in general. Research should be funded by governments when its reward is large, and the timescale is too large for people to see the immediate benefit. Most pure sciences benefit from this, for instance, but medical research is similar. Why? Because the people who are earning the most money are typically those who are healthy - they don't know they're going to get sick, and so, they'll typically shave money, and skimp on paying for medical research.

Which, of course, is why governments do fund medical research. It's just for some silly reason, governments typically bow out of funding when the drug gets close to production.

It's much like car insurance - states in the US require car insurance because of the risk involved - it's dangerous to other people if you're a bad driver, and if you're a bad driver and cheap (i.e. don't get insurance on your own) then you end up costing everyone else money and rising their insurance. Medical insurance is similar. If you're not healthy, and you're cheap (or unable to get medical insurance), you end up costing everyone else money, and putting others at risk with your own poor health. Yeah, I'm talking about medical coverage rather than medical research here, but the argument is similar.

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[barawn]

Regardless of who actually came up with the vaccine the point of the quote remains the same. Governments aren't exactly the best places for innovation;

Which is why we innovate at universities.

This is just asking governments to fund the universities. Which, they do. But when the results start getting close to production, the government funding dries up, and then the pharmaceutical companies take over. This is essentially what they're trying to fix - it's fairly insane that the public essentially funds the majority of the research for pharmaceutical companies, and then just hands them a nice neat product which they then produce, and market the hell out of, at insane prices while using patents to restrict production in other places where the cost would be cheaper.

So essentially, all you're really doing is asking the governments to finish what they already started - fund the drugs all the way to completion, rather than just the majority of the way.

If we want more discoveries like this we simply need the lobby the government to give more money to universities, not abolish the patent system.

Why, precisely, should patents be allowed for drugs that are primarily discovered by government-funded research?

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[CodeBuster]

Why does this hurt the pharmaceutical companies?

If the government collects taxes and then redistributes the money back to the taxed entities in the form of government programs then wouldn't you agree that this process is not 100% efficient? If the government taxes the drug company one dollar and then gives that dollar right back to fund research can we honestly say that it didn't really cost $1+ for that dollar to wind its way through the bureaucracy and back to the company? Wouldn't it have been better just to leave that dollar where it was in the first place instead of cycling it through the system and running up administrative costs?

They'd be getting money directly from the government (which, in any case, they do now anyway - find me a drug that didn't have its origins in a university hospital and I'll find a thousand others that did) for the research whether they sell the drug or not.

What about oversight costs to ensure compliance with the spending rules? If you leave it up to the company and there is no checking then how would you know that they didn't divert the funds for other things? How does the government decide which companies get how much funds from the available pool? This sounds like an excellent opportunity for more big government with over-burdensome regulations and inefficient bureaucracy.

Drugs should be cheap if they're cheap to make. Morally, it's just wrong to keep them expensive to pay for new, future drugs.

There will be no new drugs without research and research isn't cheap. You can tax to fund the research, but if there is no protection of discoveries then who will want to fund the research?

And believe it or not, financially, it's probably wrong, as well. In the long run, it's easy to believe that an economy could be healthier with universal, cheap health care due to the increased productivity and lifespans of the population.

Perhaps, but drug companies pay their employees, taxes, rents and other expenses in the short run and they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders that cannot be breached simply because it would be altruistic or idealistic to do so.

If they can actually make the drugs cheaper, then the European economy saves money, especially if the proper duties are assessed, because the European people end up paying less for the drugs.

The duties would have to be quite high to make up for the research costs and thus the incentive to dodge the customs inspectors and sell into the Black Market would rise along with the duties. High enough taxes and tarifs turn even honest people into cheats.

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[CodeBuster]

I don't see the downside.

You have relatively speaking less disposable income to spend on cell phones, fast cars, restaurant meals, real estate, and countless other things which people like to have while the Chinese elites buy all of these things AND benefit from your tax funded drug research to boot. Are you saying that you don't care that other people are free riding off of your money?

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[barawn]

If the government collects taxes and then redistributes the money back to the taxed entities in the form of government programs then wouldn't you agree that this process is not 100% efficient?

Nono, you're right. The pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be the ones doing the research and getting money from the government. That's retarded. They should just be producing the drugs.

What about oversight costs to ensure compliance with the spending rules? If you leave it up to the company and there is no checking then how would you know that they didn't divert the funds for other things? How does the government decide which companies get how much funds from the available pool? This sounds like an excellent opportunity for more big government with over-burdensome regulations and inefficient bureaucracy.

I believe this is called "a university."

There will be no new drugs without research and research isn't cheap. You can tax to fund the research, but if there is no protection of discoveries then who will want to fund the research?

See above. Universities fund research because it brings in government funding which brings in smart people which brings in students which brings in money.

And universities are doing pharmaceutical research right now. It's just that at a certain point in a drug's life, it goes from the government funding it to drug companies funding it. That's the mistake. Governments should continue funding it to completion, and then pharmaceutical companies start producing the drug once it's been approved by the equivalent of the FDA.

Heck, for one thing, right now, citizens are getting screwed - they're paying the lion's share of the costs to research new drugs, and the pharma companies are reaping all of the benefits.

Perhaps, but drug companies pay their employees, taxes, rents and other expenses in the short run and they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders that cannot be breached simply because it would be altruistic or idealistic to do so.

That's why the drug companies shouldn't be doing it. It's the government's job to make sure the economy and society are as healthy (in the literal and figurative sense) as possible.

The duties would have to be quite high to make up for the research costs

Nono - you're not trying to make up the research costs. Those are just gone. The research costs are paid for by the government, and the government makes it up because you're advancing the state of the art, and the economy thus maintains a lead on everyone else. Same reason for the existence of the space program, for instance.

The duties are just to ensure any governmental fees and taxes that the local companies pay (for regulatory approval, for instance) are paid by the overseas entity as well. Then the only way a foreign entity can really beat a local entity is by leveraging very cheap manpower, but with sufficient automation, that can be driven down as well (or you could levy duty for civil rights reasons if it's excessive, which seems fair especially if you're rendering humanitarian aid to the country). Then the local entity probably wins completely due to extra shipping costs from a distance.

So basically, Europe would end up having a lead in terms of pharmaceuticals over other countries by design (because they're funneling more money into research than other countries - so it's not temporary), which would lead to continual exports of new drugs. Other countries really couldn't just import old drugs cheaper, because of reasons outlined above - it's unlikely they could really make them fundamentally cheaper than local drugs, so you get a net positive export of pharmaceuticals. That's good for the government, and likely worth the investment in the research.

High enough taxes and tarifs turn even honest people into cheats.

I doubt the tariffs would be that high. And if they are, you can always split the difference by halving the tariffs, and halving the taxes you collect from the pharma companies. Or giving tax breaks to those who buy locally-produced drugs.

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[ichigo 2.0]

No, I have more disposable income because pharmaceuticals become cheaper. And on closer thought that also decreases my taxes because the government needs to pay less for healthcare. The Chinese might be mooching off our research, but we would benefit from the increased competition in production.

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[AK Marc]

Governments aren't exactly the best places for innovation; all the failed communist economies around the world tend to prove that.

Right, because all the space race was won in the '60s through the private companies in the capitalistic countries. Oh, the space race was government funded? Well, that shows that innovation doesn't come from the private sector. Profit from the innovation comes from the private sector, but innovation is often publically funded. Space race, polio vaccine, and such. The Internet? Government funded...

Re:An alternative to pharmaceutical patents

[hr raattgift]

Sweden and many other OECD countries make substantial foreign aid donations geared towards saving lives from preventable disease, among other things. This would be similar, with the added advantage of cheaper pharmaceuticals within Sweden (possibly via imports from the aforementioned Indias and Chinas) and fewer diseased people needing expensive medical attention or palliative care abroad.

Socializing the returns on investment in pharmaceutical research is a smart idea, as long as the investments themselves are made. These can be socialized too, via direct funding grants for applied research, or they can be pirated, or they can be left as they are wherein grants of monopoly rents are made.

The problem with the first approach is that granting agencies cannot be expected to make very accurate predictions of the utility or success of the work early in the funding process. This can lead to serious risk-aversion, wherein only formerly successful researchers are given grants, which can be between merely inefficient in the sense of missing out on radical new ideas from bright young researchers, or to an old-boy network wherein who you know or who you work for is more important than what you know or how you work.

The problem with the third is the status quo, which results not only in high prices thanks to monopolies, but also biases research in favour of treatments for rich people's diseases (a drug which has to be taken regularly and which costs thousands per year) rather than one-shot, inexpensive cures.

The "pirate it" path has problems you are well aware of, but also has the disadvantage that it is unlikely to convince the researchers to change their focus from drugs producing high cost recurring income to drugs which are cheap, permanent solutions.

Re:come on, let's face it

[GrayCalx]

No, because there are many legal uses for bittorrent but few legal uses for hookers.

What if I was picking up a hooker because I needed a date for my office party, and had no expectations of sex? The cops going to give me a ticket.

If I had my one vicadin prescription bottle on me, I'd be fine. If i had all 100pills in individual ziplock baggies... I'm gonna get arrested.

Look I'm not here to debate you on the legality of bittorrents or the rules established in America or Sweden (what the f' do i know/care about Sweden) [no offense to the Swedish, keep spitting out the great hockey players]. And while even my analogy went a bit to the extreme, all I was pointing out was that comparing a site that, in short, points out where some copyrighted files can be found, is much much different than a company that sells paper...

Slyck

[earthstar]

Looks like Slyck has hit overload as an after effect.

This is the error i get :

phpBB : Critical Error

Could not connect to the database

___________________________________________

Slyck.com 's article :[http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1203]

ThePirateBay.org Raided - Servers Seized
May 31, 2006
Thomas Mennecke

In their native Sweden, ThePirateBay.org enjoyed a level of immunity from copyright prosecution rarely seen in the file-sharing world. Often defiant in the face of those wishing to enforce their intellectual property rights, ThePirateBay.org would go on to become one of the premier BitTorrent indexing and tracking sites.

As one of the largest trackers, ThePirateBay.org largely replaced the search engine SuprNova.org. SuprNova.org met its demise in late 2004, when it was under pressure from the entertainment industry to shut it operation down. Conversely, such pressure has been ineffective against ThePiratebay.org.

When such political pressure fails, the use of force is typically the next course of action. In a move that many thought would never come, Slyck.com learned this morning that ThePirateBay.org was raided by Swedish police.

"...The police right now is taking all of our servers, to check if there is a crime there or not (they are actually not sure)," ThePirateBay.org spokesperson "brokep" told Slyck.com.

The seizure of ThePirateBay.org's entire server farm will guarantee this BitTorrent tracker will remain offline until the police complete their investigation. The uncertainty on the part of the police may stem from the fact ThePirateBay.org's servers only host .torrent files, not actual copyrighted material. As a tracker, ThePirateBay.org's function is to index .torrent files and to direct BitTorrent traffic and maintain the swarm (uploads and downloads.) The downloaded .torrent file contains all the necessary information to locate and download the queried file. The legality of indirectly linking to copyrighted material has yet to be tested by Swedish courts.

Whether this will keep ThePirateBay.org offline indefinitely is another matter.

"We are not sure when it will return, but we are moving it to another country if necessary," brokep said.

According to The Pirate Party, a Swedish copyright reform organization, the raid also seized Piratbyrån's (the Pirate Bureau) servers. Piratbyrån is a educational and quasi-political organization which performs a public servic role similar to The Pirate Party. In addition, The Pirate Party reports "...the servers where located in a protected area, to which the police had no legal right to enter..." Approximately 50 police participated in the raid, which placed into custody two PirateBay.org personnel.

The premature departure of ThePirateBay.org marks a significant turning point in the BitTorrent community. Although it's not currently known what, if any, entertainment entity is behind this raid, failure to secure ThePirateBay.org's permanent removal will only bolster this tracker's position of defiance.

Re:Slyck

[Nickalreadyinuse]

The seizure of ThePirateBay.org's entire server farm will guarantee this BitTorrent tracker will remain offline until the police complete their investigation.

This part of the Slyck article is demonstrably false, because there is obviously a legal procedure to file a motion to a court for the seized property to be returned. In Sweden, this motion must be heard within 4-7 days depending on rest of the case.

I would say that it's instead quaranteed that such a motion will be filed promtly and highly likely that some of the seized servers are returned immediately and quite possible that the servers actually running TPB will also be returned, because the police has no basis for holding them anymore after making copies of their contents.

Re:come on, let's face it

[rbarreira]

How could they be arrested in the U.S.? The servers are not located there, so which law did they break?

Road signs are ILLEGAL

[flobberchops]

Torrents POINT to a hoster, Road signs point to a place (which could have illegal activity in it). So are road signs illegal also?

Re:come on, let's face it

[Damvan]

That kid was caned for writing graffitti in Singapore.

Basically, you are advocating that Singapore be allowed to send people over here to cane American kids caught writing graffitti in America.

That is stupid. Should American law enforcement be allowed to swoop down and arrest Dutch people smoking pot in Amsterdam?

Re:come on, let's face it

[glwtta]

This works for all complex problems, be it micro v. macro kernel, evolution v. creation, pro-choice v. pro-life, etc. Elevate your understanding.

Evolution vs creationism is not complex, it is a very simple problem surrounded by a state of fundamentalist hysteria.

Re:come on, let's face it

[MirrororriM]

strongly encouraging someone to infringe in conjunction with assistance

I strongly encourage everyone to go here and start downloading.

Now arrest me.

Newswire piece just came up

[claytongulick]

Here is an bit of propa^H^H^H^H^Hnews about the takedown: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=6 6667

The **AA are all patting themselves on the back and talking about the billions of dollars they lost to piracy last year.

For those too lazy to click, here is the text:

To: National Desk

Contact: Kori Bernards or Elizabeth Kaltman, 818-995-6600, both of MPAA Los Angeles; John Feehery or Gayle Osterberg, 202-293-1966, both of MPAA Washington, D.C.

LOS ANGELES, May 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Swedish authorities announced today that they have shut down "The Pirate Bay" -- one of the world's largest and most well known facilitators of online piracy. With more than one million registered users, "The Pirate Bay" touts itself as the "World's Largest BitTorrent Tracker" facilitating and enabling illegal swapping of millions of illegal copyrighted movies, music, software, and games. The operators of "The Pirate Bay" have publicly ridiculed copyright holders and taunted law enforcement for years claiming immunity to copyright laws. Since filing a criminal complaint in Sweden in November 2004, the film industry has worked vigorously with Swedish and U.S. government officials in Sweden to shut this illegal site down. Over 50 Swedish law enforcement officials executed search warrants and raids at 10 different locations which resulted in three arrests and the preclusion of millions of users trading up to 2 million illegal files simultaneously.

"The actions today taken in Sweden serve as a reminder to pirates all over the world that there are no safe harbors for Internet copyright thieves," said Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) Dan Glickman. "Intellectual property theft is a problem for film industries all over the world and we are glad that the local government in Sweden has helped stop 'The Pirate Bay' from continuing to enable rampant copyright theft on the Internet."

ThePirateBay.com is a so called pirate "tracker" that directs people to pirated movies and music, making available over 157,000 illegal files including the latest blockbuster releases such as Da Vinci Code, Mission Impossible: III, and The Poseidon Adventure and many others. The Pirate Bay's takedown today represents a growing culture of respect for intellectual property in Sweden, which in July 2005 reformed its copyright law to address digital piracy. Various rights-holders have sent countless cease-and-desist letters to The Pirate Bay, requesting that its operators remove pirated content from the site, and have been met with mockery and scorn, such as the operators posting the letters and their replies on ThePirateBay.com.

According to Alexa.com, which rates millions of Web sites around the world, "The Pirate Bay" was the 479th most visited Web site in the world, ranking 21st in Sweden and 312th in the U.S. In comparison, CNN.com is the 125th most popular site in Sweden.

Like many pirate Web sites, "The Pirate Bay" contains significant and lucrative third-party advertising, much of it promoting the porn industry. Advertising revenue is typically a function of number of unique site visits per day. With more than one million hits per day, "The Pirate Bay" takes in an estimated $60,000 per month from advertisers in addition to thousands of dollars collected from user "donations."

"The bottom line is that the operators of the Pirate Bay and others like them are criminals who profit handsomely by facilitating the distribution of millions of copyrighted creative works and files protected under the law," said John G. Malcolm, executive vice president and director of Worldwide Anti-Piracy Operations for the MPAA. "We applaud Swedish law enforcement for their effort to stop egregious copyright infringement on The Pirate Bay."

The major motion picture studios lost an estimated $6.1 billion to piracy in 2005. Internet piracy alone cost the studios $2.3 bill

Re:come on, let's face it

[impossiblefork]

Although somewhat uncertain, I believe evidence of crimes found in search of evidence for other crimes are admissible in Swedish courts; and that the improper attainment of a warrant is considered a separate matter.

EXCELLENT Idea.

[Ahnteis]

Given that much art found in museums is old enough to be public domain, your suggestion sounds like an excellent idea for getting some classics in my home.

Of course, there would be the spread of culture that you'd have to live with, but it's a small price to pay for making the apartment look nice.

Re:come on, let's face it

[MKalus]

If someone in my country was doing something illegal in another country -- something that nearly every country in the world had a law against -- I would support extraditing them so they get a proper punishment. If some studio in Sweden produced music that Americans were stealing, the Americans should be held absolutely accountable and face Swedish justice.

To give a real world example, some years back an American was going to get caned in Singapore for a crime. I had absolutely no problem with that. If you break the law, you deserve the punishmen

You just made the argument yourself.

If the American breaks teh Singapore law in the US though he won't be caned. If a swede, living in the US, runs the tracker s/he is subject to the american law as well.

Someone who lives in a foreign country is not accountable to the law in another counry, only to local laws.

Besides, the "American music" that is being stolen isn't really american. There is a Swedish company in sweden that distributes the music, so it is a swedish, not an american problem.

This is why I as a Canadian are not allowed to go to the iTunes music store in Germany and buy an album there, territorial rights, even if the artist has no distribution in Canada, though I can of course order a CD from Amazon.de.

Translation

[mauswe]

http://piratbyran.blogspot.com/ - Has an official pressrelease from the guys behind the pirate bay, the pressrelease is in swedish, if you want to read my english translation, then go to http://piratbyran-in-eng.blogspot.com/ I am sorry if this comment is wrong in some way, my first time posting here on Slshdt. Thanks!

Re:come on, let's face it

[croddy]

Honestly, dude, I don't really give a damn, since I don't know of anything Sweden or Switzerland produces that has any commercial value.

IKEA

What's the best tracker left?

[AxelBoldt]

So without the pirate bay, what's the best tracker/index left?

Re:What's the best tracker left?

[Yaotzin]

http://mininova.org/ is a pretty good tracker.

Re:Clarification...

[kimvette]

At the local level there are democratic elements.

At the national level when was the last time you voted on a referendum (a bill)? Never? Oh right, that's because it's not a democracy. Elected representatives (called Senators and Representatives) vote for you. You elect those representatives into office so that THEY vote on bills. Hence, it's is a republic, NOT a democracy.

In a democracy, majority rules, without fail. In a republic it is very possible for the majority to not win issues (see DMCA, spending and tax increases, etc.)

Re:This is the sort of accessories you can't buy.

[h4x0r-3l337]

It only takes the copying of works having a total retail value of more than $1000 within a 180-day period to make it a case of criminal copyright infringement.

Precedent gives TPB right

[erikdalen]

This similar earlier case in Sweden clear the charges of a teenager who had links to other pages where you could download mp3s. It's pretty much the same situation with TPB, so basically they're not doing anything criminal.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/12/28/08 14212

Re:come on, let's face it

[trewornan]

If it was upto you we would prolly still be british subjects

You say this as if it were a bad thing?

Re:come on, let's face it

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

yes, it would.

Re:come on, let's face it

[rbarreira]

I'm not an expert in law, but something smells wrong here. Why could they do that to the russian guy? Because he also knowingly sold the product to USA customers? The case with TPB is quite different, I'm not sure that they could do that...

Re:come on, let's face it

[trewornan]

Jesus Christ! How many times do you morons have to be told:

Theft: To take or remove property without the owners consent, with intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession.

Copyright Infringement != Theft

No, "but it's similar", "but people lose potential sales", "it's the same in principal", and so on and on.

There is a precise definition of theft and copyright infringement doesn't meet it, they are two different things!

It's not hard to understand, surely you can't have missed all the times this has been brought up before . . . just how stupid are you?

Honestly, there are so many other sites

[ylikone]

For direct Linux CD downloads, try http://linuxiso.org/ and for torrents try http://linuxtracker.org/ There are others. Many others.

Swedish politicians pressured by USA?

[HerrEkberg]

SVT, the national publicly-funded television broadcaster in Sweden, claims the following:

"Enligt källor till SVT har USA utövat påtryckningar mot svenska politiker, som i sin tur uppmanat polisen att agera."

Roughly translated to English:

"According to SVT's sources, the USA have pressured Swedish politicians, who in turn have requested that the police should act."

IANAL, but I thought it was illegal for Swedish politicians to influence police, courts etc. in specific cases. It is called "ministerstyre" (ministry's ruling?), and is illegal in order to prevent corruption.

I'm feeling a heavy bribe vibe here

[OmgTEHMATRICKS]

Anyone else think that this might be MPAA/RIAA bribing the Swedish police to raid their servers and then turn over the logs so that they have tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of American IPs to track down? Then, using their enormous lawyer repertoire, sue a bajillion people into poverty via mass settlements?

I would -not- be surprised. MPAA/RIAA are predator organisms in the big scheme of things, sort of like gelatinous cubes. They're huge, they're always hungry, and they have the resources to get that food. They see that somebody in the Swedish police can be bribed. They have found the food trail.
They take that opportunity and bribe the right people. They're told to nab the servers of Pirate Bay and then turn over the logs. Using these logs, they now know many more locations of tasty prey to be consumed.

It's not that outlandish when you think about their track record.

Re:I'm feeling a heavy bribe vibe here

[Time_Ngler]

They don't need to grab the servers to get the ip's. PirateBay's servers will give you the ip's if you just ask it. That's how a bittorrent tracker works.

They probably WILL be shutdown

[eklitzke]

In Sweden, .torrent files are not a violation of copyright law, and hosting a tracker is legal. But there are still copyright laws. This means that if the folks behind the Pirate Bay are only tracking and hosting .torrents, then they are in safe water. But if the police uncover any evidence during the raid that the Pirate Bay folks actually downloaded any copyrighted files, then they could get in trouble. If one of the founders downloaded a torrent and then seeded it (even if just for personal use), then the police could make the case that they were also distributing copyrighted materials, and that would be illegal.

I would vote for them

[Baki]

Usually I don't think much of one issue parties, however I feel that in western democracies the whole discussion on "intellectual property" in all its forms is a crucial one. If it continues to go this way, without counterforces, our democracy is soon dead and replaced by nightmares as depicted in books like 1984. Those that have a "moderate" position forget that the proponents are pushing so hard, advocating such draconic measures and accepting all kind of "collateral damage" that a moderate position is no option.

The only answer is: radical opposition, smash the concept of intellectual property.

Re:come on, let's face it

[Baorc]

Actually, alot of people are seeing this the wrong way. The thing is, in Sweden, maybe it's not illegal to point out to drugs. Only to sell. Metaphorically speaking of course...
Better yet, think of it this way : the Netherlands. It is perfectly legal to buy, sell, use, whatever, marijuana. Now imagine some guy in the Netherlands is on the internet listing a bunch of places in North America where you can buy this substance.

For the sake of argument, let's say that under Swedish law, unless you aren't actually hosting the copyrighted material, you aren't actually doing anything illegal, hence in this case, having text files pointing where to go is fine. Wouldn't this be the same thing as the guy listing places that sell marijuana in the states?

Now if police in America want to use this information to go after the sellers then by all means go. It would make more sense...Why would you want to stop the lister? Wouldn't you want to stop the person that has the actual material?

Just a thought...

Re:Art19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rig

[jb.hl.com]

Good point, succintly made.

They obviously mean things like the news on your country's latest genocide or human rights injustice. Only an idiot would assume it means music, movies and games.

The Inside Scoop

[Wonka_Vision]

I use www.isohunt.com for my questionable activities. CBCs The National had an interview with the owner isohunt last night. He gave his two cents on the whole bittorrent thing and details on the MPAA trying to sue him. www.cbc.ca/national for all those interested (until 11pm Eastern time 31/05/06). Realplayer is required (the interview is about half way through the broadcast).

Swedish police are censoring political websites

[liquidculture]

Swedish police are censoring political websites: "...a political attack against a perfectly legitimate political web site, initiated by a non-democratic, corporate interest organisation, effected by the police. Does this sound like something that would happen in Cuba or in China? No, it happened in Sweden..."

Re:Just a Hoax

[kimvette]

(and we have no logs of transfers)

Damn it! My download of THX1138 won't show up so the MPAA won't come knocking down my door for that download only to find that my download will have resulted in a sale of that movie by the time they find my IP.

So here it is: MPAA, I downloaded THX1138 over Memorial Day weekend, watched it, and today or tomorrow will be either buying a copy at Sprawl*Mart or ordering it from Amazon (if Wallyworld doesn't have it). You have those "evil file P2P networks" to thank for the sale. Also note: it will be the last DVD I buy for a long, long time because of your recent actions against thepirate bay. My DVD buying habits average 5 to 15 DVDs per month. When are you idiots going to embrace P2P as a "try before you buy" marketing method? Obviously if someone downloads a crappy low-res movie and likes it, that person has a very high likelihood of buying the DVD. You guys are short-sighted morons bent on cutting off your nose to spite your face, much like the RIAA/Napster/CD sales ordeal. I bought more music CDs during the reign of Napster I than I did in the 13 previous years I owned CD players combined, and since the RIAA succeeded in shutting down the original Napster, I've bought fewer than FIVE CDs. That's FIVE CDs over roughly SIX YEARS, because of the RIAA's racketeering practices.

Stop alienating your customers and potential customers, retards.

Dnloading of copyr'ted mat' is illegal in Sweden

[kotku]

"Last year, Sweden banned the downloading of copyright material after being singled out for criticism by Hollywood. The issue of file sharing and copyright has been emotive in Sweden, a hi-tech country with a tradition of openness." See Reuters Link

Re:come on, let's face it

[Clopy]

Actually it is like selling guns. There are legal, and illegal ways to use them. Actually, most of the times, using guns is illegal. Using torrents is not. Why isn't anyone arresting people that sell guns? Well, maybe because these people have the power to control the governments?

Re:come on, let's face it

[skrolle2]

We're talking basic theft which EVERY country laws for

Uh, no, we're talking about copyright infringement, which is a different crime than theft, and one that only countries that have signed the Bern Convention have laws about, and even then they differ slightly between countries.

Re:come on, let's face it

[DanQuixote]

Theft is when...

I'm sorry, but as much as I would like to agree with you, "Theft" is a term with very specific legal definitions. If the **AA lobbyists get it defined in a way you don't like, then you either have to stick with the definition or be misunderstood. Another example, "to steal" means to "take without permission".

I really don't have a problem admitting that I stole some bits yesterday. I recommend that you not have a problem with it either, since the losses are only legally contrived. OTOH, if I owe someone some money for their service, I would like them to get paid.

Quit worrying whether the finger pointers call you a thief. Instead work on a better legal definition of theft. As long as the law allows **AA to convert imagined intellectual property into physical property, we have a painful imbalance. I'm happy to pay them for their services, but I'm through paying them for their money presses.

Re:come on, let's face it

[MBGMorden]

Dude, I rip a lot of my own movies to Divx, and the regular store bought DVD's produce output just as good as is available on any torrent site (usually mine are even better, as half of those people don't seem to know what a deinterlace filter or a multipass encode are).

The VAST majority of the quality stuff (ie, not cams or telecines) that comes out prior to the movie being released is capped from screener DVD's which are sent out to reviewers and such. These often have pecularities like disclaimers or b/w sections that come and go, so usually after release these go away in favor of a file ripped form a regular DVD.

Re:come on, let's face it

[xtieburn]

These are nonsense arguments. The internet doesnt work like the real world.

Google, Yahoo even Microsoft search engines all lead to the piratebay.

If the pirate bay is breaking the law by linking to illegal torrents that in turn makes Google, yahoo and Microsoft illegal as well because they are linking to an illegal site. If Google, yahoo and Microsofts search are illegal that makes every single site and browser that has there searches illegal. That means Opera, Firefox, IE the browser tool bars and any others that use these things are all illegal. and so on and so forth.

It is simply not possible to consider the directions to something illegal online, illegal in itself otherwise everything is. Though im sure there are plenty of companies and politicians who would be very eager to see that happen.

There really isnt a real world analogy that will match this. Just a bit of reason that shows you there can not be any legal basis for banning torrent sites.

Re:come on, let's face it

[wheany]

Nobody is stealing stuff in USA and exporting it to Sweden. Even if distributing copyrighted data without permission could be considered theft, the people who "steal" it are just uploading a different file to Sweden. The "thief" holds the copyright to this data file and can do what ever he wants with it. The Swedes are just hosting a file whose copyright owner has given them permission to host it.

The Swedes are doing nothing illegal. The original "thief" uploads the data directly to other "thieves." None of the data that is contained in the files that are being distributed without permission touches the Swedish server.

That's what peer-to-peer networking is about.

Re:come on, let's face it

[MBGMorden]

First off, as another poster replied, copyright infringement is not theft. Second of all, they are not hosting any copyrighted material. They host a HASH file and a tracker. Nothing there is copyrighted.

Under Swedish law, this is not illegal, ergo, a Swedish organization cannot be charged for breaking some law that doesn't exist.

I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but did you not get the example that the GP posted????

If you host a porn site in California, do you honestly think they should be able to have you extradicted to Iran and criminally prosecuted because it's illegal there. Does it matter one itty bitty bit that some of their citizens downloaded content from your site?

This is the same thing happening here. What TPB is doing is legal in their country. End of story. No ammount of whining makes it illegal because you think it should be.

Re:A quote

[Fizzl]

Offtopic? What the bloody hell?
And the GP was perfectly topical then, huh?

Fåck yöu wänker möds!

Re:Question for anyone who's Swedish

[Yaotzin]

I seriously doubt that it has anything to do with the Pirate Party since it is completely unrelated, however the operators of TPB has been mocking copyright promoters for years saying that there is no way to get them which has produced a lot of angst and desire to prove them wrong among the copyright promoters and especially The Anti-Piracy Bureau. It wouldn't surprise me to see their (The Anti-Piracy Bureau's) page being defaced a short time in the future like it was after the raid at the ISP Bahnhof.

50 police men

[Idiomatick]

Wow.... I'm sure the nerds at the pirate bay can pwn the hell out of people in CS... But in reality i don't think they have the weaponry or fitness. Seriously, There was probably one person in the building. He must have shit his pants, reading a slashdot article and then *poof* 50cops. I sincerely hope it was like a swat team and they broke in through windows. Where they could have you know ... sent an e-mail to have the place shut down.

Re:come on, let's face it

[jargoone]

So? Since when do facts get in the way of conspiracy theories on /.?

You're missing the point

[sd.fhasldff]

The point wasn't that Government should develop a vaccine (or do research in general), but that they should FUND it. Which, indeed, they already do. (And that the result of the publicly funded research should be... public)

Here is some comments from them...

[Boap]

http://wiredfire.org/index.php?q=node/63 Who knows what will happen I just hope that it comes back up soon

Re:come on, let's face it

[trewornan]

Don't forget CowboyNeal and CmdrTaco, they need arresting - the link is on their site after all.

Re:come on, let's face it

[trewornan]

The world might be a much happier place?

Re:come on, let's face it

[mkro]

Haha, someone is having a bad day. Maybe you should have stayed Silent, Chris. The same lack of logic is being crushed here daily, so I can not understand where you got that low id.
Look at the bright side, at least you learned something about Sweden today.

Re:come on, let's face it

[unix_core]

"Saab is owned by GM, an American company. Volvo is owned by Ford, also an American company. The American military buys some of their parts overseas, but builds 90% of the final planes on American soil. So, like I said, give me an example with commercial value. Preferably one not owned overseas."

Uhm, wrong company. You are talking about Saab Automobile which is a different company from SAAB. Same missunderstanding with Volvo and Volvo Cars and Volvo Trucks.

Please check your facts...

But surely a U.S. Senator knows the Law!

[Mateo_LeFou]

John Cornyn (R-TX): In MGM v. Grokster, "the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that those who facilitate theft often are just as guilty as the thieves themselves. Every day, literally millions of dollars in copyrighted works are stolen via online services. This theft is no less wrong because it is carried out in cyberspace - rather, potentially worse than common shoplifting, it is putting thousands of Americans out of work"

These guys crack me the hell up. Sorry, but if this is how poorly our #$%^%@ing Legislators understand the law, casual /. readers can be forgiven.

I'm not siding with the view that infringement == theft.. just answering "How many times do you morons have to be told?" with "Lots more. Lots"

Re:come on, let's face it

[parla]

Well, not quite. Volvo Car Corporation is owned by Ford, but the trucks and jet engines are done by Volvo AB which is Swedish. Same goes for SAAB, it's only the car manufacturer that is owned by GM. The SAAB that makes fighter aircraft is Swedish.

Re:come on, let's face it

[MBGMorden]

If you murder someone and run to Sweden, then you've committed the crime in the US, thus you fall under their jurisdiction.

(only legally speaking, moral issues aside) If murder WAS legal in Sweden however, and you went over there and a Swede killed you, then tough damn luck. If it's legal in their country and that's where the act took place, then whining doesn't make a difference.

Re:come on, let's face it

[MBGMorden]

Actually, prostitution is legal in *MANY* parts of Europe, and actually a large part of the rest of the world. In some places (the UK for example) "street walkers" are illegal, but the call-girl escort types are fine.

It's only the religious types who constantly want to legislate morality that keep it illegal in (most of) the US.

Re:come on, let's face it

[MBGMorden]

What if I was picking up a hooker because I needed a date for my office party, and had no expectations of sex? The cops going to give me a ticket.

Actually no. Escort services are actually (officially anyways) designed specifically for this type of thing. A LEO cannot charge anyone with anything until an actual solicitation for sex is made. That's why lots of code talk is used, and in general escorts are so rarely prosecuted. They usually draw out ahead of time some clause that "You're just paying me for my time and company.", and if she happens to have sex with you, it's (again, officially) just because she happened to like you and decided to be nice.

Hm... I better cover my a**

[Mateo_LeFou]

...in case the guy thinks about suing me for libel. John Cornyn being a moron is only one possible explanation of why he says a bunch of false, stupid things. I consider it one of the most likely. But I admit there might be some other reason (e.g. he's a liar, he's a genius pretending to be a moron, etc.)

Hoping for the worst

[foolip]

My thoughts from http://foolip.org/blog/2006/05/31/hoping-for-the-w orst/ I just learned that The Pirate Bay and Piratbyrån were raided today. I don't know much about what's happened, but I really do hope that things have been handled very poorly. I hope that the allegations made by SVT that this was triggered by pressure from America are true and that it will cause public outrage. If Thomas Bodström is somehow involved (unlikely perhaps), that would be absolutely superb too. Why do I hope for the worst? Because I want this to become a topic of fierce political debate so that it will be very clear who is a friend and who is an enemy in the upcoming Swedish election. It's been clear for a long time that none of the big parties are friends, but perhaps this will force some of them to make sensible decisions and become more friendly (look at what's happening in France, it's not impossible). I don't know if the recently formed Pirate Party are sane, but hopefully they'll be given a chance to present their views in the debate that will now follow. The last time there was some debate about copyrights (when Sweden changed the copyright legislation to conform with EUCD last summer) I discussed and thought about these issues quite a bit. I arrived at the conclusion that copyright probably shouldn't be abolished all together, but that some of the following might be good ideas. * Shorten the copyright term to something between 5 and 20 years. * Allow all non-commercial distribution use of works covered by copyright. If the copyright term is very short, this may not actually be necessary. Conversely, with a long term it might be useful to allow even more non-commercial uses (e.g. sampling music or re-editing bad movies). * Disallow distribution of works which have not been published. The idea is that a creator should have the authority to stop distribution of copies that have been physically stolen or otherwise leaked before they are completed an published. Without this, I think it would be legal to publish someones private letters or photos without permission, and that wouldn't be cool. Why does it matter? I have a vision that my children will be able to access a wikipedia-like database of all culture that has been produced in human history, with high technical quality and instant access. It's much too hard for to find works of culture these days, at least works that are a few years old. If you have access to a warez top-site you might be able to get anything you want, but it's only for a small elite. Why are we locking away old culture that no longer makes money for anyone? The works that do make money long after they were created are the ones that were very popular to begin with and don't need a long copyright term. Some people want to make piles of money from The Beatles even though half of The Bealtes are already dead! I want everyone to be able to hear The Beatles at will. Copyright is not given by nature, it's a political tool and we should use it as we see fit to get the results we want. This is the information age, and with the proper legal framework in place we could reach the point where quality culture is a commons, not something for economic and technical elites.

Re:Hoping for the worst

[foolip]

Oops, I messed up the formatting. Take 2. From my blog.

I just learned that The Pirate Bay and Piratbyrån were raided today. I don't know much about what's happened, but I really do hope that things have been handled very poorly. I hope that the allegations made by SVT that this was triggered by pressure from America are true and that it will cause public outrage. If Thomas Bodström is somehow involved (unlikely perhaps), that would be absolutely superb too.

Why do I hope for the worst? Because I want this to become a topic of fierce political debate so that it will be very clear who is a friend and who is an enemy in the upcoming Swedish election. It's been clear for a long time that none of the big parties are friends, but perhaps this will force some of them to make sensible decisions and become more friendly (look at what's happening in France, it's not impossible). I don't know if the recently formed Pirate Party are sane, but hopefully they'll be given a chance to present their views in the debate that will now follow.

The last time there was some debate about copyrights (when Sweden changed the copyright legislation to conform with EUCD last summer) I discussed and thought about these issues quite a bit. I arrived at the conclusion that copyright probably shouldn't be abolished all together, but that some of the following might be good ideas.

• Shorten the copyright term to something between 5 and 20 years.
• Allow all non-commercial distribution use of works covered by copyright. If the copyright term is very short, this may not actually be necessary. Conversely, with a long term it might be useful to allow even more non-commercial uses (e.g. sampling music or re-editing bad movies).
• Disallow distribution of works which have not been published. The idea is that a creator should have the authority to stop distribution of copies that have been physically stolen or otherwise leaked before they are completed an published. Without this, I think it would be legal to publish someones private letters or photos without permission, and that wouldn't be cool.

Why does it matter? I have a vision that my children will be able to access a wikipedia-like database of all culture that has been produced in human history, with high technical quality and instant access. It's much too hard for to find works of culture these days, at least works that are a few years old. If you have access to a warez top-site you might be able to get anything you want, but it's only for a small elite.

Why are we locking away old culture that no longer makes money for anyone? The works that do make money long after they were created are the ones that were very popular to begin with and don't need a long copyright term. Some people want to make piles of money from The Beatles even though half of The Bealtes are already dead! I want everyone to be able to hear The Beatles at will. Copyright is not given by nature, it's a political tool and we should use it as we see fit to get the results we want. This is the information age, and with the proper legal framework in place we could reach the point where quality culture is a commons, not something for economic and technical elites.

Re:come on, let's face it

[geekoid]

There a plenty of legal reasons to find hookers. Last time I loked having sex was not a crime. Soliciting for sex in exchange for money was.*

*Some counties may vary.

At least someone knows

[Codename.Juggernaut]

Anyone want to call the MPAA and ask how much 50 Swedish Policemen cost?

Mod parent up!

[the-intersocialist]

nt

Re:Mod parent up!

[GaryPatterson]

You missed my point completely.

I don't use pirated software, but I believe that the lack of any real chance of being caught gives them the belief that it's not so bad really, a victimless crime. They feel empowered to pirate stuff.

Open source is a nice idea, and some good things are coming out of it. Doesn't mean anything for movies, music and games, but some good software's being written.

Not Ninjas

[Groo Wanderer]

It is not Pirates vs Ninjas, more like Pirates vs clods, but the clods have a steamroller and a lot of morons to push it.

              -Charlie

Re:Not Ninjas

[Firehed]

That's funny... where I come from, steamrollers have engines - no need to push.

Re:come on, let's face it

[RsG]

Others have already made most of the points I would have. You honestly don't seem to get the point.

The people working at the pirate bay have NEVER set foot on US soil. They're operating purely within their own country, using Swedish servers, and facilitating the trade of copyright materials from many different countries (not just the US). At no point in their P2P activity have they stolen anything specifically American - they have rather traded data that would have been illegal under US law. Swedish law doesn't recognize this as theft, and never has. If they were American pornographers, they would be immune to Iranian prosecution - because porn is legal in the states, and there is sweet fuck all Iran could do about it.

As long as they host in Sweden and respect the local laws, they cannot (legally) be charged with anything, other than the possibility of being tried "in Absentia" in a US court. This isn't about how you think the law should operate - this is about how it does operate. And wishing for it to be different is wishing for national sovereignty to be eliminated - which would hurt you and your countrymen far more than you seem to realize. You're either too thickheaded to see that, or you're a **AA shill.

Ignore this man

[linuxrocks123]

Note to potential sibling posters:

This man is obviously a troll or an idiot. In either case, please ignore him.

Re:For the love of Dog!

[RsG]

Then what you are argueing for in a sort of international mob rule. If a "criminal" pornographer in the US could be charged under Iranian law, then there would be no borders, no concept of sovereignty, no codefied local justice. Everyone would be a criminal to someone's legal system.

If you seriously think that this is a good thing, then you are beyond reasoning with. No thinking person could seriously argue for letting foreign countries dictate laws outside their borders.

And I would ask you what you think your own fate would be. Have you broken any Chinese laws lately? How about Iranian, or North Korean? What about religious law in some nations? Are you sure? Because if the world worked the way you describe it should, you'd be liable for those infractions, legal thought they might be where you live.

Re:come on, let's face it

[linuxrocks123]

You appear to be misinformed. Copyright infringement is legally not theft. It is legally copyright infringement.

The two crimes have different penalties. If I recall correctly, because of the RIMPMAFIAA the penalties for copyright infringement are worse than the penalties for theft.

mod parent down - incorrect facts

[TERdON]

Sweden, until rather recently, had one of the more enlightened copyright laws around. It explicitly required authorisation only for *commercial* reproduction. Making a copy of a cd, book, or whatever and giving it to your friends was never illegal.

You're misinformed. Yes, you were allowed to give your closest friends a copy. There was a levy fee on the media because of it though. And you couldn't give ALL your friends a copy (disregard the typical slashdotter with 6 friends).

If you spread copies widely earlier, it was just as illegal as it is now

Re:mod parent down - incorrect facts

[beej69]

re your sig:
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...

as long as we're feeling pedantic, you should fix this to be "If this sig were only a bit longer..."

you should use the subjunctive mood when discussing a hypothetical situation :P

The Pirate Party

[Ulric]

For the first time in more than 20 years, I am now a member of a political party. I went to http://www.piratpartiet.se/, followed the instructions and presto, I'm a member. I wouldn't normally support such a party, but things are not normal when Sweden is turning into China.

Antipirat Byrån - Hacked

[entoke]

Apparently The swedish anti piracy firm was hacked now.

http://www.antipiratbyran.se/

Short summary of what it say:

The newspaper article is about someone getting caught with drugs and got a 12000SEK fine

(that equals rougly about $1600)

Driving a car while under the influence of drugs = 12000SEK(about $1600)

Sharing the movie Hipp Hipp Hora (The Ketchup Effect) = 16000SEK(about $2100)

WHYYYYYYYYY!?!?

Thats about it.

Also at the top it says "Välkommen till Internet, det är vi som har kontrollen här."

"Welcome to the internet, it is us that got the control here."

Re:Question for anyone who's Swedish

[entoke]

yes it was.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=187072&cid=154 39867

I will vote for them

[Ulric]

Actually, I joined the pirate party today because of this depressing trend. Apparently I'm not the only one, since the number of members stated on their home page is ticking up at a steady rate.

Re:come on, let's face it

[BlackCobra43]

I'm going to stick a large sign on my lawn that says "Hookers that way --->" and wait for the FBI.

Wanna start a pool on how long I last before my horrible, horrible crime is punished?

... Can I change my answer on this weeks poll?

[Bo'Bob'O]

... Can I change my answer on this weeks poll?

Piratebay

[doitle]

So it seems that Swedish law would be on Thepiratebay's side? It seems from reading that Swedish law frowns upon them raiding and taking down non offending sites... http://youareapiratebay.ytmnd.com/

Odd... slashdot censorship.

[coreybrenner]

A friend told me there was interesting discussion here.

So, I came back after an enormous hiatus. What I find is appalling.

He said interesting comments started around #100 in this article. However, when I click to go to page 2, it looks the same as page 1. Page 3, too. I think it changes, finally, at page 4, after having skipped 100 or 150 messages, where the "good stuff" was.

Is Slashdot censoring?

Re:Odd... slashdot censorship.

[coreybrenner]

Where are these comments?

50..199, 250..299, 350..399, 550..649.

Re:Odd... slashdot censorship.

[coreybrenner]

At 100 comments per page, flat, -1, (instead of 50, nested, -1), the results are similar. comments 100.199, and probably others, are gone.

Bullshit! Was:TPB shutdown clearly visible in...

[Yonzie]

While the traffic level has seemingly fallen quite a bit on the "Weekly" graph, the levels are consistent with the amount of traffic seen two weeks ago (see graph "monthly").

While it is clear that TPB has had a large amount of traffic and the graph has taken a large dive, it is not logical to conclude that the entire difference is attributed to TPB.

Police are people too!

[labreuer]

The police watch TV too! Do you think they're going to cut off a major supply of TV shows during the on-season? ;-P

This calls for..... T-SHIRTS!

[binarybum]

I for one hope that this only turns into an opportunity to strengthen the PB. It looks like they are still accepting donations at http://www2.piratpartiet.se/

More importantly - support PB financially and publicly with Apparel! As I understand it, most of the profit from this store goes to the PB.

Its more of a Socialist mentality...

[Upaut]

This argument drives me nuts. They're not selling you the paper on which the book was printed. They are selling you the entertainment/knowledge/whatever you derive from the content of the book. The lost sales argument aside, this is the problem I have with any music/movie pirates who justify it the way you did. "Well, I wouldn't buy that shit anyway, and I just made a copy, I didn't physically deprive them of anything." Well, 1) How pathetic must you be to waste your time downloading shit you don't value? Either that or you're lying, and enjoy getting something for free. And 2) If you delete a bunch of vital information on a company's server, would you use the defense that "I didn't physically destroy anything, I just realigned some bits on a hard drive"?

I am a college student, with depleted financial resources. I do not wish to spend money on a product, unless I find it useful/enjoyable. I am a pirate. I pirate movies, programs, and music. Everything I dislike will be deleted in under a month, because I cannot waste storage space on my hard drive. Everything I find highly useful, I buy. In the end, I buy more then my "streight-edge" friends. I own a legal copy of dreamweaver and flash - something I always scoffed at, but once using I fell in love.
All of my DVD's were once pireted, and I now own all of my favorites (40 titles... Who needs food with all of the LOtR Special edition...) I even own porn on DVD, ones that I found myself watching again and again. (I dream of Jenna, DDDTR, DDD2000, Space nuts) And for music, I try an artist before I buy, I probably would never of bought half of the bands in my collecton without trying them first. I even pirated pages and keynotes, and after finding how easy and eye-catching they made my presintations, I ended up buying them (If I could of bought keynotes alone, I would of. I find LaTEX a better tool for reports.)

So, when it comes to "downloading shit I don't value", but that I hear lots of good things about, I end up trying before I buy. I want the product to earn my money. If you could of tried a disapointing game? Stopped yourself before selling 18 bucks to see "The Time Machine" in theaters, wouldn't you? Before picking up the new Opeth cd, only to discover it a steaming pile? Pirating thins the heard of bad movies, music, games, and software. In the end, a pirate develops a form of brand loyalty, and stays with a good product, buying it, and recomending it to co-workers. Pirates do not "waste" time downloading something they may not want: they are simply giving it a chance to be bought in the end. Does that not lead one to spend money where one would normally not? Does that not actually improve the earnings of the companies whos products you "stole"? Since Napster and the like, I have bought more music then I ever did before.

In the end, the only ones that do not get my money are those with truely horrid products. Rehashed movies, poor plots and forced acting in a movie, lackluster games, and sloppy software. Not to mention all of those pop bands that all sound the same. Explain to me how you can wate you money on seeing these? How can you waste you money on buying these?

Barnes & Noble?

[RobbieGee]

Isn't that what Barnes & Noble does - letting customers sit in the store and read the books for free? We don't have B&N anywhere near where I live, but I read that somewhere. I think it was an article by Cory Doctorow.

Mod parent up!

[GaryPatterson]

'cause it's really truthy.

People pirate stuff because they want to, not because they have to. If they need Photoshop but can't pay for it, and don't want to buy Elements or anything else, they'll pirate it. Afterwards they'll justify how they need the 'standard' software, but they clearly don't because they're not learning graphic art (else they'd buy PS at the edu. price) and they're not earning from it (else they'd be able to afford it).

People just want stuff for free and because there's almost zero chance of being caught, they feel empowered to just pirate stuff.

Justification is just so much hot air. We all know it's crap, but some people still insist on producing lots of verbage when they should just say "I wanted it and I didn't want to pay for it."

Thanks to pirates, we've got copy protection and DRM. Thanks guys! Love your work!

Disney

[batmanuel]

I suspect with Disney's new movie http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/pirates/
to be released soon they needed stop any Priate(tm) trademark dilution.

Their are still a few sites left.....

[foxale08]

Atleast they havent shut down isohunt yet:)

Re:come on, let's face it

[zerocool^]

Well, yeah, what I was referring to is people who believe in creation with the logic "Life is really complex. I have no freaking idea how it works. Therefore, god made it."

That's an unfair reduction of the facts. Attempt to understand it, seek information from reliable, scholarly, peer-reviewed sources. If you can't be bothered, don't tell people who do these things that they're wrong.

~Wx

Re:come on, let's face it

[StikyPad]

I think a better analogy would be cops raiding a house because the guy was distributing directions on where to find law abiding people. You know, since making personal copies is not illegal in Sweden. So it's really like telling you "Hey, I know a guy who has that -- and he'd probably let you have a copy," except it's one better: By acting as the intermediary (tracker), I'm also ensuring that he's really not charging you for it, and thus abiding by the law. Otherwise he could actually be selling copies, which is a crime, and I'd be complicit if I knew, or should have known.

JUNE 1 == APRIL Fools day in Sweden ....

[martinbogo]

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if the Pirate Bay comes back up tomorrow, as version 2.0. Of course, there is no way you could BUY this much publicity, and the MPAA would have quite a bit of egg on it's face for publishing a crowing "Press Release" on the issue.

So, patience. Wait and see. June 2nd will tell if this is real or not. June 1st is a day of political satire, jokes, speech making, and such.

In the meantime, the poor servers have a rest from serving torrents ... and get to serve the joke page!

Re:JUNE 1 == APRIL Fools day in Sweden ....

[sysopd]

the MPAA would have quite a bit of egg on it's face for publishing a crowing "Press Release" on the issue.

Like this one?

Re:come on, let's face it

[LordEd]

I think if you're whining that somebody killed you, then you're talking to a guy with a big scythe and talks in capital letters, and it probably wouldn't make much of a difference regardless of what the law says.

Semantic Geek says....

[abb3w]

In America the Democrats and Republicans are both part of a larger group, a power monopoly.

Given that it's not one entity (Illuminati aside), "oligopoly" might be a more accurate and defensible characterization.

We now return to your regularly scheduled flamewar....

MIght makes right

[ecorona]

Listen guys, we can squabble here all day long about how wrong this is and how messed up copyright laws have become. The truth is that none of this matters, the **AA's will do whatever they want because the have MONEY. They have the power to make things like this happen. It's so funny that Americans are so concerned about what's happening overseas, it's like we've completely given up on impacting US copyright laws. The people deciding on passing these laws aren't the most qualified to deal with these issues.

"a minority of examples"...

[JavaRob]

A minority of examples should not hold the majority of people hostage with overly long copyrights. I say a decade is good. Five years too short and 40-50 years way too long - works tend to become culturally irrevelent by then.

Holding them hostage... to what? Paying too much for a DVD? Avoiding building a new movie that uses clips from the old one? I don't see that as such a great gaping hole in the creative world (and parody is still protected). No, I don't want to suppress those kinds of works needlessly, but in many cases the need exists -- more on that below.

George Lucas can make his new Starwars. He just can't rake in the cash for the old ones forever.
That's fine for George Lucas. Obviously he can afford it. And you are saying he's the "norm" among artists and content creators, presumably.

And Rowling would still have economic incentive (actually, even more so) to make Harry Potter books. So I don't see your point.
Good lord, you're pointing to the wealthiest woman in the world, and the wealthiest author ever, as the example we should judge by? Remember how you said "a minority of examples should not hold the majority of people hostage"? Rowling is in a tiny, tiny minority among authors. She's in a set of ONE.

Also, try moving even slightly out of the mainstream pap-for-the-masses creative work. Do you think *most* bands are like the ones you see on TV? They aren't. Yes, the music industry is messed up, but more because the money goes to the wrong people, not because we need to remove most of that money entirely.

Most publishing houses, in the *current* world of very-very-long copyright, only publish literary fiction and niche-interest work to build up their reputation and hope for the occasional breakout. They sell it at a loss, even over the long term. And don't forget that when they give "big" advances to authors... well, even a half million bucks in payment for a work that took, say 6 years, is only $83K/year before taxes, with no benefits or guarantee of future income. Not chump change, but no jackpot either (and again, that's way out of the realm of "normal" writers ).

Don't just look at the ridiculous extremes when you're arguing for a system that would affect so many other people.

Re:"a minority of examples"...

[rolfwind]

Also, try moving even slightly out of the mainstream pap-for-the-masses creative work.

Why are you assuming I do any mainstream entertainment? The only stuff mainstream I have is gifted to me. I avoid RIAA bands which means generally I have to turn to small bands. I am more into offbeat manga than anything American. And I've been tortured enough by reality shows, movies of the last ten years to learn not to watch it anymore (okay, maybe 4-5 movies a year, no TV).

Most publishing houses, in the *current* world of very-very-long copyright, only publish literary fiction and niche-interest work to build up their reputation and hope for the occasional breakout.

The world of video games seem to survive. Only a small percentage are hits (and a slightly bigger percentage make money) but it's enough to subsidize the rest. The shelf life of games is extremely short, copyright or not, and the industry has variety and seems to survive.

Also, all the niche-authors I know (and very small niche) usually have to pay their own printing costs to get their book "published." By this, I mean authors in antique collectibles, since this is what I assume you mean by niche.

Otherwise, I believe publishing houses do make money, no? They cast out a net and catch fish, so to speak? I doubt they print up too much for charity (reputation).

They sell it at a loss, even over the long term. And don't forget that when they give "big" advances to authors... well, even a half million bucks in payment for a work that took, say 6 years, is only $83K/year before taxes, with no benefits or guarantee of future income. Not chump change, but no jackpot either (and again, that's way out of the realm of "normal" writers ).

I fail to see your point. Publishing houses aren't the future. In 15-30 years, the electronic book (electronic paper is out now) will be ubiquitous anyway.

Anyway, I don't see why a short copyright would be bad. Perhaps 5 years (Pirate bay) or my decade is too short. But 40-50 years is way too long. But then, I'm for the 8-12 year patent as well. Oh, and the 0 year software patent.

So why does Disney get to grab from the Public Domain (Grimm's collection of Fairytales) but never get to put some back in the pot? Oh wait, they are "authors." I see.

Re:"a minority of examples"...

[JavaRob]

Why are you assuming I do any mainstream entertainment?

Those were the two main examples you gave. Sorry, I thought that would be clear. You seemed to be concerned mostly with creators like Lucas and Rowling.

The world of video games seem to survive. Only a small percentage are hits (and a slightly bigger percentage make money) but it's enough to subsidize the rest. The shelf life of games is extremely short, copyright or not, and the industry has variety and seems to survive.

Right, the world of video games is quite different, especially while the technology is still changing so quickly. Unfortunately for authors, books do not have the same extremely short shelf life. That's what I was talking about that industry in particular.

Also, all the niche-authors I know (and very small niche) usually have to pay their own printing costs to get their book "published." By this, I mean authors in antique collectibles, since this is what I assume you mean by niche.

I was talking about bigger niches than the self-published type, but there's quite a large range of "authors who cannot make a living by writing" as it is. How do your self-published author friends feel about copyright that short? Would they be comfortable seeing their book, with no attribution but a nicer binding, appear on the market after they've been fighting for only 5-10 years to make some money out of it?

Otherwise, I believe publishing houses do make money, no? They cast out a net and catch fish, so to speak? I doubt they print up too much for charity (reputation). That's partly my point. They make enough money right now on the occasional wildly selling Dan Brown or whatever to fund some real literature that'll be taught in English classrooms 30 years from now. The *less* money they make, the *less* they will have to spare on these long-term, lower-interest, non-mainstream titles.

I fail to see your point. Publishing houses aren't the future. In 15-30 years, the electronic book (electronic paper is out now) will be ubiquitous anyway.

That's only relevant to how we define copyright law... in the future. Right now we're talking about laws that will be useful to us now. Trust me, people will be there to make new arguments as the situation changes.

Not that I'm convinced the issue will disappear, though -- production and distribution costs will go way down, so "book" costs will drop, but the same problems will exist, advertising will still cost money, and it'll still take years of work to *write* the thing in the first place.

Anyway, I don't see why a short copyright would be bad. Perhaps 5 years (Pirate bay) or my decade is too short. But 40-50 years is way too long.

I know, that's what you said before.

But then, I'm for the 8-12 year patent as well. Oh, and the 0 year software patent.

Patents, and especially software patents, and extra-especially very broad software patents are a very different issue from copyright.

So why does Disney get to grab from the Public Domain (Grimm's collection of Fairytales) but never get to put some back in the pot? Oh wait, they are "authors." I see.

You're still missing my point. You have to consider how *most* people are going to be affected, and to what extent. If you want to lose a swath of literary fiction so you can get the Mickey Mouse lunchbox for the same price as the Michael Mouse lunchbox, I say that's a poor trade. (I guess I'd also point out that I'm not arguing for a life+70 or whatever term, either...).

You are welcome to argue by pointing out specifically how large numbers of people would suffer under a 50-year copyright system that would be remedied by a short one, and how the people that would suffer under the short one are less important, a smaller group, suffering less, etc.

The raid on PRQ

[frozen_dude]

The police really went overboard this time, not only did they take the TPB and Piratbyrån servers, they basically took everything else too. I have some friends whose PRQ (TPB's ISP) services dont work anymore.

From http://www.istheshit.net/: It has been confirmed by our hosting company that the police took our server in the raid, we hope the server doesn't get molested by the police. FYI: istheshit.net isn't illegal in any way, the police removed ALL servers found in the same building as The Pirate Bay. There's some angry co-location customers right now, including us.

Swedish public not happy about this

[digithed]

(From a Brit. currently living in Sweden) The biggest complaint from most of the Swedish public seems not to be with the morality or legality of what Pirate Bay is doing, but is with the gross waste of public funds being used to pursue a largely unimportant civil crime for which the maximum penalty is only a fine with no possibility of prison. The police in Sweden do not normally get involved in pursuing this type of case leaving it up to the aggrieved party (in this case the Record and Film companies) to bring this up before a civil court themselves. People in Sweden are mighty pissed off that their taxes are being used in this way.

Aftonbladet (one of Sweden's biggest newspapers) has an interesting survey on their website asking "Is it right that the police should crack down on file sharers?"...

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/special/storfragan/v isa/0,1937,20844,00.html

Currently over 50,000 votes have been cast and it's roughly 16%-yes and 84%-no.

Massive police presence

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Or 78 to shut down a 1-man peace protest

Why?

[d3lt4n00b]

*Disclaimer*
This is my view point, my opinion. If you disagree, that's fine, 'cos you're entitled to YOUR opinion.
*/Diclaimer*

It feels to me like the MPAA/RIAA/DMCA (and others, hereon reffered to as *A*), are there to make money. They are in the business of protecting copyright laws. (My view, remember?)

But the horse has already bolted.

They are quick to come out against new technologies, as it's easier to get large court settlements. Remember Napster? This looks like the same thing all over again. Ok, now the technology has changed somewhat. But the basic principal is still there, just TPB is like a information directory, informing you where to get what you want. TPB in my mind, cannot be held liable for the legitimacy of the source. (I think they may have even had a disclaimer to that effect, but I can't remember, and the site's not up to check)

In my opinion (and I know nothing of Swedish law, just what's posted here) the *A* are not going to get anything out of this, but bad press. TPB are not controlling what users post, so *A* should be taking issue with the users, not with the site! Why aren't *A* taking legal action against google? huh? Google index SOO many torrents and torrent trackers!! And I believe they are a US based company.

Should the *A* be successful with legal action against TPB, there will be mass seizures of hardware from numerous other sites, and I believe they will deal a devasting blow to the P2P community. But as history shows, that will be counter-acted by something else, maybe a new technology or a new network.
Yeah, so maybe *A* get a strangle hold on torrents? Cool. What next? eDonkey? News servers? IRC?

I think *A* are trying to play catch up, but are just too slow!!

OK, so that's my 2c ...

Don't get me wrong, infringing copyright is illegal, and action must still be taken. I just think that *A* are misguided and need to target the cause, and not the effect!!

PS, I'd like to congratulate the Swedish police for making TPB famous, and Pirate Party too.

Re:come on, let's face it

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>we're talking about basic theft.

"...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud.'"

That's the US Supreme Court talking, in Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)

Copyright Law

[amoeba1911]

There's all this confusion about this Copyright law... The media companies made it sound like it's a way of limiting your rights, but it was created with the intent of creating more diversity in content by limiting the rights of the content distributors. In fact it used to have clauses which ensured the consumer's rights wouldn't be stifled (such as fair use). Why was copyright law created?? Because with the invention of the printing press things could be mass replicated much easier, the idea behind copyright was to limit who could print/sell stuff, taking power from printing press/distributor and giving it back to content creator, to allow people to create and distribute new content instead of letting the printing press have a field day selling us the same old crap making huge profits. Copyright law was created so that the content creator would be properly compensated. So that the consumer wouldn't be subjected to the same crap over and over again with no new works being created.

The copyright law was made to protect the content creator and the content user. The copyright law was created to stifle the content distribution companies like MPAA, not the consumer. I don't know when this changed, but whoever had the wonderful idea of copyright would probably jam a sharp stick in his eyes if he saw what crud the content distributors have turned this law into.

The copyright law has obviously failed in the past half a century and content distributors have too much power now. It's time for another copyright law with the original intent of protecting the consumer and the content creator and to make sure media conglomerates like MPAA don't make huge profits from nothing.

There's no reason why a CD should cost $20 (and only a dime going to the creator) when the manufacturing cost of CD is in pennies... just my two cents. Sharing is caring. Let's try to put an end to the tyrannical misuse of copyright law. Thanks for reading!

A better alternative?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Blockquoth the AC:

Trade-based, proprietarian market economies seem flawed and suboptimal to me; inefficient ways of distributing resources and assigning tasks. Nothing makes this more clear than "intellectual property" laws.

I suspect you're right that they're suboptimal. The question is whether we can find a viable and superior alternative that takes advantage of the mass-distribution possibilities we have today without taking away fair recognition and compensation for artists and thus reducing the incentive to create and share new work that today's intellectual property framework provides.

I think this is one of the most interesting questions of our day. Ideas like micropayments for web page views have potential here, for example. But right now, I don't think anyone's close enough to a better alternative to justify scrapping/ignoring the existing IP framework.

Re:Police Shut Down worlds largest file sharing cm

[TomHandy]

I might be missing it, but what specifically is your complaint about Drudge on this one? There's plenty of bad things about Drudge, but in this case it seems like he got that from the headline of the original article - the only embellishment I see to the original headline was the bit about it being the world's largest.

Re:Question for anyone who's Swedish

[Yaotzin]

Actually, no. That domain is not registered to the Anti-Piracy Bureau. The real address is http://antipiratbyran.com/ and that site has not been defaced.

Re:Slyck News down

[Risen888]

Try the Slashdotter extention for Firefox.

Re:come on, let's face it

[dapyx]

Switzerland is not part of the EU...

Look who's talking!

[A nonymous Coward]

You're the dude what missed the point. The point of the GPL is to not allow the sources to be closed off. It has nothing to do with the binary. Someone could sell a binary with a secret key and only take support calls for a single IP address ... copies would be useless. The GPL prevents that.

Re:How about this (and why do they call; the cops?

[instanto]

Well, maybe the cops arrest you because you are a fucking moron, or because you were breaking & entering another persons home.

The party really is completely separate

[magetoo]

No, the Pirate Party never had anything to do with Piratbyrån either.

From my viewpoint the party was started by "just a bunch of friends", none of which I can remember even posting on Piratbyrån's forums.

I could tell you which cool-for-its-time 80's dial-up mail network the bunch of friends came from, but you wouldn't believe me.

Latest developments in Sweden (2006-06-02 01:00)

[Conspiracy34]

* A major swedish news agency claims the operation to shut down TPB was initiated by high-level political pressure from the USA. Supposedly the swedish justice department then put pressure on law enforcement agencies to shut down TPB even though previous investigations have shown TPB to be compliant with swedish law. This obviously violates the constitution and could potentially create a lot of problems for the justice department and its head Thomas Bodström. Many of the major media sites have now made these allegations their top story. * The homepage of the swedish police (polisen.se) is currently inaccessible, most likely due to a DoS type attack.

Re:Without copyright protection

[JavaRob]

the first customer could then copy his copy and spread it across the whole, wide world.

True, and far more so with the internet. That's lovely in the short run for the general public. All music, free! All movies, free! But... some works takes decades and/or a lot of money to produce. If the creators have no way to make money from their creation, that means they won't have the money to make another, and they certainly won't be able to fund anything that's expensive to create.

You'll still have some books left, because amateurs will write them in their spare time, and some writers will be able to survive on grants, teaching positions, etc.. You'll still have some music, because some bands enjoy touring and can make enough money from it to support themselves. Some other bands will still get together and practice Saturday afternoons when they're off work, and record themselves in someone's garage. Other "bands" won't actually make their own music at all -- they'll just copy other folks' tracks and rename them, then distribute them from their own website. Hey, it's public domain... it's legal.

Movies -- would films except hobby files continue to exist? As soon as the first theater got a copy of the film, they could legally start selling or giving away copies to every other theater. It's public domain work -- could a contract stop them from doing that? They'd have no reason to pay the movie studio for public domain work, so the studio would lose all revenue. I don't know, maybe they'd get around this with strict contracts and massive secrecy and encryption. They couldn't sell DVDs, either, because as soon as one sold, boom, it's on the internet and you'll never sell another, so new movies would probably become theater-only entertainment, with pat-downs on your way in to detect hidden video cameras (assuming the studios and theaters could work out some kind of deal to replace copyright).

Video game consoles might just go away entirely. Or they'd get very, very expensive, and the console developers will fund all game development with that extra revenue. Certainly, standalone PC games would go away. We might go back to video games only existing in arcades, because then the creators can make it as difficult as possible for others to copy the (public domain) games they create.

Does this all sound good to you? Copyright exists for a reason. It's gotten out of hand over time, but that doesn't mean it has no purpose.

Re:Hoaxed?

[Agret]

@All the replies to my post The reason they would show the data is so that they can get the servers back in a timely fashion. With cases like this they can drag out for 6 months to a year to even longer. All that time with the servers under the cops "protection". It's a lot easier to just show them the data and prove you did nothing wrong and get your servers back.

Re:Vikings are Norwegion ... NOT

[muddygeek]

Hej you Norwegian mountain troll Please read up on your Nordic history - Norwegian history books are full of errors because Snorre Sturlison got too drunk one night and claimed that Norwegians were the true Vikings. Facts are 1) Viking capitals were a) Roskilde in Denmark and b) Birka in Sweden 2) First Norwegian King was a Dane ;-) 3) Danish Viking conquored America, Greenland, Paris, England, Baltics, the Swedes conqoured Russia, Finland. (There are local Rune supporting this all over) Norwegian vikings really did very little - you had the chances, but chose to stay in the small cities by the coast. Which is understandable, because they are nice, and the girls are REALLY pretty. But the fact that Norwegians were and still are taught they were Vikings is a misunderstanding introduced by a confused Snorre. Sorry.

In Soviet Russia...

[SonicSpike]

... party raids YOU!

TPB back in a day or two

[arbi]

"site down - will be up and fully functional within a day or two"

FWIW, those are the headlines (in all caps) on their site as of 3:53 AM GMT on June 3rd.

Had to convert to all lowercase because /. wouldn't let me post otherwise.

Re:come on, let's face it

[cpt kangarooski]

No, that would never work, actually.

There is a specific definition for what constitutes a derivative work:

A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

So a torrent clearly isn't a translation, musical arrangement, etc. through condensation. The examples don't apply. Nor has the work been recast, transformed, or adapted. Nor is it editorial revisions, etc. And a derivative work has to be one of those things.

Also, all works, whether derivative or not, have to be original works of authorship. A torrent is not, since the data in the torrent is AFAIK only factual, and facts are not copyrightable. Nor is the collection of facts in the torrent an original collection.

The torrent might have metadata relating to the work, such as a hash, filename, etc. but it lacks the work itself or anything the work can be reconstructed from, and is not an original work of authorship. To get that, you have to download the work.

So no, a torrent is not a derivative work -- at least not any normal torrent -- and probably couldn't be a work of any kind in fact.

Lots of people mistakenly think that there are more derivatives then there really are. For example, if you rip an mp3 from a CD, you have not made a derivative, you have just made a lower quality reproduction. But if you use text to speech to make an audiobook of a written book, then you've likely made a derivative.