The Pirate Bay Files Suit Against Big Media

Join the Pirate Party writes "Having found the necessary proof via the leaked MediaDefenders documents, the Pirate Bay is filing suit against the big record and movie labels operating in Sweden who have allegedly been paying professional hackers, saboteurs and DDoSers to destroy their trackers. They also claim to have filed a police report."

Comments

media companies

[Anonymous Coward]

If the media want a war, perhaps we should give them one.

Well The Media Companies Had it coming....

[webmaster404]

They blame the "pirates" for poor media sales, they prosecute the "pirates" and now that they have gone astray from the law the "pirates" are going to win a big legal battle. The circle of life is complete.

Re:Well The Media Companies Had it coming....

[erroneus]

"Something something something something DARK SIDE!
  something something something something COMPLETE!"

Finally

[kaos07]

It's taken long enough but it seems these corporations who employ mafia-like tactics will finally get what they deserve. Kudos to the whistle-blowers within MediaDefender, The Pirate Bay for having the guts to file a lawsuit, and Sweden's Communistic copyright laws allowing this happen.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the copyright laws as such that are different in Sweden. They subscribe to the Berne convention like (almost) everyone else. The difference is that it is not illegal to run a tracker since it doesn't actually host any files.

I am far from an expert, but I think the basis of this is that copyright falls under contract law in Sweden, as opposed to criminal law. Helping someone commit a crime is illegal, but helping someone break a contract isn't. This is third hand knowledge though, so don't quote me on it.

There might also be a freedom of speech issue involved which would require a change to the foundational (constitutional) laws, which explains why they haven't managed to change the law to harmonize with the EU.

Re:Finally

[kaos07]

A-ha, thanks for clarifying that. I'd always heard about the "lax" copyright laws in Scandinavian countries but never quite understood it.

Re:Finally

[Slorv]

So while not understanding it you simply called it 'Commmunistic'?

Is there anything else you do not not understand, like what communism really was about?

Borrow a couple of books in economics history at the library, read'em and then we can have a discussion.

Re:Finally

[kaos07]

Sir, I was talking in jest. My point was that Sweden's apparent relaxed attitude to copyright laws harks back to Marxist ideas of sharing and community-owned property.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism can be explained by taking our current system and add social ideas like sharing and helping.

Commune
1. To be in a state of intimate, heightened sensitivity and receptivity, as with one's surroundings
2. a body of people or families living together and sharing everything

Re:Finally

[drsmithy]

Sir, I was talking in jest. My point was that Sweden's apparent relaxed attitude to copyright laws harks back to Marxist ideas of sharing and community-owned property.

Uh, no, a "relaxed" attitude towards copyright may merely indicate a recognition of the fact you can't "own" information like you can physical property.

Re:Finally

[prelelat]

Not only are they getting what they deserve they are also brining more and more un needed attention to this form of downloading and sending a message that it is okay. If they had just ignored the pirate bay a number of people would have thought it was wrong and ignored it. Now you have media attention saying they have been wronged and what they are doing is acceptable. Sometimes it's better if you just hide under a rock and if you really want to make a propaganda campaign. Now the pirate bay has been legitamized and has the backing of more people then it would have without all the attacks against them by record, and movie companies as well as the government.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I didn't know they had Slashdot in France!

Viva le resistance!

Re:Finally

[GlitchCog]

"Kudos to the whistle-blowers within MediaDefender"

It wasn't a whistle blower. Some idiot used his Gmail password and Gmail email address to sign up for an account on a bittorrent tracker site that recognized his IP address as one of the ones associated with Media-Defender. So he basically gave his email and password to the enemy trying to sneak around in their services.

Re:Finally

[drsmithy]

Considering people "own" the land, I'm yet to see the point in this.

What ?

"Land" is a physical object. It is *fundamentally different* to information (or "data", or "ideas", or whatever else you want to call "intellectual property").

Also, it is possible to copyright a novel, or a business trade secret. How about that secret recipe for turning bullshit into aluminum ? All of those can be defined as "owning" information.

I'm not quite sure I see your point.

I agree they don't have a communist attitude toward copyright but you sir, certainly have.

How's that, exactly ? Communism dicates that physical property is not owned by the individual, but the collective. This is an intrinsically different position to take than "information cannot be owned".

Re:Finally

[ShieldW0lf]

It wasn't a whistle blower. Some idiot used his Gmail password and Gmail email address to sign up for an account on a bittorrent tracker site that recognized his IP address as one of the ones associated with Media-Defender. So he basically gave his email and password to the enemy trying to sneak around in their services.

If all this was done with Gmail, and Gmail is all indexed using Googles technology, does that mean that Google has had both knowledge and evidence of this the whole time, and did nothing?

Re:Finally

[RAMMS EIN]

``...Communistic copyright laws...''

Now there is an interesting concept...wouldn't the communist thing to do to _not_ restrict the rights to only one individual, but rather to let the whole community use the work as they see fit? I think "communist" countries even used to do that.

Re:Finally

[aldo.gs]

You can own it, all right. Just not only you :P

Re:Finally

[morcego]

"Land" is a physical object. It is *fundamentally different* to information (or "data", or "ideas", or whatever else you want to call "intellectual property").

Exactly. What gives you the right to own the land ? Did you create it ?

"Land" ownership is just as arbitrary as "intellectual property". Specially "ownership" of an IP one didn't create.

Also, it is possible to copyright a novel, or a business trade secret. How about that secret recipe for turning bullshit into aluminum ? All of those can be defined as "owning" information.

I'm not quite sure I see your point.

See above.

How's that, exactly ? Communism dicates that physical property is not owned by the individual, but the collective. This is an intrinsically different position to take than "information cannot be owned".

There is no such thing as physical property. Communism dictates that is is not private property. Physical or not. Since you believe in "ownership", you can't claim something cannot be owner. The best you can do is to say it should be "owned by everyone", or "by the public", whatever.

Btw, can you please give US your phone number, SSN, bank account data and PIN ? Those are just information and, by your definition, you can't own them.

Re:Finally

[tietokone-olmi]

That's not quite correct. The thing that makes TPB on the right side of the law is that Swedish copyright law has not been modified to include contributory infringement, or anything equivalent to it. The Berne convention did not require it, and from the looks of things right now it'd be political suicide to pass such a thing in Sweden.

Re:Finally

[ManifestAmbiguity]

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, Monticello, August 13, 1813

Please feel free to refute this flawed logic he is using, if you can. And I don't believe this Thomas was a communist, but I could be wrong there.

Re:Finally

[fishbowl]

>Communism can be explained by taking our current system and add social ideas like sharing and helping.

The most important aspect of Communism as a political system, though, is that you empower the state to decide
what constitutes ideas like "sharing" and "helping" and then the state uses force to make sure those ideas are
acted on. Limited forms of communism can work, say among groups where everyone involved has free choice in his
participation at any given juncture. But when you have a communist *government*, you still get the same types
of people in roles like "police" and "politician" that you get in every other kind of government, which means
your ideals are very unlikely to be expressed the way you expect when they come down in the form of authoritarian
government.

Re:Finally

[aliquis]

Piracy (with or without a ship) is a crime in Sweden, running a tracker isn't, atleast it doesn't seem so considering TPB are still up and running. Thought then it runs in multiple countries today.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

and Sweden's Communistic copyright laws allowing this happen. This level of rhetoric does not serve anyone.
BTW, you have forgotten that recently "terroristic" is cooler than "communistic".

Re:Finally

[aliquis]

I don't know if we have relaxed attitude to copyright laws, atleast not as country, the people does, of course, but don't people everywhere around the globe do?

But running a tracker isn't breaking any copyrights, is it? If anything it's helping others to do that but then how should a tracker keep track of what is copyrighted or not? It's like saying building guns or even cars and roads are crimes because you might kill someone (atleast that's the intention by building a gun in the first place so even more so!), and google can be used to find copyrighted stuff aswell.

Regarding actual copyright crimes one of the problems for the people who wanna prosecute are that we have (I don't know for sure if they have made a law around this problem yet, might have been done) a secrecy/integrety laws which prevents companies to share your personal data for anything except if it's a crime which can give more than 2 years in jail. Copyright crimes over here can give a maximum of 2 years so therefor the ISPs aren't allowed to share their costumer data, so if someone got proofs in the form of a screenshot/log and IP it's not enough to find out who actually commited the crime. And then there's not much one can do is it?

Re:Finally

[DavidShor]

No, Google cannot be expected to keep track of millions of accounts.

Re:Finally

[aliquis]

What do you suggest? That google reads everyones e-mail and rapport anything suspecious?

Re:Finally

[ShieldW0lf]

No, Google cannot be expected to keep track of millions of accounts.

Isn't that what they're paid for?

Re:Finally

[ShieldW0lf]

I didn't suggest anything that they ought to do.

I just think that people inside google probably knew this was there.

You don't build a system to index the worlds information, then get people to sign up to your free mail service with provisions that you get to index it, then set up a project to index all the books in the world, etc unless you are a snoop. And all of this was sitting on google servers.

Re:Finally

[drsmithy]

Exactly. What gives you the right to own the land ? Did you create it ?

I can stop anyone else having it.

"Land" ownership is just as arbitrary as "intellectual property".

Untrue. "Land ownership" - indeed, the "ownership" of any piece of physical property - is based on the "might makes right" principle. If you can stop someone else having it, it's yours.

Modern property law is, of course, much more formalised and the government exercises the might on your behalf, but that's ultimately the basic principle - there's a limited amount of X and if you have an X then, by definition, that means no-one else can - so it's yours so long as you can prevent anyone else taking it.

Specially "ownership" of an IP one didn't create.

You can't stop someone "taking" your idea. Nor can you "take it back". These are the fundamental differences between actual pysical property and made-up "intellectual property" that mean the two concepts cannot be equated.

There is no such thing as physical property.

Yes, there is.

Communism dictates that is is not private property. Physical or not. Since you believe in "ownership", you can't claim something cannot be owner. The best you can do is to say it should be "owned by everyone", or "by the public", whatever.

You are conflating physical and "intellectual" property. Two things which are fundamentally different (ie: the whole point).

Also, you need to brush up on what Communism actually is. I'm guessing, like most Americans, you don't really know anything about it other that "communism == socialism == un-American == bad".

Btw, can you please give US your phone number, SSN, bank account data and PIN ? Those are just information and, by your definition, you can't own them.

I'm not American.

Re:Finally

[volpe]

> Exactly. What gives you the right to own the land ? Did you create it ?

I can stop anyone else having it.

You did not answer his question. You answered a different question, namely, "What right does owning the land give you?". However, the confusion is understandable.

Re:Finally

[morcego]

Do you want me only to talk about his logic ? Or should I talk the logic of the people applying his ideas to a different context. First, I don't see he saying "and do anything the receiver wants with that idea, including act like it was his own".

No one of forcing you to "dispossess" of the ideas. Tomas Jefferson is right on his point, but it only covers one part of the issue here. The original idea of copyright from the USA Constitution (?) is the correct one. Yes, one can keep the idea, but a limited time. Fair use should be allowed. Read USE, not ABUSE.

Copyright IS a good thing. IP IS a good thing. The problem is that these days, we have the like of RIAA abusing on one side, and a lot of users abusing on the other. No side can claim innocent.

Let me give you a quote for a quote. This is from Marion Zimmer Bradley (thus exercising my right of Fair Use):

Early in my career, I was accosted by one of those feminist types who knew I had put myself though college and supported my family by the commercial writing of romances for schlock paperback houses. She took it upon herself to enlighten me about what she called "artistic integrity." She accused me of being a literary prostitute and stated flat out that I should not write for money, but for higher artistic ideals. I told her that was all very well, but I had kids who were in the habit of eating; and the landlord, grocer, and local power company did not wait upon my artistic dreams. A literary prostitute, I told her, does not endanger anyone's health or morals - and at least my son never had to steal milk out of other people's refrigerators (a low blow, because I had found her own son doing just that).

Just because you don't like the abuse of an idea, does not justify attacking the idea itself. Fight the abuse. And I mean fight. Take them to court, take the street in protest. Buy directly from the artists, and support THEM.

Are you an artist ? Have you tried to make a living out of your art without the "backing" of some RIAA-like group ? Specially early on your career.

It is all very well for us to say copyright is bad, IP should not exist. Specially since most of us here don't need it to buy milk for our sons.

Fight the abuse, not the concept.

Re:Finally

[morcego]

Also, you need to brush up on what Communism actually is. I'm guessing, like most Americans, you don't really know anything about it other that "communism == socialism == un-American == bad".

Which only shows how wrong you are:
1) I'm not an American

2) I know every well what communism is, having read The Capital myself. I also studied the history of most "communist" countries (which weren't that communist, after all). To a point that what Karl Marx wrote, these days, is referred as Marxism, and not communism, due to the distortion of his idea as implemented on many places. Actually, most of the concepts attributed to Karl Marx were not his own, but really ideas that were floating around for a long time. You can find the base of many of his theories old Greek and Roman texts.

You really should take time to understand how much effort, study, and work it took to come up with many of those ideas you want to be free. Unless you think all research should be publically funded, including the study and education for those who are producing that material.

Re:Finally

[TheoMurpse]

To clarify a bit: copyright doesn't fall under criminal law in the US, either, but it's still allegedly illegal to operate a tracker here. Copyright infringement is a civil offense, and there are statutory and other damages involved.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would google have any obligation to do anything with this "knowledge and evidence of this the whole time"? They are a company in business to make a profit not police the world. When policing the world becomes more profitable than what they are doing, I am sure they will take over Blackwater.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure that the US has made copyright infringement criminal - via the NET Act back in the 90s, and it was passed kind of quietly compared to the DMCA, which further criminalized things by making circumvention of copyright protection criminal, and prohibiting circumvention devices.

Re:Finally

[drsmithy]

1) I'm not an American

My apologies. Although I feel my assumption, based on your opinions, was reasonable.

2) I know every well what communism is, having read The Capital myself. I also studied the history of most "communist" countries (which weren't that communist, after all). To a point that what Karl Marx wrote, these days, is referred as Marxism, and not communism, due to the distortion of his idea as implemented on many places. Actually, most of the concepts attributed to Karl Marx were not his own, but really ideas that were floating around for a long time. You can find the base of many of his theories old Greek and Roman texts.

Then why are you trying to disingenuously equate "cannot be owned" with "community ownership" ? They are two quite different things. Ownership implies control. If there is one that everyone should have learnt by now from the Internet, it's that you can't control information once it has been publically disclosed.

You really should take time to understand how much effort, study, and work it took to come up with many of those ideas you want to be free. Unless you think all research should be publically funded, including the study and education for those who are producing that material.

I understand quite well. That doesn't change my opinion. Copyright - especially as it exists today - is an anachronism. Patents are more defensible in principle, but appear to be just as deeply flawed in practice.

One of the few easily defensible aspects of copyright is attribution - that one person's ideas should not be misrepresented as another's - but even *that* falls into a grey area because of "derivative works", and pretty much anything covered by copyright is a "derivative" of an earlier work from before copyright even existed.

There are plenty of ways to make phenomenal amounts of money, even with a substantial overhaul - if not complete elimination - of "IP". Further, given that a greater rate of technological and cultural development is pretty much guaranteed with a larger dissemination of information, the net benefit to society would almost certainly be positive.

Re:Finally

[drsmithy]

You did not answer his question.

Yes, I did. He asked what "right" I (and,by extension, anyone) had to own property ("land" specifically, but the implication was clear). One of the points of my answer is that you don't have a "right" to own anything. You have the legal concept of ownership that is predicated (at least in modern times) on your government's ability to enforce the law.

You answered a different question, namely, "What right does owning the land give you?". However, the confusion is understandable.

Uh, no, that's not a question I answered at all. Nothing like it, in fact.

Re:Finally

[drsmithy]

Are you an artist ? Have you tried to make a living out of your art without the "backing" of some RIAA-like group ? Specially early on your career.

Have you considered this is simply a reflection of how the market (society) values the production of the average "artist" ?

Re:Finally

[rubypossum]

Saying you can't own information is kind of silly. I have a thumb drive with my source code on it and I can choose to give it to you or not. Information is bound in the physical world, just like everything else. Even if it's bound up in the neurons of your brain. I can write this fact down and tell it to you, or not. Either way it's my choice. Alternatively, I can charge you for it. Just like Universities do with classes. Saying information is free is false in both senses of the term. It takes time to create so it's not free as in beer and it's only free as in speech if all the parties involve want it to be free as in speech.

Furthermore, it is the ownership of information and the inherent ability of people to agree on the terms of the distribution of information that allows free software to be possible. That's what the GPL is all about. I can say that the information I own should be shared freely. That necessarily requires the ability to determine the distribution terms of that information. It requires Copyright.

Cheers

Re:Finally

[gordyf]

Huh? They index it so that *you* can search it. Google employees have better things to do than to sit around reading other people's email.

Jesus.

Re:Finally

[mrchaotica]

No, they're paid for serving advertisements. Keeping track of people's email is just something they incidentally do to further that end.

Re:Finally

[volpe]

> You did not answer his question.
Yes, I did.

No you didn't, and claiming otherwise doesn't make it so. Nor do your subsequent remarks that fail to address this point.

He asked what "right" I [...] had to own property

Yes, and your answer was:

I can stop anyone else having it.

Your ability to stop anyone else having it is not what gives you the right to own it. To claim otherwise conflates ownership with posession/occupation, which you do a lot of in that earlier post. However, if you own it, that does give you the right to stop anyone else from having it, which was my subsequent point, about the question you were really answering, even if you continue to fail, as I note below, to recognize it as such.

One of the points of my answer is that you don't have a "right" to own anything.

You didn't say that. You said:

I can stop anyone else having it.

Furthermore, just because you claim someone doesn't have the right to own anything doesn't make it so. Granted, rights must be interpreted in some context. Perhaps in the context of drsmithy's imaginary fantasy world view, nobody has the right to own anything. But in the real world, there exists a legal framework, dependent on jurisdiction, upon which the concept of ownership, and the rights which derive from it, are clearly defined. You allude to this in your next statement regarding the "legal concept of ownership", but utterly fail to recognize that this is precisely what the "right to own" something refers to in this context.

You answered a different question, namely, "What right does owning the land give you?". However, the confusion is understandable.

Uh, no, that's not a question I answered at all. Nothing like it, in fact.

I've already demonstrated otherwise above, and there's no need to repeat it here, despite your continued failure to recognize it as such.

Re:Finally

[drsmithy]

No you didn't, and claiming otherwise doesn't make it so.

Yes, I did.

Your ability to stop anyone else having it is not what gives you the right to own it.

Yes, it is. Although in modern times it is generally the government, not the individual, who does the stopping.

To claim otherwise conflates ownership with posession/occupation, which you do a lot of in that earlier post.

I'm not conflating them, they're two sides of the same coin.

However, if you own it, that does give you the right to stop anyone else from having it, which was my subsequent point, about the question you were really answering, even if you continue to fail, as I note below, to recognize it as such.

That's because it wasn't the question I was answering.

The fact that I - or the government acting on my behalf - can prevent someone from taking something is what makes ownership real. Not some abstract "right" endowed by - well, I'm not sure what you think it's endowed by, because on the one hand you use the word like it's some magical, universal truth and on the other you agree with me that it's simply a concept invented and sustained by a society's system of laws (and its ability to enforce them).

Ownership of property - like every other "right" - is a legal construct (and a relatively recent one in many parts of the world) and exists only within the legal frameworks that allow it to. Even within that system, all ownership denotes is a formalisation of "might makes right". You "own" something because they government will prevent anyone else from taking it away from you (or attempt get it back and/or seek reparations on your behalf after they have). Absent that, ownership is solely dependent on your own ability to prevent someone taking your possessions away.

There are so many examples of this principle documented throughout history, it's amazing that anyone would try to deny it. Look at any subculture where the regular rules of law do not apply. Look at military actions - both defensive and offensive. Look at colonisation. Look at kids in the schoolyard when they decide they "own" certain parts of it, or certain toys, etc. Heck, look at *animals*. "Ownership" does not exist outside of either the legal system - and the government's ability to enforce it - or your own ability to protect your possessions. That's because ownership and possession are inextricably linked. If you cannot effect the latter, you do not have the former.

Fortunately - and this is the implication I was making - ownership is a legal construct that evolved from a solid grounding of actual, physical reality (which is why it is pretty much essential for modern society to function). However, "intellectual property", is a completely arbitrary legal fiction with no relation whatsoever to how the universe actually operates. When you write a book and someone reads it, you can't make them "unread" it. When they listen to a piece of music you play, you can't make them "unhear" it. When some scientist discovers that E=mc^2, all they're doing is documenting factual data about how the universe operates. That is the fundamental difference between physical property and "intellectual property" and why you can't "own" the latter. "Intellectual propety" being equivalent to physical property is a nonsensical concept.

So, to go back to the original point, the reason I have "right" to "own" land is because I can stop other people from taking it away. Today, I would do this via the legal system (and I might even fail, in which case I wouldn't "own" it anymore - eg: eminent domain, divorce proceedings). However, even if the legal system collapsed (or didn't exist), I would still potentially be able to prevent my land from being taken by defending it myself (or recovering it after it had been taken from me). This latter aspect does not apply to "intellectual property", hence the reason it is fundamentally different to physical property. The legal concept

Re:Finally

[marcello_dl]

> It's taken long enough
Yep, From what I hear if we stop looking at bad pirates and watch the other side, at least in italy, we see:

- Tunes cloned and legally sold and protected in other market ("Sono bugiardo" by caterina caselli, already in the 50ies)
- Ditto for tunes copied from traditional music.
- errors in attribution to authors (you missed an accent writing down the playlist? performing rights society won't pay you, it'll put the proceedings into the "unknown" tunes which are split to all authors in unequal shares so old big authors earn even more than they deserve

now we see
- non sequitur in estimating damages from piracy (one pirated tune != one less CD sold)
- terrorism in lawsuits involving 5 and 80 years old
- pushing people to break the law by fake p2p servers
- other people's computer compromised

Some animals are more equal than others, it seems.

Re:Finally

[volpe]

You are I are going to have to agree to disagree, because you're wrong and I stand by everything I said.

I do, however, agree with two things you said:

"Ownership does not exist outside [...] the legal system". I'm leaving out the remark about enforcement because that conflates the right of ownership with the fact of possession. I believe I've covered this already.

"Intellectual propety" being equivalent to physical property is a nonsensical concept." Agreed. I believe intellectual property rights are more deserving of protection than physical property rights. One's intellectual property is entirely one's own creation, whereas nobody has manufactured the atoms of which their physical possessions are comprised, nor the land to which they hold title.

Re:Finally

[drsmithy]

"Ownership does not exist outside [...] the legal system". I'm leaving out the remark about enforcement because that conflates the right of ownership with the fact of possession. I believe I've covered this already.

You've only "covered it" in the sense of asserting you're right and I'm wrong. Perhaps you'd like to "cover it" in more detail, in the context of all the land and property that has been captured during wars, all the property confiscated from criminals, all the "natives" who were displaced during the colonisationation of various lands, repossession of property during divorce, the claiming of "undiscovered" land, etc.

Agreed. I believe intellectual property rights are more deserving of protection than physical property rights. One's intellectual property is entirely one's own creation, whereas nobody has manufactured the atoms of which their physical possessions are comprised, nor the land to which they hold title.

The amount of "intellectual property" that has been "created" since the invention of the concept, that isn't derivative of earlier works, is vanishingly small (I'd say nonexistant, but I'm sure you'll be able to dig up at least one example). Certainly not enough to justify the outrageously unbalanced differences between "owning" physical property and "intellectual property".

Illegal evidence?

[Skinkie]

It would be very interesting if this evidence they propose will be accepted by any judge as legally obtained evidence.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[ozamosi]

It would be very interesting if this evidence they propose will be accepted by any judge as legally obtained evidence. This is Sweden we're talking about. There's no such thing as illegal evidence here.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[deniable]

You mean like the 'evidence' collected by MediaWhatever. It could get very embarrassing if the pirate are not only running rings around the RIAA, but also have better lawyers.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[lobStar]

In Sweden there is no such concept as "legally obtained evidence", any evidence can be presented in court and then it's up to to the judge to weight the different sides evidence against each other. The procedure with admission of evidence mostly exist in common-law countries, with a layman's jury.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as Pirate Bay had nothing to do with obtaining and releasing the emails, I wouldn't think there would be any problem. All that matters is whether the emails are real. MediaDefender fucked up when they had their law firm start issuing DCMA takedown notices to sites hosting the email archive. By doing so, they've established the authenticity of the emails saving Pirate Bay the trouble of establishing authenticity through legal discovery.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[clubhi]

layman jury -- translated, not yet corrupted

Re:Illegal evidence?

[deniable]

The take down notice has to claim ownership under penalty of perjury, so it's pretty solid. (Or Bubba from Legal is going to jail.)

Re:Illegal evidence?

[cloricus]

I don't think it matters as a court case will bring what MediaDefender did to a much larger audience and further drag public opinion about RIAA/similar to the gutter.

What I find really shameful is that this revolt has been going on since I was a kid on the internet, and the big labels still haven't simply changed their models and given into market pressure to reprice their music and content to a reasonable price. I wonder if by the time they finally give in my generation simply wont care having become used to 'stealing' all this content; which in reality is not what any one wants.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[TheGratefulNet]

I wonder if by the time they finally give in my generation simply wont care having become used to 'stealing' all this content; which in reality is not what any one wants.

horse has long left the barn. too late to lock the door, now.

I'm a middle aged guy and I'm 'mad as hell' at the media companies. I can only imagine the amount of hate that the current young generation has toward this 'business'.

I say - let whatever happens, happen. equilibrium time. price stuff too high and piss off your customers by taking them to court? they'll fight back and, in your words, steal from you. same as if you buy a dog and kick it every day. it won't be very kind to you, given that treatment.

I hope kids today steal all they can from the media companies. steal stuff you don't even WANT or NEED. just steal. steal steal steal. until the media companies get a big enough bloody nose and yell 'uncle'.

it is a war. and its escalating. I hope the kids today don't drop the ball and keep fighting the Good Fight(tm).

Re:Illegal evidence?

[notthe9]

Informative? Try misinformative...

They have rules of evidence in Sweden, as confirmed by a quick search. I can't find a good site on how it works, but any number confirm that they exist. (They are quite necessary for justice.)

Re:Illegal evidence?

[gordo3000]

so in other words be just as childish and stupid about how you live your life because someone else is?

how about people today take the high road and just boycot all big media? you want to give them a real fuck you? one hwere the government won't step in and help them constantly? Don't buy, download, listen, or watch any of their stuff. support independent labels and independent movies or find something else to do!!!

your idea is stupid. people have been doing it and it's not giving the media companies a bloody nose. It's giving them massive government support around the world, direct tax revenue flowing towards them, and a reducing of our legal rights because they can make a legit complaint.

I hope kids around hte world finally realize that you don't harm a media company by downloading their stuff; you only make them more powerful by giving them powerful allies in various governments and legal precedents around the world. The person who downloads rampantly is doing them the greatest favor imaginable.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[ozamosi]

Informative? Try misinformative...

They have rules of evidence in Sweden, as confirmed by a quick search. I can't find a good site on how it works, but any number confirm that they exist. (They are quite necessary for justice.)

It is perfectly fine to use any evidence you may have, no matter how you got hold of it, in court.

The exception being, of course, things that a person have said to their doctor or lawyer, since they are forbidden to talk about what their patients say.

Read chapter 35, paragraph 1 in law 1942:740, "rättegångsbalken" (law of prosecution? means something like that), in the swedish book of law if you do not believe me. You can find the law in question here, although it's obviously in swedish.

So, who was misinformative again?

Re:Illegal evidence?

[shark72]

"What I find really shameful is that this revolt has been going on since I was a kid on the internet, and the big labels still haven't simply changed their models and given into market pressure to reprice their music and content to a reasonable price."

When you were a kid (let's say 1997), CDs cost about $18. That's $22 in today's dollars. Due to market forces (piracy or otherwise), you can get most new CDs for $10 or $11 on Amazon.com and $12 - $14 at Target. Prices have dropped in half.

Back in 1997, the record companies were extremely leery of online distribution. Legitimate online availability was scarce and tracks cost $3 each (about $4 in 2007 money). Today, millions of tracks are available legally for less than a buck.

I understand your point here -- as long as we claim that the record companies aren't changing with the times, it gives us that feeling of moral and intellectual superiority that justifies piracy. But you must understand that in light of the facts, it is intellectually dishonest.

It may be that "reasonable price" for you is a sliding scale -- it's always below current market pricing, so as prices continue to freefall, you'll simply claim that they are not yet "reasonable." If you and your friends are going to proudly fly the Jolly Roger forever, that's fine -- lots of my own friends do. But don't expect prices to continue to free fall. Market pressure (again, from piracy or otherwise) has brought Warner Music to its knees; after several quarters of awful profitability, they've gone into the red. Not much more bottom to plumb. "Record companies make obscene profits" is another intellectually dishonest statement that's common among piracy advocates, but the sad fact is that the record industry has always been a low-margin business, and it's only getting worse for them.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[multisync]

I hope kids today steal all they can from the media companies. steal stuff you don't even WANT or NEED. just steal. steal steal steal

I didn't know Trent Reznor read slashdot

Re:Illegal evidence?

[TheGratefulNet]

"my" idea?

its not my idea and I have no ownership of it (even though I do approve of it). I'm just describing what is currently going on. like it or not, it is what it is.

when there is a feeling of injustice and all other remedies seem blocked, you do what you do. that's what we are seeing now, in the wild, so to speak.

its not my idea. I'm no leader in this movement ;) but again, I can see the motivations on both sides and I just have a hard time blaming the kids when I see the amount of major evil going on from the 'grownups'.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[TheGratefulNet]

(good one).

I was thinking more of abbie hoffman. but the end result is more or less the same.

I do think we need some shake-up. things have been static for way too long. nature doesn't like that, either ;)

Re:Illegal evidence?

[empaler]

It seems so. (my Swedish skills are only generally useful enough for either telling people of for having the wrong language, or telling girls to give me their vaginas, I know they have them)

However, there's 10 revisions of the law since enacted (1942). Skimming the summary of them does not seem to have an impact on this case, though.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[empaler]

Thank you for clearing that up - that makes GPs post make a lot more sense :)

Re:Illegal evidence?

[Wildclaw]

I am from Sweden, so I was interested about the subject and searched on the Internet. I found a very good link on the European Commission website that contains some simplified information about the different justice systems in the european union. Below is the link to the english version of the chapter discussing evidence and proof in Sweden (There are also quick links to pages discussion the same for each and every country in the EU)

http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/evidence/evidence_swe_en.htm/

8. Can evidence that has been acquired in an unlawful manner be referred to as evidence?

The principle of admissibility of evidence means that there are only certain rare exceptions where it is forbidden to use certain types of evidence. That evidence has been acquired in an unlawful manner does not therefore, in principle, prevent the proof being referred to during the trial. This can, however, be of significance in the weighing of evidence.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[multisync]

I think we need a shake-up, too. Not sure if what you propose is the answer. I actually like TPB's approach a lot more.

In Canada, there is a proposal to add a tax to ipods and hard drives, similar to the tax we already pay on CDs. The proceeds of these taxes are funnelled into an account controlled by a music industry group, supposedly to be distrubuted to artists. No consideration is given to other artists who may use CDs, hard drives or even ipods in the production and storage of their own art, let alone people who use media for things like running a business or just storing personal data. Apparently we are all doing exactly what you are proposing - just downloading all of our entertainment and never paying for anything.

Funny, though, despite this widespread "stealing," the music/movie/tv industries somehow manage to rake in billions of dollars every year. Alas, it is apparently not enough, as they also manage to show a loss in order to avoid paying the artists who they are trying to protect from us.

I would like to see a legal assult launched to counter this movement by the industry to steal money from people like myself who use a lot of media for purposes that have nothing to do with the music industry. There are retail groups in Canada who have voiced their opposition to this tax, but they are really just acting out of self-interest and could potentially be appeased with some "compromise."

Anyway, to draw my rambling response to your reply to my cheap joke (thanks, btw, for taking it in the spirit it was intended) to a close, we need a Pirate party in Canada and I think the US as well. I don't want to give up huge swaths of our culture in a boycott, and I don't want to declare all-out bloody war on the entertainment industry. I just want to shine a light on the propaganda that is currently being accepted at face value by the polititians, courts and general public, and demonstrate where their position may diverge from the truth.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[Hemogoblin]

Sweden, like most of continental Europe, uses the Civil Law system, as opposed to the Common Law system. America and most other areas formerly controlled by the British use the Common Law system. While similar, they are not identical and definately do not have the same procedures.

While it might not be considered valid evidence under the Common Law system, it can probably be admitted as evidence under the Civil Law system. See the poster above me for references.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[Teun]

I don't know where you're from but here in NW Europe we are quite happy to watch your American Court Dramas on TV.
And equally happy to be subject to a legal system largely run by professionals, not bloody amateurs.
Our courts can weigh all aspects of a case against the Letter and the Spirit of the laws, people don't need to be rich and hire a Hollywood or Broadway trained lawyer to impress the gullible jury.
The concept of corruption is not part of our system.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[the_fat_kid]

your age is showing, GratefulNet.

you are right, just older than the average NIN fan.

steal this post.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[TheGratefulNet]

Funny, though, despite this widespread "stealing," the music/movie/tv industries somehow manage to rake in billions of dollars every year. Alas, it is apparently not enough, as they also manage to show a loss in order to avoid paying the artists who they are trying to protect from us.

I don't dispute this. this is exactly the kind of ammo that fuels the 'steal back' mentality.

to many people, its OK to fight fire with fire. or to fight your enemy at their level. (in fact, I wonder if we did that in the ME if things would improve; maybe not nearterm but longterm, perhaps.)

the content industry is broken and our legal system is broken, too. its no wonder that people have turned to vigilante justice, which is really what it is (feeling the law is not impartial and so you take matters into your own hands). its not preferable but it IS understandable.

I don't want to declare all-out bloody war on the entertainment industry

why not? its time. its time! how much longer do you want to wait before fighting back? again, the legal system is broken (ever since they came up with that wacky term 'circumvention device'; first time I heard of it was in the DAT tape context in the form of SCMS strippers for spdif copy-protection 'correction'). the music industry stopped legitimate musicians or home recording enthusiasts from copying their ONW tapes! yes, if I blew a whistle into microphone and hit play and record - even that 'recording' was not legal for me to copy if it originated on a consumer deck ($500) instead of a pro deck ($1000). gimme a break! but legally, I would be committing a crime if I fixed the bits such that the dat could be copied using $500 gear that I could more easily afford.

there is too much bad blood between the Industry and its customers. it is a war and its not one that the customers started.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

The high road is severely overrated. I'm tired of taking it.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget that this may not even be "illegally obtained". While the information was obtained by hacking someone's Gmail account, it has been released to the Internet. It's now impossible to remove from circulation. Anyone can get the evidence and research it; this is a side effect of the hackers stealing it in the first place. You can compare it to a cop illegally entering your house; any evidence he finds has been illegally obtained and would not be admissible in court. But if you hire someone to fix your roof and he accidentally stumbles upon something, then it can be used in court. Apparently, someone whose house was damaged by a hurricane got caught this way. A roofer found large stacks of child porn DVDs in his house.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah, previewed and forgot to check the link. It may be obvious to most slashdotters, but the final slash after the .htm should be removed for the link to work

Re:Illegal evidence?

[pimterry]

In other news, piracy is causing huge profit losses to 'big media', more DRM for all!

Boycotting 'big media' isn't enough, it makes them assume you're still watching, just not buying. Prove there's money in it, just not for them. Support the people doing the right thing. Donate to TPB, buy EMI's DRM free downloads, buy cd's from unsigned artists in pubs and rather than not spending at all, move your spending from the people who's actions you disagree with to those who do the right thing(s).

If they see the whole industry losing money, it doesn't seem to be the fault of something they're doing. If they're losing money while lots of others get rich, they'll copy those others.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[multisync]

you are right, just older than the average NIN fan.

I don't know if GratefulNet is older than me or not. I'm old enough to know who Abbie Hoffman is, and I wouldn't classify myself as a NIN fan, but rather a music fan. GratefulNet's "steal steal steal" rant reminded me of a recent story that quoted Reznor saying much the same thing. It seemed relevant to the topic and I was making a cheap joke.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[cloricus]

I can hardly stand mainstream radio any more. A couple of years ago I switched to listening to Australian home grown music (Triple J), which lead to UK home grown, and then the rest of the world; I now enjoy real (non-big-media-formula) music and I can listen to every song on a CD and enjoy all of them. It shocks me now how many people my age (early twenties) can't say this about their favourite groups.

Most of the groups I listen to joke about their listeners downloading their songs then buying their CDs (Hilltop Hoods are doing so in the song I'm listening too now) and it works.

I guess without realising it I'm already boycotting it and still filling my huge need for fresh quality music. :)

Re:Illegal evidence?

[jc42]

The concept of corruption is not part of our system.

Hey, you wouldn't happen to have any bridges for sale, would you?

Re:Illegal evidence?

[clubhi]

I was wondering who watched that channel!

Re:Illegal evidence?

[Pig Hogger]

Anyway, to draw my rambling response to your reply to my cheap joke (thanks, btw, for taking it in the spirit it was intended) to a close, we need a Pirate party in Canada and I think the US as well.

We don't need a "pirate party" in Canada. Just make sure we keep electing minority governments (how about a minority NDP government for a change?), and they'll keep trying to change the canadian © law just to kiss more american arse.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[multisync]

Maybe we don't need a "pirate party" per se, but we need more people representing the "other side" of the copyright debate. The current Conservative government stated in their platform from the last election that they would eliminate the 'levy" on blank media (look under Section 35 Copyright Legislation). Well, that certainly has not happened, and the music industry is lobbying them hard to extend the tax to other forms of media. Add to that the efforts of industry shills from the US who would like Canada to radify WIPO and enact legislation similar to the DMCA, and I would say we are currently at a serious disadvantage.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[notthe9]

Judging from the English translation of the 1980 revision I lifted off regeringen.se, in those very lines it establishes that it is only all the conscionable evidence that can be used, and that there are specific provisions that govern as to the effect of certain types of evidence. There are references throughout Part Three as to whether certain things are permitted by law.

Can evidence obtained through beating a suspect or conducting an search willfully incompliant with Ch27 be used to convict someone of a crime?

Re:Illegal evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are six main forms of civil code law (civil as in pertaining to obligations and torts among private parties, and not criminal justice matters) in Western Europe, namely the code civil (in France); the bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) in Germany, with minor variations in Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and the more recent European Union entrants to the east of those two countries, and Turkey; the 1966 Proposed European Standard Civil Code (which is the French model with many imported ideas from BGB, and in use in PT,ES,BE,NL,LU and LT); the Scandinavian model (DK,NO,SE,EE,LV -- FI's system is almost equally influenced by the Scandinavian model and the GBG); the codice civile in Italy and the astikos kodikos in Greece.

It's fairly common to condense these six into three groups: the French family (including the 1942 Italian codice and the 1966 civil codes in use in far Western mainland Europe), the Scandinavian family (the Nordics and two of the Baltics), and the German family (everyone else).

The key common feature of the non-Scandinavian civil codes is that all disputes are in principle to be resolved only as specified in the codified rules. The courts may consider -- and even ask for -- other evidence, including rulings in similar cases by other courts (including appeals courts directly superior to them), but they are not bound by them.

The Scandinavian system is not as strongly codified as the other civil code systems in Europe, in that there is no consolidated single document which regulates all aspects of civil law. Moreover, the Scandinavian system did not import a number of elements of Roman Law preferring more traditionally Scandiavian versions of Roman concepts of natural law.

One of the critical differences among the various civil code families has to do with the disposition of tainted evidence. Generally it is not considered to be "invisible" by the courts as is the case in English law, but it is variously used to mitigate damages or to open up avenues of counter claims (which generally has the same effect). As civil code courts generally operate in an inquisitorial fashion rather than the disputing parties pleading arguments before a third party (magistrate, judge, jury) whose role is mainly to listen to and read arguments and evidence presented before rendering judgement, the manner in which the evidence was acquired is often directly questioned by the courts rather than objected to by one or the other parties.

Incidentally, English civil law (the law of contracts and the law of torts) has very different conventions and rules with respect to evidence than in the English criminal justice system. This is also true in the (U.S.) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure versus the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree and several other conventions and rules related to the Fourth Amendment applies in the former, but not the latter.

Finally, in Europe there are three other main systems of law regulating contracts, torts, property agreements, and similar civil matters: the Socialist Law system (although most states that adopted them have already mostly adopted the 1966 civil code system, as per Council of Europe obligations [the Council of Europe is NOT the European Union, incidentally]), the law of Scotland, and the English common law system (most of the UK, IE, MT, and CY).

Re:Illegal evidence?

[ozamosi]

You are free to use the evidence, but the judge is free to laugh at you and ignore the evidence.

Re:Illegal evidence?

[Hemogoblin]

Someone certainly knows a lot more than I do.

I'd like to know

[Centurix]

If the suit was lodged on talk like a pirate day...

Re:I'd like to know

[Splab]

Like legal documents weren't hard enough to read as it is, think of what it would be like in pirate talk.

Cyberterrorists.

[haeger]

Using illegal tactics to shut down a legitimate site has to be cyberterrorism, right?

Animal rights activists who hack and deface sites seems to get that label. I'd find it quite hilarious if "Big Media" would be labeled as such too. They'd be in some interesting company.

.haeger

Re:Cyberterrorists.

[rizzo420]

the difference is big media pays money to the government... the real terrorists are the people who steal intellectual property and make it available for others free of charge.

i think i either saw something put out by the **AA or one of those commercials they play before movies that basically equated people who pirate music and movies to drug lords and terrorists.

Re:Cyberterrorists.

[erroneus]

Well there are those rootkit incidents... you know, the ones one the music CDs and the games?

Re:Cyberterrorists.

[Dunbal]

the real terrorists are the people who steal intellectual property and make it available for others free of charge.

Terrorists?

      "The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning." - Terry Pratchett

Re:Cyberterrorists.

[rizzo420]

whoosh... the sound of the subtle sarcasm of my previous post flying over your head...

Re:Cyberterrorists.

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL JEWS DID WTC^H^H^HMAFIAA

?

Re:Cyberterrorists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Victims or Aggressors?

You must be one of those who must have not studied their history books or missed what happened the last century.

It is nice to be evicted from your home by a foreign power, than have your local neighborhood tribe move in when they get kicked out.

Or are you one of those who wants to go back in history and restore the original land to who happened to own it during that one decade. Guess you wanna bring back the Turkish empire, although it wouldn't be that bad since they treated those with religion with lots of respect.

Re:Cyberterrorists.

[MoonBuggy]

What, you mean like this?

Re:Cyberterrorists.

[sepluv]

No, like this (which is a real ad mentioning terrorism by the same protection racket, FACT, that the other one is parodying--I'm not sure which is worse).

Re:Cyberterrorists.

[Poromenos1]

Or this. This one is actually more on target.

Re:Cyberterrorists.

[ceoyoyo]

I doubt the Pirate Bay has ever systematically frightened people to get their way. The RIAA now....

Re:Cyberterrorists.

[Anonymous Coward]

The first time I saw one of those anti-piracy commercials, I got a bunch of blank stares when I booed. Then I just shut up and steadied my cellphone to get a better recording.

Re:Cyberterrorists.

[aliquis]

Thought they probably do have a point for piracy for profit within organisations and people paying for their pirated stuff, not that those actions are at all related to pruvate persons copying for their own sake and for free.

Re:Cyberterrorists.

[Geekbot]

It's sad. When I was a kid I read all those postmodernist cyberpunk novels where the criminal was the hero and the government and (non)respectable businesses were the bad guys. I thought that sounded pretty cool, pretty scary, and I thought it would happen one day.

I didn't really believe it would happen to this extent by the time I was 33. The government launching wide spread secret surveillance on US citizens, reading their emails, xray machines to see them naked at airports, mega-corporations that are given free reign by the FTC going on to hack citizens computers as well as competitors. And now, an evil corporations secret documents shared over computer networks allowing the underdog to fight back? William Gibson should have written this book.

Re:Heh

[Sprite_tm]

With the difference that what The Pirate Bay does, actually is legal in Sweden.

Re:Heh

[lattyware]

Well, really, it's more like someone who tells someone where you can find the guy that will sell you stuff that 'fell off' the back of his lorry, calling the cops, because someone repeatedly mugged him.

Lets see...

[Killer Instinct]

Pay us to "protect" you..from us...no payment? Then we will send Fingers, Lucky, and Guido after to to cause harm.

Re:Lets see...

[sqldr]

Then we will send Fingers, Lucky, and Guido after to to cause harm.

Jesus.. I can't think of anything more scary to opening my door to body parts, a dwarf, and a python programmer.

Re:Heh

[toetagger1]

No, its not! Drugs are illegal, music is not.
Distributing drugs is illegal, and distributing music without paying the copyright owner is illegal.

Its because of analogies like yours, that people think that ANY file sharing is illegal.

If you must use an analogy, at least use one that is correct AND appropriate to your audience, /.

"This is like the car dealer calling the cops because someone vandalized the cars on his lot"

Whether he owned all the cars on the lot or "parked" them there without the car owner's permissions, I don't care. The vandals should still be held responsible.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but stealing is also a crime, and "the ends justifies the means" is not a legal defense. Vigillente hacking and disruption of electronic systems and communications is no more legal than doing the same thing to any other target.

Progressive Nation

[Anonymous Coward]

When I read things like this, it makes me wish that I lived in Sweden.

Re:Progressive Nation

[TeknoHog]

Yeah, who cares about the hot progressive-minded blondes when you can have legal torrents!

Re:Heh

[b0b0tiken]

You mean: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070907-0513-ca-brf-cencoast-dealerrip-off.html/ ?

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the point.

Re:Heh

[meringuoid]

This is like the drug dealer calling the cops because someone stole his stash.

This is like the Amsterdam coffee-shop proprietor calling the cops because someone keeps trying to break into his premises, and stalking his customers.

Remember, The Pirate Bay is doing nothing that is illegal in Sweden.

Re:Heh

[urbanradar]

...I still don't get it. Could somebody re-phrase that as a car analogy, please?

with the difference, that the drugs is legal

[SmallFurryCreature]

So what you are basically saying, this is like a doctor calling the police because his drug cabinet was smashed.

Granted, this is also like a slave owner reporting a runaway slave to the police or the citizen who turned in Anne Frank just doing his civic responsibility (Oh hi godwin, how you doing.)

The simple fact is that the law isn't always "right". Some big media do not like swedish law, just as some hard drug users do not like swedish law, or as same slaves did not like eh slave laws etc etc. The problem is that if you then fight that law by disobeying it, you run the risk of the police coming around and talk sternly to you (or if you are black gun you down as you reach for your wallet, somethings never change).

Re:with the difference, that the drugs is legal

[MttJocy]

FYI, Someone who has a problem with the drug laws in sweeden or any other country is not necessarily a drug user or "Pro Drug", there are numerous other reasons why drug laws based on prohibition are inherently flawed laws, including the obvious fact that in a free market where there is a demand and willingness to pay high prices someone will step in to supply it, that organised crime in itself creates far more harm to society than the drugs themselves ever could, and that high prices leave addicts in a situation where they are are forced to commit crimes to afford prices inflated by up to 3000% of the costs of production, transport even seizure. That is before anyone even looks at the human rights perspective that one has the right to harm themselves as much as they like provided they do not force harm onto anyone else, one has to remember here that even suicide is legal in most places of the world (although it was outlawed in some places that since repealed that law). Anyway end of that rant, there is plenty of discussion on this topic on sites like this if anyone is interested.

On topic, It seams to me that the facts supporting the merits of a copyright law as it currently stands are quite lacking, especially the often used shout of **AA that "Infringement harms content producers"/"Infringement costs the content producers x millions of dollars a year" etc, it seams to me that these arguments are based on a logical fallacy, namely that persons who commit Infringement would have purchased the information were an Infringing copy not available, which is clearly false, sometimes people who obtain an infringing copy would simply not access the information at all were it not available.

I read an article which suggested that the optimal copyright term is 14 years, there is only one reason I can think of where copyright really would be needed and that would be for example to prevent a person call them alice who has written a manuscript for a book, they show the manuscript to bob who is a publisher, bob copies the manuscript then returns the original to alice refusing to publish the book, however bob then publishes the manuscript in his name not giving any compensation to alice. Although it seams to me that such could be dealt with through the use of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or similar instead of by copyright law.

Other than that I do not really see the need for the copyrighting of information especially music, theatre plays, movies, all three have a valid revenue stream through performance (provision of a service, ie is more than simply information). Even from software money could be made without copyright by the provision of services to users (technical support, online services etc), or by the provision of other materials (physical media, manuals, packaged sets including media/manuals and/or other items). Books obviously have the potential to earn money through sales of physical books. I have heard some argue that physical media sales without copyright could be dented by counterfeit goods, but to the best of my knowledge counterfeiting would violate other laws, trade descriptions for one (namely in this case deceiving buyers into believing the product they are buying was a product of another company).

If this does mean that the amount of money made by content producers decreases then that would simply prove that the free market disagrees with the producers assessment of value, and if that is the case then the law should definitely not be used to artificially inflate the market price of goods, if it were used to this end then it would be no different that price-fixing which is illegal under the anti-trust laws of most every country.

Re:with the difference, that the drugs is legal

[ceoyoyo]

There's a difference between disobeying a law you don't like and attacking those who ARE obeying it. (hello Ghandi).

TPB is suing their RIAA equivalent for attacking their servers, which are engaged in a legal activity. If you run around trying to kill narcotics squad cops you deserve to be locked up regardless of whether pot should be legal or not.

This will be...

[*ThE jEsTeR oF dArKn]

Tthe single shot heard around the world and the Internet to start the revolution... Alright boys, load the cannons and OPEN FIRE!!!!! *Dr Evil laugh here*

Re:This will be...

[kaos07]

I'd say more of a *Snide Lenin grin*.

Re:This will be...

[nowhere.elysium]

Unfortunately, though, it probably won't be. Your average Joe doesn't get the whole problem with the MPAA and RIAA, and will probably continue to not care.
The only people who are likely to care, and actually be able to do anything about it will probably kick off another Operation Sundevil (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sundevil for details). Hackers of any description will be labelled as cyberterrorists, and places like Slashdot are going to be treated like 4chan was in that retarded news report we all saw recently.

Remember, they're in it for the Lulz.

Re:Heh

[mmcuh]

No, its not! Drugs are illegal, music is not. Distributing drugs is illegal, and distributing music without paying the copyright owner is illegal. Its because of analogies like yours, that people think that ANY file sharing is illegal.

Also, the Pirate Bay team isn't doing any file sharing. Or, well, they probably are, in private. But The Pirate Bay is just an indexing service, like Google or Yahoo - they are not distributing any material that would infringe on anyone's copyright, and what they are doing is with a very high probability legal under current Swedish law.

The prosecutor who is in charge of the investigation associated with the raid against The Pirate Bay in June 2006, when all their servers were confiscated (and the site was up and running again in 3 days), has been looking over the material for almost 16 months now, and has asked the court for time extensions (and received them) twice - apparently he is having trouble finding proof of any illegal activities despite the fact that all the hundreds of thousands of torrents on the site are visible to everyone. His most recent extension expires on next monday, October 1st, at which point he has to press charges, drop the case, or request another extension - guess what he will do?

Re:Heh

[Darundal]

Lorry is british for big rig, or anything close size wise, I believe (thank you Top Gear).

Makes me laugh

[Futurepower(R)]

The existence of Pirate Bay raises some serious issues. I don't know the answers.

But the situation makes me laugh.

Re:Makes me laugh

[Attaturk]

The existence of Pirate Bay raises some serious issues. I don't know the answers.

But the situation makes me laugh.

Wow thanks for that insightful comment. Without knowing your opinion - or lack of one - I don't know how any of us could have dealt with this news in a rational way. You've brought light were there was only darkness. :P

Re:Makes me laugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow thanks for that insightful comment. Without knowing your opinion - or lack of one - I don't know how any of us could have dealt with this news in a rational way. You've brought light were there was only darkness. :P

for(;;) { this.reply("
  Wow, thanks for that illuminating emoticon. Without knowing
  the intended tone of your reply, or lack thereof, I don't
  know how any of us could have dealt with this somewhat
  useless reply in an informed manner. You've added nothing
  meaningful to this discussion either. ;)
"); }

Re:Makes me laugh

[Nullav]

You've added nothing meaningful to this discussion either.

Me, too. :-)

Re:Makes me laugh

[Eunuchswear]

AOL.

Re:Makes me laugh

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to contribute to this non-contribution as well.

Re:Makes me laugh

[zrq]

I second that, the situation is indeed amusing.

However, I agree that Pirate Bay itself does raise issues that we collectively we have yet to come to terms with. A lot of us seem to want copyright law to only apply when we want it to, and not apply to us when we don't want it to.

The open source software community relies on copyright law to control how the contributions are used, and to prevent commercial entities from (ab)using the contributions without regard to the (copyright) owners wishes. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/20/2229252/

Re:Makes me laugh

[Boronx]

My lord, you are like a stream of bat's piss...

Oscar Wilde Sketch

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

So you believe everyone in the world should just mindlessly follow your personal version of what is right and wrong just for you to be happy, don't you? Sentencing people to death is not right and yet the US of A keeps on killing their own citizens. Why should you keep on killing people while we, just because of your own sense of what is right and wrong, should stop downloading stuff?

Re:Heh

[kamapuaa]

Its because of analogies like yours, that people think that ANY file sharing is illegal.

The site is entirely priacy oriented. Even the top 16 search results for the term Linux are pirated filed, mostly scanned Linux books and Linux warez. The site is a bad egg that is up to no good in the hood!

I have never heard anybody say all file sharing is illegal, so I don't think there's some clear and present danger that should cause Slashdot readers to self-censor their words.

Re:Heh

[mmcuh]

No it isn't. Prostitution is legal in some areas, but the legal age of consent is 18 years.

Re:Heh

[Dachannien]

It's more like suing the guy who keeps breaking into your house and destroying all your hydroponic gardening equipment.

what revolution?

[Anonymous Coward]

What revolution will that be then? an anarchist or communist one? where all the media companies go out of business, and all music, software, TV and movies become free for everyone? Also known as the day that mass culture died, to be replaced by endless crappy youtube videos of cats falling off chairs, because that is what you get when you demand that media is produced for free.

Like it or not, even the media that slashdot geeks love (star wars, heroes, firefly, star trek, matrix) is produced by big companies that take a big risk in producing content that will sell. Many companies lose a fortune trying to do this. Not every TV series is a hit, many movies lose money, software companies fold all the time, and most new acts promoted by record companies lose money.

Yet there are people who campaign to actively do away with the whole system and replace it with 'free media' which is basically youtube.
I prefer things the way they are. Its a pain not being able to copy a DVD to my laptop to watch in bed, but I can deal with that. If thats the price of making sure the whole software and entertainment industry sticks around, I'm all for it.
And while we are on the topic, lets not kid ourselves that the owners of the pirate bay give a fuck about freedom, music, DRM or music. Those guys host a site that makes millions in ad revenue off providing a search engine to steal other peoples hard work. ALl those guys give a fuck about is money, its just sad to see so many people fall for their pseudo-political justifications.

Re:what revolution?

[Dunbal]

Like it or not, even the media that slashdot geeks love (star wars, heroes, firefly, star trek, matrix) is produced by big companies that take a big risk in producing content that will sell.

      Cry me a river. Despite the fact that Episode III was available one the internet BEFORE being available in cinemas, it still made 50 million dollars on its FIRST DAY. Your statements are incorrect. Please provide concrete FACTUAL examples of piracy ruining a specific media release or putting a media company out of business.

      In fact, I can provide the opposite. Back in the early 80's absolutely EVERYONE copied DOS, and absolutely EVERYONE had a "free" copy of "Flight Simulator". Yet still this company called Microsoft managed to grow into one of the biggest companies in the world. How about Windows and Office - almost the entire 3rd world is running pirated copies of these programs, and yet Microsoft isn't out of business. How about Id Software, which was founded with DOOM, a piece of shareware?

      Media companies can STILL make money. They are under the impression that they can make MORE by eliminating copyright infringement, and this is simply not true.

Re:what revolution?

[TheGratefulNet]

false argument about 'media companies going out of business' and stopping production of films.

nature hates a vacuum. once some 'in it for the money' studio exits, another will pop up to take its place. maybe even a lower cost OUTSOURCED studio. hmmmm.

its not only engineers that lose their high paying jobs to overseas workers. I hope, if there's a god, that the movie studios get their share of pain in return for all the harm they've done to their own industry and mostly their customers!

I would lose no sleep if the crappy movie studios went out of business. we kno that will never happen (sadly).

its laughable that the content industry is trying to scare us "just WHAT would you spend your time on, if we didn't provide you the suitable life-distraction we call 'entertainment'?"

they seem to think we'll all fall into some mad-mad situation, with society crumbling. this won't happen and any movie studios that fail deserve to fail. but they certainly won't take society down with them. its JUST MOVIES, folks. its not a life support system!

once the 'in it for pure profit' guys all exit the market, we can renew the market with quality folks who are in it for the art! (remember when that was the case?)

Re:what revolution?

[gordo3000]

once the 'in it for pure profit' guys all exit the market, we can renew the market with quality folks who are in it for the art! (remember when that was the case?)

no, don't remember at all.... when was that? what fictitious history books have you been reading?

Re:what revolution?

[Nullav]

here all the media companies go out of business, and all music, software, TV and movies become free for everyone? Also known as the day that mass culture died

That's not culture, that's manufacture.

Murdering a drug dealer is still murder

[Overzeetop]

Is that not true?

Whether the drugs happen to be legal (caffeine, alcohol, pot, hash, pseudoephedrine...) or not is irrelevant. A crime committed against an unpopular person/group is still a crime.

Re:Murdering a drug dealer is still murder

[Abcd1234]

Sorry, not in this brave new world. For example, all I need to do is label you a terrorist, and it's suddenly okay to torture you and imprison you without trial. But it's okay, because you're an evil, dirty terrorist.

Similarly, if I were to place you in jail for, say, smoking pot, it would be perfectly okay for your fellow inmates to anally rape you, and it would also be a-okay for me to joke about it, because you're an evil drug dealer.

I'm sure I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

legality

[arikol]

As has already been shown, Piratebay is a legal service (in Sweden) hosting no copyrighted material. Swedish law does not condemn faciltating copyright infringement.
Swedish law does however not really like sabotage, vandalism, unautorized access and other sauch malarkey.

That said, I didn't see that one coming, laughed out loud.
It's about bloody time that someone took big media and smacked them a little for all these strongarm tactics.
Hopefully the media coverage on this will highlight some of the issues, like HOW the media companies think business should be run. If small businesses tried this they would immediately be taken down (in almost any country) for much more serious crimes than copyright infringement.

And please try not to call it "pirating". That's a term coined by the mpaa (if I remember correctly) to try to make it sound really bad. If we, the geeks, are careful to call it what it is, copyright infringement or illegal copying, we can perhaps change public perception of the issues a little.
The ONLY thing that bugs me about thepiratebay is the name. Yes it IS cool but also makes us all look a bit like rebelling teenagers, even those of us who have thought deeply about copyright issues and realised that the system needs fixing to work in the modern world.

Re:legality

[TehZorroness]

We _are_ rebels. Rebellion is what brought the US it's freedom about 230 years ago (an many other countries aswell). It is time for a rebellion against draconian copyright law.

Whenever I hear the words pirate or piracy, I don't think of serious crime. I break out laughing. A theater near where I live has a sign that goes along the lines of "Warning: Pirates will be prosecuted." It has a picture of a pirate - complete with eye patch - with the circle and slash over it. I think that comparing moral otherwise-law-abiding civilians to barbarian sailors who endlessly raped and pillaged innocent villages shows the RIAA and MPAA for who they really are.

Re:legality

[DeadChobi]

It is your civic duty to get 100 of your closest personal friends together, dress up like pirates complete with eye patches, and each buy a ticket into the same movie. When you get into the theatre, start yelling "Arr!" and "Shiver me timbers!" and other such things. If they try to throw you out on the grounds that you're a pirate, start with the following questionnaire:

1.) Do we currently possess any stolen property? This may include such things as large chests, sacks full of coins, sacks full of other property, or anything not included on this list but that may reasonably be construed as the personal property of another person not lawfully acquired.

2.) Have we attempted to acquire any property that you may reasonably believe to be that of the theatre's? This may include money from the tills, employees, food, tickets, and hard copies of movies.

3.) Are there any ocean piers about which we may potentially raid after the successful conclusion of the movie?

4.) If so, do you see any ships flying a "Jolly Roger" flag of some sort with large square sails and many cannon and other weapons of war sticking out of them?

5.) Are we in a landlocked city? To clarify, is it even possible for us to raid from a ship? Note that this eliminates any possibility of us pirating.

If they continue to pursue you as pirates, start shouting about discrimination against seamen and how outrageous it is that they could suspect you of theft while on land. Continually claim that you are "water-only" pirates and that the land lubbers with video cameras are not true pirates and do not have sea legs. This part is why it's important to have a large number of co-conspirators.

And remember, you can't spell conspiracy without pirates.

Re:legality

[mmcuh]

And please try not to call it "pirating". That's a term coined by the mpaa (if I remember correctly) to try to make it sound really bad. If we, the geeks, are careful to call it what it is, copyright infringement or illegal copying, we can perhaps change public perception of the issues a little. The ONLY thing that bugs me about thepiratebay is the name. Yes it IS cool but also makes us all look a bit like rebelling teenagers, even those of us who have thought deeply about copyright issues and realised that the system needs fixing to work in the modern world.

It has worked reasonably well in Sweden, where the think-tank The Pirate Bureau formed shortly after the copyright industry had created the Anti-Pirate Bureau, an organisation consisting mostly of lawyers and paid P2P network infiltrators that tries to track down people distributing copyrighted material. The Pirate Bureau became rather well-known and popular, and was often invited to TV debates on copyright law, and interviewed and asked for comments when newspapers published articles about the subject - and were so successful that the copyright lobbyists adopted a policy a few years ago to refuse debates where representatives from the Pirate Bureau were participating. And then there's the Pirate Party, which didn't get enough votes to take seats in the parliament this time but was treated as a serious candidate by most of the media, despite its name.

When someone is calling you names, it's usually a lot more effective to embrace it than to try and distance yourself from it.

Re:legality

[FellowConspirator]

Strictly speaking it's not illegal copying or copyright infringement until a determination is made in he court that the activity is infringing. Prior to that, it is alleged copyright infringement or unauthorized copying (which is not necessarily illegal or infringing in its own right, at least in the USA).

Re:legality

[gordo3000]

piracy is generally an activity committed on the high seas. I think you are remembering stories of the vikings which did rape and pillages in villages. Pirates generally commandeer ships and steel your shit(and hten most likely kill you).

Re:legality

[Chandon Seldon]

And please try not to call it "pirating". That's a term coined by the mpaa (if I remember correctly) to try to make it sound really bad. If we, the geeks, are careful to call it what it is, copyright infringement or illegal copying, we can perhaps change public perception of the issues a little.

It's a little bit too late for that at this point. Even the pirates are calling themselves pirates now (i.e. thepiratebay.org). The tactic that's needed now is de-stigmatizing the word.

That shouldn't be that hard. Think about what the pirates are doing: Distributing Movies, Music, etc to everyone at no charge in spite of legal risks and mostly for no personal gain other than scene rep. How could people like that *possibly* be the bad guys?

(Yea, I know thepiratebay makes money off banner ads. For their legal indexing activity. That's 100% acceptable IMO.)

Re:legality

[Anonymous Coward]

And please try not to call it "pirating". That's a term coined by the mpaa...

This is only hearsay, but I thought the term came from pirate radio stations around the UK in the 50's and 60's. Music would be broadcast from offshore radio towers, thus avoiding licensing fees both to the British government and to the owners of the copyrights on the songs. Since they were being broadcast from the high seas, the moniker 'pirate' was applied.

Re:legality

[Nick_taken]

Good luck getting into 3rd question without getting tased

Re:legality

[paulatz]

No, it was not uncommon for pirate ships to raid small villages on the coast. A pirate is a generic criminal who moves with a boat!

Re:legality

[jgrahn]

And please try not to call it "pirating". That's a term coined by the mpaa (if I remember correctly) to try to make it sound really bad.

You don't -- the term has been in use for non-pirate things for more than 100 years. (It even has positive connotations, much like "rebel" or "Robin Hood".)

Re:legality

[cpt kangarooski]

Over 400 years, actually, which is about 100 years longer than copyright has been around.

Re:legality

[diebels]

It's privating. And it's legal in Norway as well as Sweden. Sharing copyrighted and Digital Restricted Management content with friends, family, Linux, libdvdcss2 and ipod is all legal in a sane part of the world.

Re:legality

[Ajehals]

Piracy is not steel-ing!!

Pirates generally commandeer ships and steel your shit(and hten most likely kill you)

Arr etc..

Re:legality

[Kingrames]

"And please try not to call it "pirating". That's a term coined by the..."

blah blah blah.

in other news, Webster's Dictionary is INSISTING that people stop using the word "gay" to mean homosexual. This is clearly incorrect usage and must be stopped. "Gay" is a term that means happy, sometimes to excess, not a term that means homosexual.

Re:legality

[rastoboy29]

I think your right about being careful about the terminology we use.  After all, in my software company, we are careful to correct each other's terminology all the time--it is understood by all that careful, clear communication is a necessity in a business like ours.

Unfortunately, I had to laugh at your statement, "Hopefully the media coverage on this will highlight some of the issues, like HOW the media companies think...".  In other words, "I hope they cover themselves in a bad light over this.".

Sadly, it is this contradiction that has allowed this situation to linger on so very, very much longer than it should have, in my opinion.

Re:legality

[rastoboy29]

<i>When someone is calling you names, it's usually a lot more effective to embrace it than to try and distance yourself from it.</i><br><pb>
And what, exactly, are you basing this on?  I've never seen it done worth a damn.

Re:legality

[TheoMurpse]

And please try not to call it "pirating". That's a term coined by the mpaa (if I remember correctly) to try to make it sound really bad.

You really, really don't remember correctly. Alfred Lord Tennyson called it piracy in 1879. I am studying copyright law right now, and I read a US appeals case from the 1930s using the term "piracy" for copyright infringement. And they didn't bother to define it as such, which means that it had already been in use in the legal realm. Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1936):

But though a copyright is for this reason less vulnerable than a patent, the owner's protection is more limited, for just as he is no less an "author" because others have preceded him, so another who follows him, is not a tort-feasor unless he pirates his work. *** If the copyrighted work is therefore original, the public demesne [edit: this is how "domain" was spelled then] is important only on the issue of infringement; that is, so far as it may break the force of the inference to be drawn from likenesses between the work and the putative piracy. (citations omitted)

That was Learned Hand writing, who is one of the mack daddies of law in the US, not some two-bit idiot judge.

The RIAA was founded in 1952.

Thus, there is no way the RIAA is responsible for the assignation.

Re:legality

[Pig Hogger]

And please try not to call it "pirating". That's a term coined by the mpaa (if I remember correctly) to try to make it sound really bad.

Au contraire, mon cher.

Let's keep calling it "piracy". Eventually the meaning will be so diluted that when the *IAA says it, it has no meaningful meaning whatsoever.

Think of it of how the original meaning of "hacker" eventually got distorted by the media to mean "cracker".

Re:legality

[presidentbeef]

You, sir or madam, have just made my day. That is hilarious.

Re:legality

[Per Abrahamsen]

> And what, exactly, are you basing this on? I've never seen it done worth a damn.

Worked well for us nerds. We get so much more respect since we stopped telling others to call us "socially inept people with great technical skills."

Re:legality

[revengebomber]

When someone is calling you names, it's usually a lot more effective to embrace it than to try and distance yourself from it. Bingo. See also: Yankee.

Heh-heh

[eknagy]

Yes, like an owner of a Cofee Shop in the NetherLands calling the police that some guys broke their Windows (the physical ones).

Re:Heh-heh

[BrentH]

Here, I have a copy of untangible Windows for you. Only $9.99.

Re:Heh

[Sique]

It's quite strange to claim that a site is illegal, if 16 month of trying to find something illegal didn't yield anything yet.
It's more like the local newspaper, that tells you about a flea market and gives directions how to get there. They also don't do anything illegal, even though someone on the flea market might sell stolen stuff.

Illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK it's not illegal anywhere. If what TPB is doing, indexing links and allowing people to add comments, wouldn't that make Google, or even Wikipedia, illegal?

How would you like it if the whole legal force of the planet decided "Displaying a link is illegal" and "Commenting on linked material is illegal"?

Rings no bells? How about me spelling it out - what if Google is deemed illegal due to indexing, and Slashdot is deemed illegal due to allowing comments. Now imagine a world without Google, and without /. or ANY site you could add your comment to.

Gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling, doesn't it.

Re:Illegal?

[genooma]

oh, my, god. That could be pushed into actually doing something productive with my life. Perish the thought!

:-) (smiley for good measure)

Re:Illegal?

[genooma]

Like improving my grammar.

Now, it would have been PERFECT...

[efence]

...if it would happen in Soviet Russia.

Re:Now, it would have been PERFECT...

[Anonymous Coward]

First rule of Slashdot is not drinking while reading Slashdot.

Re:Now, it would have been PERFECT...

[geminidomino]

I thought the first rule of slashdot was that you don't talk...

Aww, fuck it. Nevermind... that damn meme needs to die.

Re:Heh

[happyhangone]

Well, this is more like the drug dealer calling the cops because someone stole his stash, and all this happening on the netherlands where it's legal to have a stash.

Re:Heh

[TapeCutter]

"No, its not! Drugs are illegal, music is not."

I thought music was a drug?

Re:Heh

[Dunbal]

Maybe, but stealing is also a crime,

      As far as I know, media companies still have their movies, music, softwares, etc. What do you mean, "stealing"?

      Hey, if you hear a song on the radio and then remember it the next day, remember you are "stealing"!

Re:Heh

[Dunbal]

Distributing drugs is illegal

      Oh goodness me, what am I going to do with all that morphine, fentanyl, diazepam, and ketamine I have under lock and key at my clinic?

      Distributing drugs is not ALWAYS illegal.

Re:Heh

[ultranova]

This is like the drug dealer calling the cops because someone stole his stash.

No, it's like someone who has told someone else that a third party has a certain file calling the cops and telling he has had his home vandalized by Mafia thugs and corrupted cops and government officials working for foreign financial interests.

It's not the Pirate Bay which is criminal, likely treasonous and has connections to organized crime (not to mention has emulated their business model) here.

Permalink

[Anonymous Coward]

http://thepiratebay.org/blog/86

The link given by slashdot works today but will not after new stories fill the blog. In the future please make some effort at link permanency, I won't always be here to save the day.

Re:Heh

[Dunbal]

Yeah, so is fucking twelve year old kids in Thailand.

      Umm it's not legal, it's just not enforced. However you are still breaking the law if you do this.

Berne Convention

[Anonymous Coward]

BS. It's not legal under international law, specifically the Berne Convention. And Sweden is a signatory.

Re:Berne Convention

[imsabbel]

Where does the berne convention say _anything_ about trackers where people can register to share whether they have a file with a cetain sha1 hash?

Please mind that if they were offering _downloads_, then there wouldnt be an argument.
But they dont.

Re:Berne Convention

[jhol13]

It can be argued that they are helping in committing a crime. This could itself be (a lesser) crime - at least in Finland.

Re:Berne Convention

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be argued that they are helping in committing a crime. This could itself be (a lesser) crime...

Which, by definition, makes them criminals. We've already been through this crap and it's settled. See napster.

Re:Berne Convention

[Brian Gordon]

Apparently not in sweden.

Re:Berne Convention

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a crime in Sweden -- it's not even a crime in the U.S., it's a tort. They can't take you to criminal court for copying that floppy, they have to sue you in civil court. Same goes for Sweden.

Re:Berne Convention

[kwandar]

BS. It's not legal under international law, specifically the Berne Convention. And Sweden is a signatory.

Ohh really?! Even leaving aside the fact that the Pirate Bay only hosts trackers, perhaps you can explain why the Canadians pay a fee on blank media, for copying of music? Let me assure you that downloading music (and even uploading if it is not distribution), are completely and utterly legal in Canada. Perhaps you'd like to check how that is possible when Canada is a signatory to the Berne convention.

Re:Berne Convention

[Nossie]

considering all a torrent file contains is links....

you could also suggest if this were really illegal then Google is allowing child porn, torture, rape.. and breaking every law out there.

Re:Berne Convention

[Nossie]

whats good for the goose is good for the gander, and Since the TPB has done nothing illegal in their country.... Media defender under the request of all the movie studios have in fact been hacking DDOSing and exploiting TPB.

I dont understand where the issue here is:

TPB has, like google... done nothing wrong legally
OTOH The MAFIAA obviously has...

clear cut case, question really is who should pay what damages -- The media conglomerates should be used to buck passing, they cant even pay their own artists fairly.

Re:Berne Convention

[bentcd]

BS. It's not legal under international law, specifically the Berne Convention. And Sweden is a signatory. Ohh really?! Even leaving aside the fact that the Pirate Bay only hosts trackers, perhaps you can explain why the Canadians pay a fee on blank media, for copying of music? Let me assure you that downloading music (and even uploading if it is not distribution), are completely and utterly legal in Canada. Perhaps you'd like to check how that is possible when Canada is a signatory to the Berne convention. I think there exists a group of people who suffer from the delusion that the Berne convention is identical with US copyright law. Incidentally, many of these people appear to work for media companies.

Re:Heh

[DMiax]

Imagine you buy a car, then Pirate Bay sues Big Media for harassing their site systematically with the help of mercenary hackers.

Phew, it was easy...

Much more clear now, don't you think so?

Re:Heh

[mapinguari]

I thought music was a drug?

Roxy Music says "Love is the Drug"

Re:Heh

[Dunbal]

either you are giving animal medicine to people, or people medicine to animals.. either way, you should lose whatever license you have.

      No, I am giving people medicine to people. Duh. However I think I am going to have to re-check my stock because someone might be high.

Re:Heh

[Orange Crush]

The site is a bad egg that is up to no good in the hood!

Copyrights are protected by law. Trackers and checksums pointing to outside sources of copyrighted material are not illegal in Sweden. Yes, they encourage copyright violations. This may be "bad" in the moral sense (depending on your morals, I tend to side more with Trent Reznor myself).

Now, hacking a legitimate (in the legal sense) website is very much illegal and I certainly feel it's immoral. If my next door neighbor put a giant arrow in his yard pointing to my house proclaiming "STEAL FROM THIS GUY!" I'm still not allowed to go burn his house down.

Re:Heh

[LuSiDe]

Google deletes links when forced to by law. The Pirate Bay did so to in the past (regarding child pornography). Why would The Pirate Bay not do this regarding material other than child pornography? Hey, I may be the Devil's Advocate, but soon you'll see prosecutors argue this because this is why things happened as they did...

Leeching of other companies resources...

[Anonymous Coward]

Using illegal tactics to shut down a legitimate site has to be cyberterrorism, right?

It's not only illegal, but they also display very immoral business practices. Reading the leaked emails it surprised me to see internal emails that proudly declared that mediaprotector were employing tactics to successfully use and leech off mediasentry's resources, so they wouldn't have to use their own. They are also using unregistered shareware to generate statistical graphs. You can also read very negative comments from management about employees and ex-employees in the leeched emails. I think there might be a lawsuit or two in there...

It is rather hilarious.

Re:Heh

[Jonny_eh]

It's simpler than that.

In the UK: Lorry == Truck

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

What's 'wrong' with the death penalty? It certainly sounds a lot better than sitting in a cell for 40-60 years and making people waste millions of dollars on you during that period. I'm all for the death penalty, I also think that anyone given life in prison should be able to *ahem* 'opt out' for sake of money and mind.
How is poisoning someone different from making them miserable for decades?

These hackers using the profit to fund terrorism

[viking80]

And as we all know, all revenue generated by this criminal activity by big records and movie labels is used to fund terrorism.

This is all well and good...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and absolutely hilarious, but how far can we expect this to go? I'd imagine the legal budget of TPB is somewhat less than that of "big media".

Re:This is all well and good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why the might try this in criminal court instead where you don't have to pay for a lawyer.

Re:Heh

[robbiethefett]

seriously dude, ketamine has been replaced by numerous less-harmful drugs for literally all of it's applications. it's used primarily on animals now because no one really cares about the harmful after effects for animals, and it's cheaper than other forms of anesthesia. for humans, it's been considered pretty damaging, and is really only used in severe cases where other bronchiodialators can't be used, and i cant really think of an example where steroids would be more damaging than ketamine.

Big ones

[adona1]

Whether you're pro or anti-piracy, you have to admit...those TPB boys have balls :)

Saying that, a bit of poking around indicates the US has an extradition treaty with Sweden. Hopefully their government will have balls as well when the IP merchants finally bribe the government to take the kid gloves off...

Re:Big ones

[Tom]

Hopefully their government will have balls as well when the IP merchants finally bribe the government to take the kid gloves off... Government officials' first priority is to get re-elected (so they can continue stealing, if you're the cynical kind), and the last attempt to turn the swedish government into a part of the US police force turned very badly against them. I never heard anything about the criminal charges that were brought against the then minister of the interior, but the shit-storm hit fast and hard and very publicly - the #1 thing politicians try to avoid.

I doubt they'll be making that mistake again.

They'll probably bully the ISP next time.

Re:Big ones

[Cairnarvon]

Extradition treaties don't allow the US government to apply US laws to Swedish nationals acting completely in accordance with Swedish law on Swedish soil, regardless of what some people may think.

Re:Big ones

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe he was thinking the other way around. The decision makers in the US, extradited to sweden.

Although I wouldn't get my hopes up.

Re:Big ones

[EvilIdler]

How does an extradition treaty apply in this case? Does it go both ways?

Re:Big ones

[pokerdad]

the US has an extradition treaty with Sweden.

Not as meaningful as you imply; its quite common for countries to not extradite their own citizens when the crime and/or punishment is quite different from what they would experience for committing the same action at home. (regardless of extradition treaties)

As a matter of example, Canada often will not extradite to the U.S. if the death penalty is a possibility.

Re:Big ones

[ceoyoyo]

Great big iron balls. Twenty-four pounders at least. I hear those can penetrate an oak hull at half a mile.

Re:Big ones

[Ernesto Alvarez]

I doubt they'll be making that mistake again.

They'll probably bully the ISP next time.

They'll bully prq.se, the ISP owned by the TPB crew, you say?

Something tells me it's already been done, without much success.

Re:Big ones

[SeaFox]

Not as meaningful as you imply; its quite common for countries to not extradite their own citizens when the crime and/or punishment is quite different from what they would experience for committing the same action at home.

So the punishment in the U.S. for cyber-terrorism is different than it is in Sweden?
Unless what you really mean is the U.S. wont extradite, because they would let the suits off completely for breaking the law.

Remember, this would be the Pirate Bay seeking extradition of U.S. citizens for computer crimes. What the Pirate Bay does with their website is not the issue. Even if the Pirate Bay were based in the U.S. and their website were illegal, it doesn't give the studios/record companies license to hire their own posse to carry out "justice". They would have to file lawsuits/seek DMCA charges, ect with the appropriate authorities for the Pirate Bay's actions.

This is the [MP/RI]AA having actions taken that would warrant the FBI getting involved if it were common hackers, there's no way around that.

Re:Big ones

[jc42]

Extradition treaties don't allow the US government to apply US laws to Swedish nationals acting completely in accordance with Swedish law on Swedish soil

The current US administration uses the term "irrelevant" for such things. What they do is send someone in to kidnap you, and fly you off to some hidden part of the world where they work you over for a few years. Then, when they tire of you, they fly you to some other part of the world, kick you out of the plane, and leave you to find your own way home.

Y'all know what cases I'm talking about, right?

There's no reason to expect the Bush administration to honor Swedish law any more than they honored, say, German law.

Re:Big ones

[UberDude]

'some people' evidently doesn't include the UK government, who happily extradited three British citizens to the US in 2006. As the wiki entry says, "the alleged crime was allegedly committed by British citizens living in Britain against a British company based in London". And they were extradited under anti-terrorist legislation. Personally I want people to look at the US as a beacon of liberty, law and democracy, but it has to actually become one before it can expect people to treat it like one.

Re:Big ones

[Tom]

Unless you're tier 1, there is always one or more upstream providers to bully.

Re:Big ones

[asuffield]

Extradition treaties don't allow the US government to apply US laws to Swedish nationals acting completely in accordance with Swedish law on Swedish soil, regardless of what some people may think.

Right. Their heavy-handed disdain for such matters is what allows them to apply US laws to foreign nationals acting completely in accordance with their own laws on their own soil. Extradition treaties don't have anything to do with it.

Don't forget, that's exactly what happened to Sklyarov.

Re:Big ones

[runderwo]

Marc Emery is facing life in prison in the US for operating a cannabis seeds business in Canada, where such business is legal.

Re:Big ones

[CopaceticOpus]

That is just insane. Budweiser's products are causing more accidents than cannabis. McDonald's products are causing more health troubles. And yet this guy can get his whole life taken away from him, for breaking US laws when he doesn't even live in the country? I don't care much about cannabis, but stupid and arbitrary laws are extremely frustrating. I'd like to beat our legislators with a big old common sense stick.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like a guy's rented car being slowed down by a speed limiter even though the guy is driving within the speed limit.

No wait, that would be DRM.

Okay how about this:

Imagine there's a public road with lots of houses on both sides. And there's the starbucks coffee shop. The big corporation is selling coffee to the residents every morning, who badly need it. Now some residents need to drive far to get to the coffee shop and in the wrong direction (opposite of work). A guy figures out the formula for his favorite starbucks coffee and decides to open his own specialized little coffee shop at home. Because he has a little house, he can't sell the coffee to many people at once and being low budget has no money to advertise, but some close neighbors who like the same type of coffee are spared the tedious trip to starbucks for getting their fix. Soon many more such coffee shops open, but it's still all garage type, low profile and very few people know where to get their favorite coffee besides starbucks.

Then a smart guy buys a big truck and fills it with lists of the small coffee shops. He drives up and down the road and people who ask are given a list of all the shops that sell their favorite type of coffee so they can pick the nearest to buy the coffee there.

Now less and less people go to starbucks and starbucks likes it not. So they decide to make sure no more formulas are stolen from them. They put up rules for how, where and if you can drink the coffee you bought from them and on your way out you get a retinal scan.

Also starbucks now hires gangsters to force the advertising truck from the road, shoot the driver, flat the tires, jam the road etc...

Today there are many drivers advertising the little coffee shops and secret letter correspondence between starbucks and the gangsters has leaked to the public recently. A pissed off driver who has been a victim of gangster harassment has now called the police and the special execution forces of the justice department.

Making the same coffee as starbucks is illegal, advertising fowhere to buy it is not.

To be continued...

Re:Heh

[X0563511]

Pirating music isn't stealing. It is copyright violation. While you may think they are one and the same... they are not. If they were we would not need copyright legislation as we all have plenty of legislation against theft.

theft - noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
2. an instance of this.
3. Archaic. something stolen.

Re:Heh

[pimpimpim]

Ah, I was wondering what happened to that! Did they already get the servers back? Also, how many times can he ask for / get an extension? Isn't continuously extending such a case a misuse of the law?

Re:Heh

[MikeBabcock]

More importantly, did the GP really equate the evil of his statement with that of software / music / movie piracy?

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because the other content in itself isn't illegal.

Re:Heh

[badspyro]

What if the verdict was wrong? what then? You have just taken away something that can never be given back. A human life. It is more valuable than gold or anything known to man, as nothing can buy you another one.

Re:Heh

[netcrusher88]

much the same as bayimg, i imagine - not so much that the child porn is illegal, as that it offends the admins

just my 2c

Re:Heh

[Seumas]

No, this is nothing like the drug dealer calling the cops because someone stole his stash. This is like a law abiding citizen doing something that another citizen does not like and the citizen who does not like it taking illegal actions to stop the law abiding citizen.

Re:Heh

[mikkelm]

Where exactly do you have that definition from? My dictionaries simply define it as the act of dishonestly taking something that does not belong to you, and keeping it. Nothing about "carrying away". It's not like you can't steal an item without moving away from the scene of the crime.

Re:Heh

[Seumas]

What does piracy have to do with file sharing?

Piracy is when I male ten thousand copies of a movie on DVD and sell it on the street for a couple bucks.

File sharing is when I make a copy of a cassette tape for a buddy.

Yarrr...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yarrr...there be squatters in the hull, ready the plank, we've got fish to feed.

Re:Heh

[weirdcrashingnoises]

guess what he will do?

While I'm not entirely sure, I doubt it will be "3) Profit!"

True Comparison

[RaigetheFury]

The acts that Media Defender and RIAA have been committing are equal to how the FBI operated for a time. You cannot use illegal tactics to capture people doing illegal things. While I do think it's justified in some situations it's NEVER justified for a non governmental group to do so.

And when it IS a governmental group there are lots of checks and balances to prevent misuse.

Luckily this happened to a group in sweden (Piratebay.org) where there are no laws against how evidence was obtained. In the US they could have it strickened from the record. Grab your ankles and kiss your ass goodbye in Sweden at least.

In the US, if the evidence was acceptable it would be CRIMINAL charges, meaning jail time for the people involved.

Re:True Comparison

[DragonTHC]

you're starting to use your big boy words!

congratulations.

And when it IS a governmental group there are lots of checks and balances to prevent misuse. maybe 8 years ago, not now!

In the US they could have it strickened from the record. is `strickened` a word in English? the word is struck.

Re:True Comparison

[StryfeX]

And when it IS a governmental group there are lots of checks and balances to prevent misuse.

But it can (and will be) subverted from within, given enough motivation (i.e. MONEY). To site a perfect example, look at the current clusterfuck that is the NSA/AT&T/White House illegal wiretapping. The only checks and balances there were whistleblowers.

Though are you right that that is the way it should work.

--StryfeX

Re:True Comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot use illegal tactics to capture people doing illegal things.

You cannot use illegal tactics to capture people doing legal things, either. You do realise TBP is perfectly legal, don't you?

Re:True Comparison

[Sockninja]

it's stricken

Re:True Comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

Stricken from the record
Struck down in court

Both proper english, please try again

Re:True Comparison

[hson]

The acts that Media Defender and RIAA have been committing are equal to how the FBI operated for a time. You cannot use illegal tactics to capture people doing illegal things. While I do think it's justified in some situations it's NEVER justified for a non governmental group to do so.

IMHO it's never OK for the government to break their own laws. Then all they are is a dictatorship trying to stay in power.

Re:True Comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

If you'd read the actual post (and if the OP had too) you'll see they've not filed suit, they have filed criminal complaints with the SWedish Police. http://torrentfreak.com/piratebay-fires-a-broadside-of-complaints-to-police/this is a good article about it, that keeps a little more to the pertinant facts

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

and is really only used in severe cases where other bronchiodialators can't be used

Which would explain why he still keeps some around...

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

What's 'wrong' with the death penalty? It certainly sounds a lot better than sitting in a cell for 40-60 years and making people waste millions of dollars on you during that period.

Oh great. Killing people for the sake of the bottom line is not only acceptable but also preferable! Hooray to capitalism, by which the blackness of any bottom line comes first in front of the life of a human being.

I'm all for the death penalty, I also think that anyone given life in prison should be able to *ahem* 'opt out' for sake of money and mind.

If someone wishes to commit suicide then he should be free to choose it. A civilized state does not commit murder. Ever.

Re:Heh

[unfunk]

seriously dude, ketamine has been replaced by numerous less-harmful drugs for literally all of it's applications. Just because a medication has been superseded in many (or all) applications, doesn't mean that it's no longer of any use. Witness Thalidomide: Originally prescribed to combat morning sickness in pregnant women (with horrific results) with absolutely no evidence to suggest that it was really anything more than a placebo, it was subsequently withdrawn from market. Now, it's being used in a number of studies into other, unrelated potential benefits of it.

Regarding Ketamine though, Wikipedia sez:

Since it suppresses breathing much less than most other available anaesthetics, ketamine is still used in human medicine as a first-choice anaesthetic for victims with unknown medical history (e.g. from traffic accidents), in podiatry and other minor surgery, and occasionally for the treatment of migraine. There is ongoing research in France, Russia, and the U.S. into the drug's usefulness in pain therapy, depression suppression, and for the treatment of alcoholism and heroin addiction. Looks to me as though it still has a use or two...

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that there are things you can grow that are not illegal right?

Hell in some places you can even grow pot legaly.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

an apt example: this is like someone bombing an abortion clinic. possibly a morally questionable action(abortion), but fully legal, and fully within an individuals rights.

Re:Heh

[mmcuh]

No, the police have not returned any hardware or even backup copies of the contents of the disks, not to The Pirate Bay, the Pirate Bureau nor to some of the smaller businesses that were renting rack space in the same server hall. Some of the larger businesses that could afford scary lawyers have gotten their hardware back though.

I don't know if there is a hard limit on the investigation time - I think the prescriptive period for copyright infringement is 5 years (though I'm not sure), so if that is what he wants to press charges for he has to do it before June 2011...

Re:Heh

[ozbird]

Seriously dude, it's a veterinary clinic?

Re:Heh

[Lane.exe]

The legal definition of theft is appropriation of another's property with the intent to deprive that person totally of the use of that property. In other words, I steal your car when I take it, and drive away with no intent to return it. If I take your CD to my house, copy it, and return the CD, I haven't deprived you of any property so totally as to bar your further use of that property. So I haven't committed theft. I may have violated the copyrights on the CD, but not theft.

pwnd

[codo678]

Pwn them Pirate Bay...They deserve to get pwnd...and thanks MD.

now what if...

[Meltir]

the hosting provider that piratebay uses has offices in the US.
And they decided to sue the cartell for the ddos attacks.
They ask for mediadefender for a discovery - like sco asked IBM...
I mean - they know the emails are there and that they are proof of illegal activity - that is attacking the company's servers (not thepiratebay itself - that wouldnt fly in the US).
This musthave caused them cash in hardware/staff hours, credibility, and so on.
Should the emails be deleted by accident, they could miraculasly find backups (on piratebay for example), crosscheck them for validity (i dont believe all the emails could be deleted), and after it was confirmed by one of those experts (like the ones the mafia uses to prove that the screenshot says your guilty) sue the dailights out of them ?.

Could something like this work ?

Re:now what if...

[Anonymous Coward]

the hosting provider that piratebay uses has offices in the US.

I believe TPB hosts its own servers. Which is why so many servers not associated with TPB ended up being confiscated during the raid last year. Watch the first part of Steal This Film it shows some of the footage from the raid. It also shows you where the people who run TPB were when it happened.

Re:Heh

[Seumas]

Actually, not even quite that.

This is like someone bombing the Yellow Pages headquarters, because they include contact information for abortion clinics or planned parenthood clinics or universities that teach evolution as scientific theory, just because the bomber doesn't like them.

Buy more TPB hoodies!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about anyone else but I got out of bed this morning not feeling particularly upbeat about anything. Then I read the article on the pirate pay and now I can't stop laughing.

To those who think badly of the TPB remember that vigilante justice is illegal and people rightly need to be held legally accountable for their actions...at least in this case :-)

From TPB's board they no longer have a poison fruit provision like the USA so admitting the documents as evidence may not be a problem.

Does this mean Sony's CEO

[ancient_kings]

will be going to jail? I like to see Sweden send their version of the FBI to Japan to enforce this criminal act.... yeah. right....

Re:Heh

[Dunbal]

seriously dude, ketamine has been replaced by numerous less-harmful drugs for literally all of it's applications.

      In the United States. You are making an assumption that I am in the USA. I am not.

      As for ketamine being "pretty damaging" - lol. You can't learn medicine by reading wikipedia. It has less risk of cardiopulmonary depression than diazepam, has a longer half life than midazolam, has none of the serious depressing/nauseous effects of opioids, and is PERFECT for sedating small children for an hour or so while certain procedures are performed (ultrasound, CT, etc). It's dissociative effect prevent it from being used as a mainstream anesthetic for surgical procedures but for sedation it's great.

Re:Heh

[Malevolyn]

It doesn't much matter whether or not it's legal in Sweden, as the site itself is based in Sealand.

Re:Heh

[eiapoce]

If anyone else says that copying and sharing are stealing I would feel very offended.

Can You ever imagine our beloved Jesus Christ stealing fishes and breads instead of performing a miracle? [John 6,1-15] RIAA and MPAA are badly offending my religion and calling the son of god a thief. How cannot I wish for them to burn in hell?

P.S. Someone please stop my christian rage ;)

Re:Heh

[Dunbal]

Thalidomide: Originally prescribed to combat morning sickness in pregnant women (with horrific results) with absolutely no evidence to suggest that it was really anything more than a placebo, it was subsequently withdrawn from market.

      It's used in the third world to treat leprosy, and it is VERY effective.

What is terrorism?

[mangastudent]

Using illegal tactics to shut down a legitimate site has to be cyberterrorism, right?

No no no! Terrorism is the use of violence, frequently against ostensible third parties, to coerce a political action out of a target. In this case, we could extend the traditional meaning to "exterminate a target", but what the Swedish RIAA types are doing is simple direct action, they are using illegal actions against an legit opponent of theirs.

Animal rights activists who hack and deface sites seems to get that label.

No, they get the label because they e.g. burn out the laboratories and other facilities of their opponents. And in the most recent example, we have pure, 100% terrorism: a researcher drops out of his field because an arson device was left at the house of a neighbor .

This is a crystal clear example of why people resort to pure terrorism: it can work. It's one thing for that researcher to say he'll take the demonstrated risk to himself. It's another for his family to decide to take that risk with him.

But an innocent third party? How moral would it be for that researcher to have continued when the price could be the lives of his neighbors...?

Not to mention the operational likely hood that he'd be run out of his neighborhood in the medium term when it was realized he represented a big risk to his neighbors. They have a stake in medical research, but they didn't sign up for this.

Re:What is terrorism?

[Eunuchswear]

Terrorism is the use of violence, frequently against ostensible third parties, to coerce a political action out of a target.

Too loose. By this definition Britains declaration war on Nazi Germany was terrorism.

Terrorism is the use of violence against noncombatants to coerce a political action out of a target.

So the war against Germany wasn't terrorism, but the bombing raids against civilian infrastructure was.

Re:What is terrorism?

[Eunuchswear]

but the bombing raids against civilian infrastructure was

Were dammit.

Re:What is terrorism?

[mangastudent]

Terrorism is the use of violence, frequently against ostensible third parties, to coerce a political action out of a target.

Too loose. By this definition Britains declaration war on Nazi Germany was terrorism.

Agreed. But:

Terrorism is the use of violence against noncombatants to coerce a political action out of a target.

But sometime when my head is not mush I'd want to try to find a definition between the two above.

Problem is, this gets complicated by drawing the line of "noncombatants".

E.g. for Muslims all of us kafir are by definition combatants (an oversimplification, but it will do for the moment), and so who are we to decide that their attack on the WTC was terrorism? Not as they (or this group of them) score people....:

And specifically:

So the war against Germany wasn't terrorism, but the bombing raids against civilian infrastructure was.

In that period of total war, civilians producing in the economy were considered to be combatants. And it just so happens that I'm reading the first economic history of Nazi Germany in many decades (says the author), The Wages of Destruction, and hitting Germany economically was critical.

Nazi Germany's strength was severely constrained by its economic situation, and many of their actions make a lot more sense in that light. And it was a nasty interlocking problem.

E.g. whatever the willingness of occupied or Vichy France to make planes for Germany, they were constrained by a lack of refined aluminum. They had ore and smelters, but not enough power. Their and the lowland's coal output was constrained by food, the miners just couldn't get enough to work at full output (normal, civilian level, not wartime).

I've stopped reading for the moment at the point where the author starts explaining why it was integral to Operation Barbarosa that the urban populations of the untermenchen in the soon to be captured East be starved to death, to remove their useless to the Nazi's mouths and free up that food for their Grosseraum in the West. Hitler and company knew they were living on borrowed time, the combined economic power of the British empire and the US would crush them like bugs in short order.

(Unfortunately, Hitler's world view told him that the International Jewish Conspiracy(TM), headquartered (?) in the USA---FDR being its #1 mouthpiece---was fervently working to exterminate Germany after WWI, so it was essential to start this whole mess before they got any further. There are prices paid for world views that don't track reality....)

And that makes things even more complicated. Every day the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was delayed resulted in ... tens of thousands (or so, the number is very large) of civilian deaths in the areas they occupied. In that light, various means including the nuclear bombings look a bit different....

Re:What is terrorism?

[Eunuchswear]

E.g. for Muslims all of us kafir are by definition combatants (an oversimplification, but it will do for the moment), and so who are we to decide that their attack on the WTC was terrorism? Not as they (or this group of them) score people.

You must know some strange Muslims, all of the ones I know consider 11/9 as a terrorist attack.

In that period of total war, civilians producing in the economy were considered to be combatants.

So what the attacker "considers" is a get-out-of-atrocity-free card?

In any case attacking "ball-bearing factories" - I.E. attacks on military or dual use infrastructure were defensible, but attacks on civilians - "thousand bomber raids", Dresden, Tokyo &c were pure terrorism - they were even justified as that at the time - "breaking the will to fight".

Re:Heh

[Thyrteen]

Well, it's like the dealer has in their contract that if you give the car away for free right after you buy it, they would reimburse your money in full. So you did this continually for all of your friends, and then the salesperson came to your house and beat you to a pulp with a hammer so you couldn't do it anymore. :)

Obligatory...

[andhar]

...the Pirate Bay suing the major labels for cyber-terrorism...PRICELESS.

Had to do it.

The record companies need to watch it...

[MLCT]

... they have been throwing their weight about making up rules as they go along for too long (RIAA cases etc which are tantermount to extortion and blackmail). They have gotten way too cocky, now sanctioning DDOS attacks and hacking - this is the digital equivalent of (if we want to play by their "real world rules are digital rules" - "you wouldn't shoplift?") paying criminal scum to break into a premises and destroy goods.

If I were one of the record companies cartel who carries the can then I would be shitting myself - you have been agreeing to do things that are clearly illegal - the "we are fighting people who are breaking the law" means jack shit - the structure of the societies we choose to live in ensures there are accountable law enforcement agencies who do that - you seem to be mistakenly believing that you can make up the laws as you go along.

Re:The record companies need to watch it...

[justinlee37]

criminal scum

Hey! I'm sure I'm not the only criminal offended by this sort of rhetoric.

Re:Heh

[Mike Van Pelt]

Thalidomide is also under investigation for help in cancer treatment. It impedes the growth of tumors by preventing them from growing new blood vessels. ("Angiogenesis inhibitor"... the same mechanism which caused the birth defects.)

Re:Heh

[Oktober Sunset]

of course not, pirating music and movies costs multinationals money, molesting a child costs them nothing, it's obvious what is more evil.

Re:Heh

[JoeInnes]

Actually, it's more like TPB own a car park, and then someone's car gets stolen, and appears on TPB's car park, so that person attempts to sue TPB for the theft.

I know, I'm talking about theft, but hey, you can hardly make an identical copy of a car at no cost...

Re:Heh

[1u3hr]

It's not like you can't steal an item without moving away from the scene of the crime.

Perhaps that would be attempted theft, the act isn't complete till you've taken it away.

theft

n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully) and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.
See also: burglary embezzlement larceny robbery

Re:Heh

[Mumbly_Joe6432]

FYI, it is actually more expensive to sentence someone to death than to support someone in jail for the rest of their life. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108 [http://deathpenaltyinfo.org] The difference between death and rotting in a cell is the chance to overturn the case if new evidence turns up and the humanity of not killing your fellow man. The only reason people support the death penalty is because the victim families get some kind of revenge. I know it's cliche, but an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. I would agree with the opt out option, but if someone really wants to off themselves, they'll just do it themselves.

Worst Analogy Ever

[Anonymous Coward]

If I take your CD to my house, copy it, and return the CD, I haven't deprived you of any property so totally as to bar your further use of that property.

theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).

Borrowing may be theft if you derive any 'use' of the item. This includes copying as the extra copy diminishes the value of my copy and is of definite use to you. Stick to analogies that don't actually involve taking a physical object. Do you think if I "borrow" your trade-secret invention that somehow it won't be theft because of an alleged intent to return the item? Some acts transcend the BS that is 'intellectual property', your arguments do not even require the existence of IP law to be invalid.

Re:Worst Analogy Ever

[Sique]

Just because some properties are similar to theft this doesn't make it a theft.

If I do something that reduces the value of something you want to sell, then it is not necessarily theft. I don't steal something by spraying it pink. I damage it. I don't steal something from by telling everybody the thing would be poisonous. I mislead people. And I don't steal something from you by having something similar to sell, even if I might have got it in an unlawful way. I compete unfairly with you.

Please, you don't help anybody by stating everything would be the same, just because they have "you don't like it" as a common denominator.

Re:Heh

[ari wins]

I'm fucking disappointed in this thread.

I laugh as much as the next guy, when frivolous articles get cluttered with comedic turns. Hell, half my posts or more attempt to spin humor on the discussion. But really, how many *IAA articles have we read in which the little guy is getting the shaft, or the very same bully tactics claimed in this lawsuit are obviously used, but always in a legal manner. For once, the mafia fucked up, bad, and it's a much larger target, with the proof already in the public view.

Personally, I would have preferred to read the IANAL comments, with people trying to extrapolate exactly what effect this is going to have in future cases in the states, when judges have a reason to be suspicious. That would have been a much better read in addition to TFA. This whole thread was just weak.

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

What if the verdict was wrong? what then?

Rarely happens.

When it does, I think they should find out WHY the verdict was wrong. Did a cop not do his job right? Withhold evidence? Did a lab tech screw up an analysis? Did the Prosecutor ignore an alibi? Then they hold THAT person for trial- charge: Murder.

Think about it: would a cop try to frame someone for murder if they knew they would be put to death if the frame-up was discovered?? Would a prosecutor ignore evidence if they kney they would end up getting the death penalty??

Re:Heh

[HiThere]

Wasn't that the point?

When I think hydroponics, I tend to think hibiscus or papaya. (They'll barely grow around here, and some winters they die. Banana plants survive...but never fruit.)

Suprnova.org

[deblau]

In related news, suprnova.org is back up. Saw it in a comment on the TPB post.

Can't Have It Both Ways?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The Pirate Bay is only legal because it claims to only host the trackers for files rather than the files themselves (I guess - IANAL BTW). It's none of their business what the torrents contains, they just supply them. If they start suing people for sabotaging the torrents, it seems they are making the torrent's contents their business. If they truly were only distributing torrent files (as opposed to copyrighted files), then they wouldn't care what happens in the swarm, whether it be normal uploads/downloads, or a hacker sabotaging it. By policing the torrents, they could well be opening them up for crippling counter-suits from copyright holders.

Re:Can't Have It Both Ways?

[ScrewMaster]

There's a lot more to this than sabotaging torrents, which is the least of the concerns (most of that activity has been obsolesced by technological measures taken by modern Torrent clients and trackers anyway ... encryption, distributed hash tables, rating systems, etc.) This is about the media companies using illegal means to gain access to confidential information (paying crackers to break into private systems for one) among other juicy bits. The Pirate Bay folks have been saying this for a long time, but didn't have a lot of evidence. Now it seems they've been pretty thoroughly vindicated by the Media Defender leak.

This is officially Very Cool Stuff.

Re:Can't Have It Both Ways?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately 'cool' doesn't work in court and the parent is right when referring to them as policing what the content is.

Also Swede's lax marxist drawn laws have no affect in America.

Re:Can't Have It Both Ways?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I really hate the Pirate Bay, and I sympathise with "Big Media", but they just keep on giving us more reasons to bay for their blood.

Re:Can't Have It Both Ways?

[ScrewMaster]

Well, I couldn't care less about The Pirate Bay, and I absolutely do not sympathize with big media. Possibly you wouldn't either if you researched what those companies and their front organizations done over the decades to retard technological progress they perceived as threatening in any way, and so far as their effect on the legal systems in many countries ... well. "Self serving" is just too kind a phrase and when you get right down to it, these corporations aren't deserving of sympathy on anyone's part. Bad people, all the way around, and if they get any semblance of a comeuppance from this, one can only know they got their just desserts.

Re:Can't Have It Both Ways?

[ScrewMaster]

How does The Pirate Bay police anything? So far as I can tell, if you submit a torrent they just put it into their index. I see no "policing" going on there at all. I really don't grok your comment: do you understand the nature of an index, as compared to a host system?

And it does matter. U.S. courts can look at relevant decisions made in other countries. Still ... regardless of any legal consequences, what I find most interesting about this leak is that it really document what a lot of people have been saying for years: the media outfits are, truly, run by the people of the worst stripe. The ends do justify the means, and they really don't care who they hurt. An increase in awareness of that fact among the general population (of any country) is a Very Cool Thing.

I'm glad I stopped buying shiny plastic discs a long, long time ago.

Re:Can't Have It Both Ways?

[axia777]

Bull crap. They never said anything about the content of trackers. They are suing because they are being hacked by Media Companies, pure and simple. They have the right to sue. It is most likely illegal to hack another companies servers/services. This is not a two way street here.

Re:Can't Have It Both Ways?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a civil suite.
According to Swedish law, grave infrastructural sabotage can render into life in prison. Conspiracy to commit grave infrastructural sabotage can get you 10 years in prison.

Re:Can't Have It Both Ways?

[kenbo11]

Looks like they may already have been hacked. I only get a blank page now when I go to their site!

Re:Can't Have It Both Ways?

[sjames]

If they start suing people for sabotaging the torrents, it seems they are making the torrent's contents their business.

The cellphone providers don't make people's phone conversations their busines but they would SURELY sue anyone systematically jamming their towers or otherwise illegally reducing the value of their services.

Re:Heh

[Poppler]

What if the verdict was wrong? Rarely happens. Since the death penalty has been reintroduced, there have been 1096 executions in the US. During the same period, there have been 124 exonerations.

Clearly, the verdict is wrong a significant amount of the time.

Re:Heh

[JackMeyhoff]

Please stick to 1 line funnies when giving analogies :) Thanks.

Re:Heh

[Hubbell]

What about the humanity of those who were brutally murdered or tortured to death? All you bleeding heart pieces of shit never take into account the victims of those who are sentenced to death. You don't get the death penalty for robbing a store or beating someone up. You have to brutally murder or torture someone before the death penalty is even CONSIDERED. Once you take the life of another person, you forfeit all rights including the right to live if you ask me. You've proven yourself to be a worthless piece of shit who doesn't deserve to live after committing the act of murder.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard, it was hosted in the North Korean embassy in Sweden. They made a deal with Kim Jong...

A bit ironic considering.

[Anonymous Coward]

Swedish law does however not really like sabotage, vandalism, unautorized access and other sauch malarkey.
A bit ironic considering their Viking history.

Re:Heh

[Oktober Sunset]

except for pickup trucks.

Re:Heh

[ceoyoyo]

You forgot to note that none of what are usually called civilized states does commit murder. Well, except one.

Re:Heh

[Oktober Sunset]

Now less and less people go to starbucks and starbucks likes it not. Now more and more people go to starbucks and they are making more money than ever before and starbucks likes it not.

Fixed it for ya.

YASCA - Yet another stupid car analogy

[heson]

I make ferrari looking cars for me and my friends. Ferrari hires thugs that put bananas in the tailpipe and deflates the tyres of my cars. Then I sue them for this.

Re:YASCA - Yet another stupid car analogy

[OECD]

I make ferrari looking cars for me and my friends. Ferrari hires thugs that put bananas in the tailpipe and deflates the tyres of my cars. Then I sue them for this.

Almost. More like Ferrari hires thugs that come after me, because I tell people how to find you if they want a Ferrari-looking car.

Re:Heh

[kennygraham]

Can You ever imagine our beloved Jesus Christ stealing fishes and breads instead of performing a miracle?

You're right, he's not a thief for the fishes and bread. But in Luke 19, 29-36 he fits my definition of a thief for stealing a horse instead of magically duplicating it.

Re:Heh

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

But, of course, legality and morality are two different things, right? I hear that so much on anti-copyright threads...

Read the page if you haven't before. They're complete assholes. Just down the page a little, they say that Prince (or whatever he's now called) is trying to sue them. They write his name as a link to a search for the word "prince" on thepiratebay.org. They also somewhat arrogantly stated "And good luck Mr Son of a King, you probably just lost a lot of your fans" as if they knew a huge bulk of Prince fans would side with them over Prince himself. They also seem to show no remorse for the damage they are doing directly to the entertainment industry and the artists, as well as indirectly (through the messy fallout of rampant piracy) to our culture and our freedoms/privacy online.

This isn't an attack on all you Slashdotters out there who agree or sympathise with them, it's just that if legality were morality, these guys would be first against the wall.

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

These figures are since 1976.

In 1976, I don't think they had DNA testing. We do now.
in 1976, minorities were not treated as well as they are now. (Note how the vast majority of exonerees are Black or Latino.)
Also, they list exonerees by the year the were exonerated, NOT the yaer they were originally found guilty. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that most of them were found guily in the 70's and 80's.

Let's not talk of ancient history here: What number of people whe were put to death in the last 5 years have been Exonerated?

Re:Heh

[Battlegeek]

The problem is that you don't have to commit a violent crime to be sentenced to death, you merely have to be the most likely suspect when a violent crime has happened. Here in NC we just had someone get out of jail after spending most of his life behind bars because he was wrongly convicted. The only reason he got exonerated was because a cop kept a piece of evidence in his desk that was DNA tested. The test proved that convicted man was innocent. You can let a man serving life in prison free once it is found he has been wrongly convicted, but we have yet to learn how to raise the dead if he has been wrongly executed. You say once you take a life you forfeit all rights. So why do you think it is right for the state to take a life? Do the state in turn forfeit all its rights to govern us?

I Call Dibs!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You can't learn medicine by reading wikipedia.

Hmmmm. You've just given me a great idea for a site! I've even decided on a name! Oh wait, it's already taken. Never mind.

Re:Heh

[Skapare]

There is the argument that if you copy and distribute intellectual property, you are depriving the copyright owner of the right to profit from his own copying and distribution of that property. There may be a minor loss to the owner of the original copy you used to the extent that your copying and distribution causes him to get less money for a resale of his only copy to someone else as a used copy. Ironically, that is something many big media companies also want to take away.

But what about one doing the copying exclusively for themselves? In theory, that is also depriving the original copyright owner because he doesn't get the money from you actually buying a legitimate copy from him. But what if you do buy a legitimate copy, but find that not only does it not work in your player, there are no legitimate copies available for you to buy that do. One big example is DRM protected DVD content that won't play in Linux without using some form of hacking.

Suppose you do hack the DVD contents and store it where Linux can play it. Have you deprived the copyright owner of anything? I'd argue that not only have you not deprived him of any financial benefit, but you have also provided him a financial gain, since if Linux is your only computer system, you would not have bought the legal copy in the first place. Alternatives to this include buying the legal DVD and also downloading a p2p copy of it (but not offering it as an upload).

I don't know if anyone could use that as a legal defense. I would find it interesting to follow if someone tried. The argument might go like "Since the copyright owner provides no copy sold on a media type I am able to directly use, I am therefore not a part of the market the copyright owner has any legitimate expectation of revenue from. My copying strictly for personal benefit has not deprived him of any legitimate revenue. My copying has in fact provided him with legitimate revenue". Of course there could be many counter-arguments like "Just use a normal DVD player with a normal TV".

Re:Heh

[Artifakt]

Hey, hate the sin, and love the sinner, brother or sister. Of course it's not Christian to want them to burn in hell. Pray for the mote to fall from their eyes, that they should learn the value of Christian charity. In fact, pray that they become such shining examples of Christian love and charity that they outshine all others and we become inspired to do better ourselves from their humble, yet dedicated, example.
      While you're at it, please pray for me, as I can't write this without feeling like there's a big beam shaped tongue in my cheek.

Re:Heh

[max8061]

Somehow, I really don't think betting dollars to doughnuts can be used to support the basis of your argument. I'm not saying you presmise is incorrect, but come on man.

Re:Heh

[Darundal]

Thanks for the correction.

Re:Heh

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

But the GP's definition is still fine, even if it isn't the legal definition in certain countries. In terms of morality, stealing could well be defined as taking something that isn't yours, or however else you wish to define it. In my books, it is similar to, if not exactly equal to, stealing. You are taking something that isn't yours (the copy), and depriving the copyright holder of a potential sale. When factoring in probability of a sale if piracy hadn't occurred, there is a tangible, definable loss there to the copyright holder.

Re:Heh

[Dachannien]

Indeed it was.

Although, once a long time ago, some friends and I were looking for a house to rent while we finished up college. One place, as the landlady was showing us around, she pointed out a small utility closet in the basement that came pre-equipped with shelves and a sink. She suggested that we could use it for hydroponic gardening - and I don't think she had hibiscus in mind ;)

Re:Heh

[glwtta]

That's why it was a good analogy.

Re:Heh

[eiapoce]

You're right brother in Jesus, I accidentally fell for a attack of islamic rage over that. Thus we'll pray for the apostates to save their souls while performing miracles with PirateBay. ;)

insightful

[fyoder]

Hard to believe this is 100% modded funny. I guess that's what you get for making a great point humorously.

The only thing good about the word piracy being applied to copyright infringement is that pirates are regarded by many as really cool, so it has kind of backfired against those who want to encourage us to regard what is (or should be) a civil offense as a criminal one. Ironically, Disney is an entity which has contributed repeatedly to the impression of pirates being really cool, and the authorities being a bunch of stuffed shirts.

Re:Heh

[The Cydonian]

Yeah, so is fucking twelve year old kids in Thailand.

Nope. Effectively 18.

K is still strong

[old and new again]

sorry but ketamine is used on humans all the time, when's the last time you went out to a club/after-hour/"rave"?

Re:K is still strong

[Greg.Rodden]

You mean that time, after that party, at that guys house, in some place i can't remember how to get back to, there is a chance that i wasnt that chair that i was so sure i was?

Phew. I can cancel the therapist now. Thanks man.

Re:Heh

[Poppler]

they list exonerees by the year the were exonerated, NOT the yaer they were originally found guilty. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that most of them were found guily in the 70's and 80's. Interesting idea, let's look at the numbers, and no "ancient history". If you go through the tail end of this list, of the prisoners exonerated this century:

1 was convicted in the 60s.
3 were convicted in the 70s.
21 were convicted in the 80s.
14 were convicted in the 90s.
1 was convicted after 2000.

While it's true that the greatest number of these convictions took place during the eighties, more than a third of them happened after, so I still don't buy your original claim that the criminal justice system is near infallible.

I don't make much of only one person convicted in the last 7 years having been exonerated, considering that a good deal of these exonerations seem to take place at least 10 years after conviction.

What number of people whe were put to death in the last 5 years have been Exonerated? I thought you said the important metric was the year of conviction.

Re:These hackers using the profit to fund terroris

[DamnStupidElf]

And as we all know, all revenue generated by this criminal activity by big records and movie labels is used to fund terrorism.

Flame bait? It's a well known fact that the media cartels, like many other big businesses, routinely buy politicians. This practice is deplorable and ends up indirectly funding attacks on sovereign nations by the U.S. government, which is one of the ultimate roots of terrorism.

You don't think Afghanistan and Iraq are bad enough? Just wait until the U.S. attack Iran, a completely neutral third party so far except that they have centrifuges (a bunch of test tubes on a big motor) and uranium (it comes out of the ground, people) and apparently a few of them are crossing the border into Iraq with weapons to help fight off the foreign invaders. Not like the U.S. has ever sold arms to rogue nations or anything... Oh, of course North Korea has nukes already but we'd never think of invading them, just a lot of empty talk and embargoes.

No, big business has nothing to do with helping to elect scumbag leaders who will go to war just to further the interests of their corporate constituents while completely ignoring public opinion and common sense.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

My brain is going to explode if I hear one more analogy.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Would people become lab techs if they knew one mistake could lead to their death? Probably not, unless we expand the standard to every other profession. A bridge you designed ends up failing? Death penalty. Food poisoning kills a customer? Kill the entire kitchen staff. What a brilliant idea. And of course, it's not at all possible that we wouldn't know the verdict was wrong because the defendent is dead and has no one who cared to seriously advocate for him...

Re:Heh

[s4m7]

These figures are since 1976.

So your agrument is that the statistical likelihood of a false accusation leading to an execution is diminishing.

Please, for the record, if you could tell us how many accidental killings at the hands of society would be acceptable. please express in either a percentage form, or how many times it would be ok for you personally to be killed by mistake.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

That one is not civilized. It is like a dumb hill billy sporting a big gun and that is not afraid to shoot it.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Please pay attention to your own Bible. I think there's a Commandment in there somewhere that may apply.

Not quite true

[bendav]

Ketamine is the most widely used anaesthetic in the the world.

In the developed world for intubation of severe asthmatics, hypotensive trauma victims, and for sedation of children for short procedures.

In the majority world it is widely used as it can be given intramuscularly or intravenously and is the safest to use without cardio-respiratory monitoring.

Re:Heh

[pipatron]

Suicide is illegal in most countries, as far as I know.

Re:Heh

[pimpimpim]

Thank you for the in-depth info! I guess it means that the pirate bay will be 'suspect' in this issue then until 2011, since the opposing party has unlimited funds for lawyers and is likely inclined to make this process as long as possible.

Re:Heh

[PopeRatzo]

What's 'wrong' with the death penalty? It certainly sounds a lot better than sitting in a cell for 40-60 years and making people waste millions of dollars on you during that period.

Here in Illinois alone, there have been enough cases of DNA evidence completely exonerating prisoners sitting on Death Row. In Texas, where a line of bloodthirsty governors (one of whom is now a bloodthirsty president), hurried so many cases through "fast track" executions, there is evidence that dozens of innocent people were executed.

Is that enough "wrong with the Death Penalty" for you? Or are you so "pro-life" that state-sponsored murder of innocent people isn't a problem for you? I mean innocent people who have already been born.

Re:Heh

[loganrapp]

While it's true that the greatest number of these convictions took place during the eighties, more than a third of them happened after, so I still don't buy your original claim that the criminal justice system is near infallible.

And of those post-eighties exonerations - how many were after the actual executions?

That's why we have an appeals process. And every death row convict gets a shitload of 'em. Show me how many people executed after the lengthy number of appeals and stays, etc. only to be exonerated post-execution, and the we can talk about how shitty the criminal justice system is.

The justice system does not just stop at conviction. There's a lot more to it. People appeal and appeal and that's why these convictions are overturned ten years later. Because someone, or something, comes out. Someone else admits to the killings. New evidence pops up. A witness recants.

Re:Heh

[Nulagrithom]

So you believe everyone in the world should just mindlessly follow your personal version of what is right and wrong just for you to be happy, don't you? Um, yeah pretty much. And I'm willing to kill for it. =) Welcome to the age old tale of life, it's not changing just because you think it's wrong.

Re:Heh

[OnlyHalfEvil]

No, it's like the drug dealer telling Internal Affairs that a cop stole his stash.

Doubtful

[andersh]

I seriously doubt that since this is a criminal investigation filed by the Swedish police of their own volition. There is no other party involved in this case. Remember how the US pressured the Swedish government into this? They never filed a lawsuit, they just made the Swedes investigate a *criminal* breach of the law. This is not a civil case with claims of damage (AFAIK).

Re:Heh

[mclaincausey]

OJ got away with murder. The judicial system lets the guilty go free. Ergo, the judicial system probably convicts the innocent. This logic is backed up by examples. The death penalty is wrong because an imperfect system shouldn't be put in control of life and death when criminals can just as easily be separated from society and possibly rehabilitated in other ways.

Re:Heh

[HuguesT]

So, one perfectly valid argument against the death penalty is that it is hard, and becoming increasingly harder, to apply. So hard that it's not worth it.

Basically many people think the death penalty is OK, but also don't like to see innocent people die at the hand of the state because of a mistake, or sometime even when the law used to convict is seen as unjust.

Hence the extremely long, costly, difficult appeal process. If a person is executed 20 years after the crime, is it worth it ?

so-- where is the problem....

[way2trivial]

I mean- that's like saying warm and toasty are different...

I mean, why else did all the guys call me homosexual in school? My mommy always said that-- OH NO! they weren't just commenting on my peachy keen smile & can do attitude? oh damn!

Re:Heh

[Greg.Rodden]

I mean what are they going to do? Sue me?

heh bad joke, sorry

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Ketamine is also used for humans - in very very small doses. Usually it's in an inpatient context so the patient can be monitored so as to keep the disassociation under control, but it's certainly not just for horses.

Re:Heh

[RodgerDodger]

What's wrong with the death penalty? Ah, let's see...

1) Human error. Unfortunately, being innocent isn't a guarantee that you won't be convicted of a crime (especially if you are poor and black). So there's a chance that a person killed by the state was not guilty of the crime. With incarceration, you can set them free and compensate them somewhat for the mistake. With a death, you can't.

2) The religious angle. Many religious types believe that incarceration gives the prisoner a chance to earn redemption and avoid eternal punishment. (This works both ways - one long-held reason for execution was to allow a higher judge to determine the right sentence)

3) The economic angle. Contrary to general opinion, prisons can and do make money. That's one reason why private industry lines up to run prisons. Why kill off perfectly good slave labour? Remember - the advantage of slave labour is that the shirts made on Friday aren't worse than the shirts made on Monday!

4) Human rights factors. The US is the only western country, and one of three in the world, that will execute children and the intellectually impaired. Okay, by the time the appeals process goes through, the child is now an adult, but killing someone for a crime committed when they were 12? Seriously.

5) The scattergun approach. Look at the sort of things you can get the death sentence for in the US. Heck, if you're driving a car and a passenger decides to shoot down someone, you can get the death sentence.

6) The racist angle. The vast majority of people on death row are racial minorities - way out of proportion with the general prison population, or even the subset who committed similar crimes. Why? Because juries are more likely to give the death sentence recommendation to blacks and Hispanics. The lack of an objective and impartial set of criteria makes the use of the death sentence subject to these distortions.

7) The poverty angle. When was the last time someone who could afford their own lawyer got sentenced to death in the US? The fact of the matter is that far too many of these death sentence cases are handled by overworked public prosecutors. If you've got a competent lawyer, and a death sentence looks like a strong possibility, then you will nearly always end up doing a plea bargain, resulting in an incarceration instead (often for a lesser crime, like manslaughter).

I could go on, but... I just don't want to. :)

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

that the greatest number of these convictions took place during the eighties, more than a third of them happened after ...meaning 2/3 happened in the time frame I mentioned. Thanks for proving my point. I win a cheeto.

I still don't buy your original claim that the criminal justice system is near infallible.


That's good, because I never made that claim. But I think that, IF everyone involved in Death Penalty cases were held to stricter standards (like, if they falsify or ignore evidence or make a preventable mistake, they get put to death themselves), then the System would be much closer to 'infallible'.

I thought you said the important metric was the year of conviction.

My point about the year of conviction (which I though was clear, but I now see was not) is twofold:

1) Minorities were not afforded the respect they have now, meaning a black man might be convicted of a rape/murder in a southern state (where many of those exonerations happened, BTW) based upon mostly circumstancial evidence, mixed with a big dose of racism. This is, in my opinion, less likely to happen now, than 30+ years ago.
2) In the 70's and 80's there were fewer resources open to law enforcement. There was no real Internet, no DNA tests, and a lot of evidence gathering and analysis techniques were not yet invented. Therefore, it's possible that an innocent person could be convicted by accident, due to lack of exculpatory evidence. This would mean, as new techs are developed and used in original trials, then the rate of people being found guilty wrongly would fall, thus leading to fewer people being exonerated years later.

I trust that was sufficiently clear.

Re:Heh

[xtracto]

In the United States. You are making an assumption that I am in the USA. I am not.

Ah!, and that is the key that the RIAA and other people (even here in slashdot!) from the USA find hard to understand.

To reinforce this point, I want to continue with the drugs example. In the UK (where I am living now) it is legal for the doctors to prescribe heroin in certain conditions (I think for serious pain). I know that there are some parliament members who are looking to provide drug addicts with some form of prescribed drugs to ease their anxiety or whatever issues they have when de-intoxicating.

I am sure that as this, there are different laws in Sweden for sharing and indexing of files. But of course, for people that do not have a notion an independent "world" it is a concept hard to grasp.

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

Please, for the record, if you could tell us how many accidental killings at the hands of society would be acceptable

0%.

Of course, I think we all would say the same about getting hit by a truck- we would want a 0% chance of that happening every time we stapped out into the crosswalk.

Yet, in 2001, 4,882 pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes. 78,000 pedestrians were injured in traffic crashes that year. Does that stop you from walking acoss the street?

Nothing is perfect. As to what the 'acceptable' failure rate is, I'd say 0%. That's what we need to shoot for. But we shouldn't ban all cars nationwide simply because a few thousand people get killed, and a few tens of thousand get injured.

And we shouldn't ban the Death Penalty because a few people get put to death wrongly. Or even a few tens of people.

Re:Heh

[heinousjay]

Well one hurts a child. Potentially. I don't have access to any of these children to ask them.

The other hurts a lot of people, some of whom are rich. Since we all know the rich aren't actually people, it hurts no one.

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

The death penalty is wrong because an imperfect system shouldn't be put in control of life and death when criminals can just as easily be separated from society and possibly rehabilitated in other ways.


1) Very little "rehabilitation" takes place in prisons.

2) Keeping someone locked up is quite expensive.

3) The "imperfect system" IS "put in control of life and death" all the time. Every time a murderer is given 5-10 years, then released 'for good behavior' in 4. That murderer goes right back out on the streets, while their victim- surprise- is still DEAD.

If you can come up with an idea that both 1) keeps the violent away from the rest of society and 2) doesn't cost $40,000 per person, I'm all ears.

Actually, I have such a system. It's called 'kill the murderers'.

Mmm...

[FishWithAHammer]

Even from software money could be made without copyright by the provision of services to users (technical support, online services etc), or by the provision of other materials (physical media, manuals, packaged sets including media/manuals and/or other items).

Yes and no; let's be realistic here.

I am a HUGE supporter of open-source; I participated this summer in the Google Summer of Code project and enjoyed it immensely. But I also would like to actually make money from writing software.

I'd like to be able to write games for a living, or at least a decent chunk of my living. The problem with what you say is that for games in particular it simply doesn't work. A game that requires technical support is a game nobody will buy, and while online services is viable, without copyright others will simply do it for free if they like the game enough. Not a good way to go. And while physical media is helpful (FreeBSD's habit is something I like, and I've bought more than one set from them), I can't see it being profitable for games.

I don't mean to troll, but Stallman's philosophy is great for baseline stuff line operating systems, things that everyone needs. It breaks down when you apply it to the software equivalent of leisure items.

Re:Mmm...

[mrchaotica]

I'd like to be able to write games for a living, or at least a decent chunk of my living.

What you would like to do and what society should be reasonably expected to subsidize for you are two very different things. I would like society to give me a mansion and a Ferrari, but that doesn't mean I should reasonably expect to get it!

The problem with what you say is that for games in particular it simply doesn't work.

So what? Remember, copyright law isn't about helping you, the creator, out. It's about benefiting society by "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts," and I'm not entirely convinced that protecting "games in particular" does that enough to be worth it. And I'm damn well certain that games don't need 95 years of it, since they go obsolete so quickly! For computer programs, I'd say the term length should be 10 years maximum, and would ideally be half that. (Note that actions like re-releasing an old "classic" game on a newer platform, e.g. Super Mario World on SNES -> GBA, would still be covered as the GBA version would be a modified derivative work).

Re:Mmm...

[FishWithAHammer]

What you would like to do and what society should be reasonably expected to subsidize for you are two very different things.

There is no subsidization going on. I make a product. I sell it for what I consider to be a reasonable price. People buy it or they don't. If they don't, I find a new line of business or improve the old to the point where I make sales.

Remember, copyright law isn't about helping you, the creator, out. It's about benefiting society by "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts," and I'm not entirely convinced that protecting "games in particular" does that enough to be worth it.

A game is a creative work in much the same way as a novel. Simply because it does not scratch your itch does not make it any less of a creative work. If a novel promotes the "useful arts," then so would a game.

And I'm damn well certain that games don't need 95 years of it, since they go obsolete so quickly!

If a novel gets it, why not a game? Obsoletion is a poor reason.

For computer programs, I'd say the term length should be 10 years maximum, and would ideally be half that.

Ten years would be fine with me. Resting on one's laurels that long may even be somewhat excessive.

However, I remain with a deep distrust of those who would, given the opportunity, dictate what I am allowed to do with what I create. Thus my severe dislike of most GPL fanatics.

Re:Mmm...

[mrchaotica]

There is no subsidization going on. I make a product...

On the contrary, there is no product. The thing you're trying to sell is an idea, which is inherently impossible to contain and free for everyone. The government's act of creating a legal restriction which allows you to productize your idea, despite being non-monetary, is in fact a subsidy!

A game is a creative work in much the same way as a novel. Simply because it does not scratch your itch does not make it any less of a creative work. If a novel promotes the "useful arts," then so would a game.

What's your point? Maybe novels fail the test too!

Obsoletion is a poor reason.

Why? I happen to think obsoletion is a very good reason, for two reasons: First, it means that the work has even less value to the copyright holder than one of a different kind, and thus the justification for allowing the copyright holder to retain control is unusually low. Second, the fact that it's obsolete increases the chances of it becoming lost or unusable entirely. An old book is still readable. An old game, on the other hand, isn't usually playable (or, arguably more importantly, modifiable into derivative works) because the associated tools required (hardware, software to read the game's obsolete file formats, etc.) no longer exist either. And remember, before you say "but they do still exist," that what we're talking about has only existed for a few decades. Sure, you might be able to figure out how to get an old CP/M game or arcade circuitboard working now, but 75 years from now?

Ten years would be fine with me. Resting on one's laurels that long may even be somewhat excessive.

Like I said, that would be the absolute maximum I would accept (if I had any influence on the decision, which I sadly don't).

Re:Mmm...

[FishWithAHammer]

The thing you're trying to sell is an idea, which is inherently impossible to contain and free for everyone.

No. The idea is free. Someone's perfectly free to make a game mimicking mine, and I won't complain (I might find it in poor taste, but that doesn't mean it's not their right).

I am selling my implementation of an idea.

What's your point? Maybe novels fail the test too!

In your mind, perhaps. In mine, no. Perhaps you are getting upset over an issue that doesn't require theatrics of any sort.

First, it means that the work has even less value to the copyright holder than one of a different kind,

No. It has less value to you. If I create something, whether the platform is obsolete or not doesn't bother me.

Now, when someone refuses entirely to keep it even remotely up to date--at that point I could consider obsoletion to be a fair and equitable reason to revoke a copyright. But given that they are, indeed, the creators of the work, I would also see it as equitable that someone who wished to bring the game or product to newer platforms to require the consent of the original creator.

"Hey, Bob. I want to release a version of your Program X for Windows Vista." (Set aside, for a moment, the screaming why would you do that?!)
"Okay, Jim. $500."
*money and code transfer*
*Jim releases Program X for Windows Vista*

Of course, if the original copyright holder wants to be a jerk about it--go around him.

"Hey, Bob. I want to release a version of your Program X for Windows Vista."
"Nah, don't want it to happen."
*Jim releases Program Y, a clone of Program X, without Bob's code and name*

It's not that hard.

Re:Mmm...

[mrchaotica]

No. The idea is free. Someone's perfectly free to make a game mimicking mine, and I won't complain (I might find it in poor taste, but that doesn't mean it's not their right).

I am selling my implementation of an idea.

You completely missed my point. The essential thing is that you're still selling bits of information, not a physical object (even if you're providing the game on physical media, the physical media is not the game).

A physical product is inherently sellable because, since it is physical, the production of it can be controlled. In contrast, pure information (such as a video game) is inherently not sellable because anyone can copy it infinitely. That's an important distinction: the natural state of physical objects is to be "property," while the natural state of information is to belong to the Public Domain. The only reason you're able to sell copies of your game is that the government has chosen to artificially modify that reality using a construct of law called copyright law.

But given that they are, indeed, the creators of the work, I would also see it as equitable that someone who wished to bring the game or product to newer platforms to require the consent of the original creator.

That's ridiculous. Or, at least, European. Let me explain: in Europe, they have this idea of "artist's rights" (or something like that). The idea is that artists, as creators, have some sort of moral right to dictate how the work is used, and some moral right to be paid for it. Although that's valid in Europe, America explicitly rejected that argument as a basis for copryight law. After all, why should the artist have dictatorial control over the work? The mere fact that he created it doesn't make it his, because -- as I've already explained -- ideas inherently belong to the commons. No art is created in a vacuum; he surely took inspiration from everyting which preexisted in that commons, and thus his creation should become part of it in turn. This is the basis for copyright law in the U.S.: it is a way to encourage the creation of such works, in order to enrich the Public Domain. This is also why copyright expires. After all, if the artist really had a moral right to the work, why shouldn't he retain that right in perpetuity? Real (i.e., physical) property doesn't "expire;" if copyright were property then it shouldn't expire either.

So anyway, I completely disagree that the author should have any right to say whether a piece of software would be allowed to be ported to a new platform. Obviously it wouldn't be reasonable to force him to do the work himself, but it also wouldn't be unreasonable to force him to release the source code to someone who wanted to do it, especially if the code was otherwise "abandonware."

Well

[kitsunewarlock]

I'd feel happy if it wasn't that my book writing (hobby) wasn't abandoned because I noticed selling D20 PDFs online is pointless with the mass piracy of PDFs through sites like this.

Re:Well

[marol]

Yeah, it's a real shame you can't make money of your hobby.

Re:Well

[kitsunewarlock]

$240 to sign up with the top 4 sites that sell these things
~$50 for the advertising I was looking at including posters for cons and whatnot
$100-$200 per piece of art included in the book. Average of 56 art pieces required for the book I was looking into making (with discounts depending on how many I purchased from the artists in question).

This doesn't include money for webspace, real prints and binds for beta testers, etc...

Considering when I started this project I was just starting my career as an architecture major, I didn't have much money. I couldn't afford to spend ~$2,200 writing and releasing a 128 page book and sadly attempting to sell 40 copies for $8 a piece just to afford to buy some plaster or basswood for my next school project.

I was never getting into it for the money though. I was doing it 1.) to say I've done it and 2.) because I wanted people to enjoy my work. However I stopped working on it a long time ago and just gave it away on forums since 3rd party books have been rendered unplayed by most because partially of the piracy.

I have many friends who own gigs of pirated books. They don't even read them nor do they use any of their material. Unless they purchase them. And I've seen friends purchase books they downloaded before, only to slap themselves afterwards...I want to see people use my books, and people are hesitant to use PDFs they don't pay for. Therefore its impossible to know if people are using my product if they just download some huge collection of PDFs from pirate-bay.

I wanted to send out periodic updates to people who looked through the books with NPC stats, system updates, random adventures and new content as an added bonus...but I can't do that if the bloody

This isn't about wanting hordes of cash. Its about wanting to break even with the cost and be able to say "holy crap, I made at least $1 selling something I loved!"

Not that any of my other hobbies have done anything else but lose me money...

Re:Well

[tade]

The saddest thing is that you are the loser here. I'd like to think that you wanted people to read your stuff. I can't imagine that paid downloads are a real hit, especially with the book people. The current way to get paid for things that are easily copied is through good will of your readers by selling them merchandise and asking them donations. Especially if this was your hobby. Everybody likes to get paid but when you compete with the professional writers in a market that sells new books for 20EUR and 6 months old books for 5EUR you really can't expect your audience to ignore these rules. And much like with the software you really shouldn't make the potential readers go through any more hassle if they somehow land on your site. Like to whip out their credit cards and assess the risks in giving out that info to yet another small business that has no big name backing etc.

Of course since this is the internet I made up all the facts as you didn't provide them but I feel sorry that you stopped writing because somebody wanted to read your material. Anyways, welcome to the future.

Antti

Re:Well

[Slashcrap]

I'd feel happy if it wasn't that my book writing (hobby) wasn't abandoned because I noticed selling D20 PDFs online is pointless with the mass piracy of PDFs through sites like this.

Based on the amount of effort it took me to make sense of that train wreck of a sentence, I have to say that I am very happy your writing career was abandoned. Not only does it contain obvious errors, the style is fucking horrible. I don't claim any talents in that area either, but I am not expecting to make money from my writing.

Sorry that you failed to make money from your niche hobby which doesn't even guarantee profits for those with experience and strong track records. I'm sure it was due to piracy and not a simple case of reality failing to conform to your rather optimistic expectations.

Please note that I am not defending piracy. I am attacking you and your dubious sense of entitlement.

Re:Heh

[rizole]

At last! A car analogy I can understand!

Re:Heh

[Ardipithecus]

Actually when you took my car you stole it and it is theft, your intention is immaterial.

Returning it will be a mitigating circumstance, and you could have an amazing explanation that would make me drop the charges, but it's unlikely.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you an idiot? You're comparing accidents to deliberately putting people to death. You've gotta be fucking joking. I somehow have a really hard time picturing you sitting on death row, thinking something like "Oh well, at least I didn't get hit by a truck", because that's effectually what you're telling the unfortunates in that position to do.

Re:Heh

[Greg.Rodden]

Oh goodness me, what am I going to do with all that morphine, fentanyl, diazepam, and ketamine I have under lock and key at my clinic? Damnit!! Why can't my work be fun like yours?!

Re:Heh

[MikeBabcock]

Imagine with me for a moment a world where the recording industry spends its extra cash helping to catch child molestors and/or feeding the hungry or something, instead of suing its customer base.

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

You're comparing accidents to deliberately putting people to death

No. I am comparing two systems (traffic and Justice) that, theoretically, would be best if they had no accidents. People get killed by cars accidently, and people get the Death Penalty accidently (ie: a mistake is made in analyzing evidence, leading to a guilty verdict). People also get hit by cars on purpose (ie: murder), and people also get the Death Penalty on purpose (ie: Racist cop plants gun in black man's car to frame him for murder).

Re:Heh

[Lane.exe]

I'm aware of the argument... the question is whether one has a right to that profit in the first place. Since there is no common law "right to profit," I think most courts will be conservative in recognizing it.

Re:Heh

[Lane.exe]

No, my friend... the intention is very material. It's called "mens rea," and it's required in all criminal definitions except for strict liability.

Re:Heh

[tantakatan]

And to think, all this was started by one simple word: "blahbob".

free cds and dvds

[Anonymous Coward]

fuckers get free cds and dvds for making us pay full price. fuck these bitches, im glad they got pwnd.

>Y'all,
>
>On the AD side, in front of Bobby, Brad, Joe and Joe's infamous candy bucket, there are a couple >dozen CDs and DVDs totally up for grabs. There's some pop, rock, rap, r&b, and more. It's totally >free, so help yourselves.
>
>Thanks,
>Ben

The GMail account could be subpoenaed

[Torodung]

If there's a U.S. case, I'm sure prosecution could subpoena the GMail account that was cracked, and I really doubt Google will be complicit in any data destruction. There will be an authentic, date and IP-logged, record for as long as Google keeps such records.

I made a comment a few days ago about my distaste for the way this information was obtained and presented, but if it ultimately results in nailing a bunch of industrial saboteurs on hire by "legitimate" businesses, I would be more than happy to see this end up as a long list of RICO charges in the States. Not to mention the misuse of SSN data, etc.

So please hang onto that account Google, for as long as it takes to apply public pressure to the Attorney General's office. Media Defender's biggest mistake was letting this much incriminating evidence onto someone else's servers.

It's a lesson for every remote network service user on the planet. It is not your space, it is theirs. Don't store anything you wouldn't post on your front door on someone else's hardware.

--
Toro

This will only drive them underground

[Anonymous Coward]

This tactic will only drive the media companies underground. Instead, they need to go after the media company's customers who are funding these attacks.

Oh wait, that tactic has been taken already.

w00t!

[Spazzz]

I just wanted it to be known that I was here for this.

Thank you, MD-D.

Re:Heh

[jaani]

Actually, as a matter of private international law, that's not necessarily true. You refer to the common assumption of laypeople that the only applicable law is that of the country where the server is located. This is often, though not always, incorrect. For example, a United States plaintiff could plead an infringement of United States copyright under the United States Copyright Act. If an exclusive right has been exercised within the territorial scope of that Act (eg, by unauthorised distribution or reproduction within the USA), there will, subject to any applicable defences, be actionable copyright in a United States forum having appropriate jurisdiction. The 'but it's legal where I come from' argument is not a defence -- it's a procedural argument appealing to a choice of law rule that would see the lex causae, rather than the lex situs, applied. While this might get up in a tort or contract case, it is almost certainly going to be rejected in an immovable property case (eg, intellectual property rights such as copyright). So, in short, the law of the server country is irrelevant unless the private international law of the forum where the action is brought actually determines that foreign law applies to the action, and that law is pleaded and proved by the plaintiff. For practical purposes, this is almost impossible, as foreign copyright cannot be enforced extraterritorially in the USA/UK/Australia/NZ/Singapore/Canada.

Re:Heh

[drsmithy]

The only reason people support the death penalty is because the victim families get some kind of revenge.

Uh, no, I support the death penalty because it permanently removes a demonstrable threat to society.

OTOH, the corruption and flaws in the legal system make error-free implementation of capital punishment nearly impossible.

So on the balance of those two aspects, I have to say that we shouldn't use the death penalty - but it's not because I don't support it, it's because the flaws in the system result in too many mistakes.

Re:Heh

[Arterion]

Assuming you can afford those appeals. And just because there's new evidence, or a witness recants doesn't mean shit. I just watched American Justice. Check out the case against Clarence Elkins and rethink that bit about recants and new evidence.

Re:Heh

[Raenex]

You can't learn medicine by reading wikipedia. Can I learn it by reading Slashdot?

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so quick to give complete strangers that kind of credit.

Re:Heh

[cloricus]

What worries me is that you think the situation has really improved. If what I've read is correct America doesn't even let the 'darkies' vote any more in federal elections, and they are still the higher majority in gaols.

Furthermore, if this doesn't sway you, I worry about your history knowledge if you honestly believe that the situation wont sway to much worse.

I strongly support the removal of the death penalty simply because I never want to be in a situation where I'm wrongfully accused by the state who wants to see me dead.

Err...

[Xenographic]

I'd say it's more like the treaties *shouldn't* allow the US government to apply US laws to non-US nationals.

I seem to recall some "extraordinary rendition" gone awry in Italy a while back, although I do realize that that's not the same as extradition. Then there's Dmitry who was unfortunate enough to visit the USA when his company was on Adobe's hit list...

And believe me, given the MAFIAA's influence, I don't put it past them ... :/

You wouldn't steal a handbag

[Anonymous Coward]

Youtube presents 'You wouldn't steal a handbag' parodies:
Pirates
Germany
Choses in Action

Re:Heh

[Pearson]

The numbers you cite, 1096 executions and 124 exonerations, are not significantly related. The number of executions in that time frame is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the number of exonerations compared to the number of convictions in that time frame. And since every state in the union, except Texas, seems to only execute someone if it's been at least 20yrs after their conviction, the percentage of wrongful convictions is probably much less than the 10% you imply.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you take the life of another person, you forfeit all rights including the right to live if you ask me.

But you see, you are an idiot. An uncivilized idiot with a third world mentality, to make matters worse. You know why? Because you stated that killing is wrong. So how come killing twice will make things any better? It won't.

But hey, if you really support your idiotic belief that everyone that, in your little mind, "forfeits all rights including the right to live" should be murdered then please be my guest and you go kill them. Kill them yourself, with your own bare hands. Can you do that?

Re:Heh

[naam00]

Nothing is perfect. As to what the 'acceptable' failure rate is, I'd say 0%. That's what we need to shoot for. Shoot for? We're talking what is acceptable and what is not. One shoots for the ideal, but accepts the acceptable. Anything below acceptable is -in-acceptible. You're both saying that the current system is inacceptible, and that you accept it.

And we shouldn't ban the Death Penalty because a few people get put to death wrongly. Or even a few tens of people. See? you do accept it.

Re:Heh

[GreatBunzinni]

Uh, no, I support the death penalty because it permanently removes a demonstrable threat to society.

The thing is, it appears that there are a lot of people defending that a state should murder those that are considered to have failed society in some way. As you described it, some perceived it as "removing a demonstrable threat to society". But the thing is, no one ever takes the time to try to understand what, in fact, are the causes to those problems. They perceive that the cause of the problem is in fact the crime and punishing the criminals is how that problem is fought.

That idea is idiotic, to say the least. The problem is not the crime but the conditions which lead to the crime. You do not solve the crime problem by punishing the criminals. That bay be seen as justice but it absolutely will not solve any crime problem. It won't because crime is a very profound social problem, which social causes and social consequences. It's a deeply intertwined system which flourishes when the negative social factors are ignored. You don't treat an infection by cutting off the deeply infected part and still preserving both the infection and the causes of that infection.

So killing someone in order to "permanently remove a demonstrable threat to society" will not diminish that threat to society. It does not nor will it ever solve anything. It just cuts off a tiny bit of a scab of a deeply infected wound, leaving the whole infection untouched. The only thing that an execution brings is a false sense of accomplishment and, naturally, revenge. Revenge never solved any problem.

Owning information?

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

> Considering people "own" the land, I'm yet to see the point in this.

Wow.

Okay. I just laid dibs on the thoughts in you're head.

Your thinking I don't know how to use an apostrophe just now, right?

Okay, you know owe me $10.

What, you say my spelling could use some work, too?

I charge $100 dollars for that thought.

Getting the point?

> Also, it is possible to copyright a novel, or a business trade secret.
> How about that secret recipe for turning bullshit into aluminum ?

Hey, you succeeded in alchemy!

> All of those can be defined as "owning" information.

No, that would also be alchemy, unless you have succeeded in seriously perverting the meaning of "owning".

What copyright (and patent) give you is the temporary right to control a certain piece of the market, specifically certain key elements of the piece of the market generated by your creation. (Loosely spoken.) You "own" a piece of the market.

Any attempt to establish rights beyond that have serious conflicts with other parts of the Constitution and with certain parts of the first ten amendments.

(So serious that, if the ??AA don't back off their attempts to generate laws to close the "holes" in the law, they could well be accused of treasonous attacks on the Constitution itself.)

joudanzuki

Re:Heh

[drsmithy]

The thing is, it appears that there are a lot of people defending that a state should murder those that are considered to have failed society in some way.

No, there are a lot of people defending that the state should remove known threats to its members. Not because they have "failed", but because they have *caused damage*.

As you described it, some perceived it as "removing a demonstrable threat to society". But the thing is, no one ever takes the time to try to understand what, in fact, are the causes to those problems.

There are, in fact, lots of people who try and figure this stuff out. After all, not many people *want* violent crimes to occur.

They perceive that the cause of the problem is in fact the crime and punishing the criminals is how that problem is fought.

No, they perceive that the crime and its "cause" (assuming there is one) are, in fact, separate issues.

That idea is idiotic, to say the least. The problem is not the crime but the conditions which lead to the crime. You do not solve the crime problem by punishing the criminals. That bay be seen as justice but it absolutely will not solve any crime problem. It won't because crime is a very profound social problem, which social causes and social consequences. It's a deeply intertwined system which flourishes when the negative social factors are ignored. You don't treat an infection by cutting off the deeply infected part and still preserving both the infection and the causes of that infection.

Of course it won't "solve" the crime problem. It will, however, reduce it.

Unless you want to try and argue that criminals don't re-offend, so acting on them after they have committed crimes has no effect.

So killing someone in order to "permanently remove a demonstrable threat to society" will not diminish that threat to society. It does not nor will it ever solve anything.

It most certanly does removes the threat that individual presents to society. An executed violent criminal cannot commit any more crimes.

You are disingenuously trying to conflate two completely separate issues. Further, you making the HUGE assumption that every crime has calculable, preventable "cause".

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not get the death penalty by "accident". Someone very clearly and deliberately stands up - hopefully after careful consideration - and says something like, "we sentence you to die", and then someone presses a button to initiate the process that that makes you die, in the same deliberate and calculated way.

No fucking way you can compare this to a traffic accident caused by any number of more or less calculable parameters.

Lost Cause

[nurb432]

They can never beat the funds that the media has, but good for them to make a statement.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Also pretty popular in the UK dance scene, when cut
with a bit of E. "Special K" they call it, crazy mad people.

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

You do not get the death penalty by "accident".

It is certainly possible. A trivial example:

Let's say a lab tech screws up a DNA sample analysis by accident. Instead of showing a .09% match, they get a 90% match. They testify to that in court, resulting in a jury finding the accused guilty of murder. The accused gets put to death.

There- an accident that lead to someone getting the death penalty.

Sheesh.

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

You're both saying that the current system is inacceptible, and that you accept it.

It is not acceptable as a final product, but it is acceptable as a work-in-progress.

Did you ever build any type of mechanical or electronic device? Did it work perfectly the first time? Almost certainly not, unless it was extremely simple. But did you throw it away because it didn't work perfectly? Of course not.

The Death Penalty has flaws. Innocent people get put to death. And (a lot more, imho) guilty people go free. But that doesn't mean we should throw it away.

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

If what I've read is correct America doesn't even let the 'darkies' vote any more in federal elections

Where the heck you you get this from? All citizens are allowed to vote.

they are still the higher majority in gaols.


There are 2 solutions to that puzzle:
1) Minorities commit more crimes
or
2) Minorities are unfairly targeted by the System

Guess which one the minorities beleive.

I strongly support the removal of the death penalty simply because I never want to be in a situation where I'm wrongfully accused by the state who wants to see me dead.


Okay, first- if 'the state' wants you dead, you'll be dead. "Shot trying to escape", etc.
2) Is life imprisonment that much better? Nevermind- It is, they way things are run today. Prisoners get free room and board, cable TV, internet access, and can sue at the drop of a hat. (I can't be bothered to google for it, but I remember a case where an inmate sued because his hot dog was cold. This suit was paid for - both sides- by our tax dollars.)
C)My whole point was, that now that we have better testing and analysis techniques, now that the Internet exists, etc, that people are much less likely to be convicted wrongly to begin with. Look at the Duke rape case- one of the accused was getting money from an ATM at the time he was supposedly participating in the assault. That was an alibi that couldn't exist in the 70's.

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

Would people become lab techs if they knew one mistake could lead to their death? ,/i>

If they follow the proper procedures, they would have nothing to worry about.

A bridge you designed ends up failing? Death penalty.

If people end up dying in the collapse, and the collapse was a direct result of your screwing up, then YES- trial for murder, possible Death Penalty. What's so wrong about that?

Food poisoning kills a customer? Kill the entire kitchen staff.

Not the entire staff- just those responsible for the poisoning. If they violated safety rules, they are responsible.

Re:Heh

[naam00]

Did you ever build any type of mechanical or electronic device? Did it work perfectly the first time? Almost certainly not, unless it was extremely simple. But did you throw it away because it didn't work perfectly? Of course not. Did you think that over?

I'm out.

Re:Heh

[AI0867]

That's what the death penalty should be for: attempted suicide.

Thanx for that

[The13thSin]

Keeps me from trying to explain it myself (possibly less eloquently)... so thanx. Great post.

Re:Heh

[bentcd]

What's 'wrong' with the death penalty? It certainly sounds a lot better than sitting in a cell for 40-60 years and making people waste millions of dollars on you during that period. Capital punishment turns out to be more expensive than incarceration, in large part due to higher costs in investigating, prosecuting and appealing the case.

How is poisoning someone different from making them miserable for decades? If they eventually turn out to have been innocent, you can free someone in prison but you cannot un-poison someone who is dead.

Just to play devil's advocate

[abb3w]

Where does the berne convention say _anything_ about trackers where people can register to share whether they have a file with a cetain sha1 hash?

Well, actually Berne doesn't say a lot about anything; it sets some very low minimums, and then says nations must give at least the same protection (or stronger) to foreign works as to domestic ones. So it's not what Berne says, but what Swedish law says. Which, no doubt, irritates the MAFIAA.

Now, as I(AmNotALawyer) understand US law, if permission is not obtained first from the copyright holder for an original work, the copyright of any derived work (such as a condensation) goes to the owner of the original copyright. It could be argued that the torrent file itself is a derived work under the US definition, that distributing it is unlawful where not protected by fair use, and that (obviously) facilitating copyright infringement wouldn't qualify. However, we're talking Berne and Sweden here. So, the questions would be, how does Swedish law define a derived work, where do Sweeden's laws place ownership of a derived work, and is the "fair use" an exception? If it's similar to the US, that could be trouble.

I haven't been able to find anything with a a quick internet search, but I don't speak Swedish, and suspect most of the important case law may not be on-line.

Re:Heh

[s4m7]

Does that stop you from walking acoss the street?

No, however it is one of the factors that has kept me from owning a car, which is essentially a gratuitous luxury, over the 15 or so years I've been eligible to own one. I don't want to drive a car, because I don't endorse the damage they do versus their "benefit" of drivers becoming fat and lazy and overburdening the health care system with higher rates of heart disease and vascular disorders. Not to mention causing a run on fossil fuels, leading the the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis so that we can secure their oil rights.

Similarly, I don't support the death penalty because it has been shown that it is NOT an effective crime deterrent, and is historically abused to favor the ruling class, i.e. middle class white folks are the most numerous population group, and the least likely to be executed. As for its benefit of saving you money, that's great. You'll get to save a few dollars a year and a few people will die for it. Seems like an even trade to me.

It seems like you agree... that "morally" my argument is correct, but "practically" you'd rather have $22.03/year in savings than a clean societal conscience because hey "it's not perfect". I for one, oppose my government killing anyone in my name. It actually is a perfect method... no one innocent dies from that.

Re:Heh

[thegnu]

1) Very little "rehabilitation" takes place in prisons.

Right, but I think that we could work on that. I really think that if we pardoned all non-violent offenders (drug posession charges), we'd have a lot more tax money. But then, the prison system is privately contracted to people who are making a killing (har har) on these non-criminals (the guy with the oz of weed). By all means, if you have just gobbled up an 8-ball and you're driving recklessly for the umpteenth time (Ms. Lohan), then maybe prison is a good place for you.

Still, we could work on what the issue is. If we're planning on releasing ANYBODY, why not try to take care of them psychoemotionally, something that is obviously lacking in their lives?

2) Keeping someone locked up is quite expensive.

Legalize marijuana, at least. I mean, really. I just watched reefer madness last night for the first time, and I'm surprised at how many people actually seem to be affected by that same propaganda machine to this day.

Marijuana has not caused ANY overdoses. Check out this nifty comparison. Mixing it with other drugs can cause problems: coke and weed can cause cardiac arrest (ask me about my greatest unspoken told-you-so EVAR!!1!11), and weed can suppress your gag reflex, causing you to OD on alcohol, etc. But THC is shown to encourage the death of cancerous cells, encourage the growth of brain cells in certain areas of the brain, and it eases people's pain with less damage to your body than pharmaceuticals.

3) The "imperfect system" IS "put in control of life and death" all the time. Every time a murderer is given 5-10 years, then released 'for good behavior' in 4. That murderer goes right back out on the streets, while their victim- surprise- is still DEAD.

I completely agree with you here. I saw a newspaper article about an older couple that adopted several kids and tortured them for several years. They did stuff like yank out their fingernails with pliers. They got 15 years or so. In GA, you get 20 years per HIT OF ACID. They call carrying around a hallucinogenic like that 'child abuse,' because a child could eat it. Who here would rather eat acid than have their fingernails yanked out by your legal guardians?

Those evil bastards that tortured those children are going to get out early, if they don't get murdered in prison. The guy with the hit (or 3) of acid is not getting off early. Who would you rather live near your family?

Re:Heh

[Spudds]

Killing people for the sake of the bottom line is not only acceptable but also preferable! Hooray to capitalism, by which the blackness of any bottom line comes first in front of the life of a human being First off, welcome to capitalism.

Secondly, when you rape/murder/molest a child/steal on a grand-scale [such as Enron execs], you cease you be "human" and are more like a rabid animal. We shoot rabid animals because they're dangerous.

Thirdly, stop with this ridiculous "sanctity of life" stuff. A human life is not valuable simply because it exists. That's a bunch of self-serving crap.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus christ how many sackless liberal weenies are on this site?

Human error.
Collateral damage sucks, but it's well worth it to get most of the really dangerous assholes off the streets.

The religious angle.
Pointless argument. The religious in this country tend to be wrong on most things, and they're wrong about incarceration being a chance for redemption. Usually convicts end up worse.

The economic angle
Yeah, that's fine for low-security prisons. We don't put murderers to work outside the walls of the prison and how much must training be? I can't imagine a murderer/rapist being the best choice for labor.

Human rights factors
You killed/raped/molested someone. You have no fucking rights. Jesus!

The scattergun approach
That's a problem with the law, not the penalty.

The racist angle
I hate to break it to you dude, but here's a little politically-incorrect fact for you: There's a fucking reason for that. Minorities statistically commit more crimes. That's just simple fact that people are afraid to say these days. So don't give me the "You're Racist you evil fuck!" argument, because I'm stating simple, pure fact.

The poverty angle
That's a problem with the system not the penalty.

I could go on, but... I just don't want to
Thank god, I'm tired of hearing the old bullshit "But people are SPECIAL!!!!" and "life is SACRED!!!" arguments.

Grow up.
There's no god.
There's no meaning to life, it simply is.
Life is NOT sacred, it simply is.
People who rape or murder or molest children or commit massive scale corporate crimes or commit treason should be shot [yep that includes Bush]. Pure and simple.

HEY RETARD

[Anonymous Coward]

How about I own your bank account? It's just information and it is as electronic as a movie file.

Re:Heh

[mrchaotica]

A human life. It is more valuable than gold or anything known to man...

Bullshit. A human life, from an engineering perspective, is entirely quantifiable. It has to be, or else nothing would ever get built because the safety requirements to get the risk down to 0% would make the cost infinite. The dollar value used varies per industry, but a cursory search reveals this page that says the following:

The values of a human life that are commonly accepted in different industries seem to fall in the $1M to $8M range, with something around $2M being near the "median".

So, what's the bottom line? Multiply the value of a life (e.g. $2 million) times the risk the person was actually innocent (about 10%, according to this post further down the thread). The result ($200,000 in this particular back-of-the-envelope calculation) is the per-person risk of wrongful execution. Therefore, if the cost of imprisoning someone for life exceeds $200,000, then it's better just to execute them instead.

Sure, it may seem callous, but it's true (assuming my math is correct).

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop confusing cause and effect. Lab screw up = accident.
Awarded deathpenalty = extremely deliberate and controlable effect, caused by misinformation.

You'll have a damned hard time trying to prevent accidents because they exist for the very reason that something unexpected happened. However, nobody gets executed by accident. It's a highly premeditated and controlable action. If you don't want the subject to die, don't push the button. It's as simple as that, why can't you get it through your head?

Sheeeesh.

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

You seem to be the one confused.

There can be an accident, that causes misinformation that is used to incorrectly determine a verdict that leads to a Death penalty.

I say that execution was accidental. It's ultimate cause was the accident.

If you don't want the subject to die, don't push the button. It's as simple as that, why can't you get it through your head?

I understand that perfectly. But If I am presented with evidence that 'the subject' is a danger to Society, I would push that button. If the evidence later turns out to be wrong, then it is because of that wrong information that 'the subject' died. If the wrong information was accidental, then the death was an accident. If the wrong information was deliberate, then the death was murder.

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

Yeah yeah, I see what you mean: 'People who commit murder are nothing more than malfunctioning machines. And we shouldn't throw away (kill) then because they didn't work perfectly.'

I don't think so.

You see, I beleive people are MORE than just machines. One example: Machines have no minds of their own. People do.

So, while I will not throw away an imperfect machine/process simply because it is imperfect, I most certainly WILL kill a person who has freely made up their mind to hurt and kill others. It's not the same thing AT ALL.

Re:Heh

[naam00]

Riight, that's what I meant. Cough. Never mind though, as said, I'm out.

Re:Heh

[RodgerDodger]

1) They're already off the street - they're in jail. Killing them doesn't take them off the streets any better. (Assumption - if they weren't getting the death sentence, they'd have life without parole)

2) I personally don't go for the religious argument, I admit - just thought I'd throw it in there.

3) High security prisons can still make money, you know.

4) You always have rights. Prisoners have some of their rights suspended, not all of them. Go re-read your constitution.

5) Problems with the law also apply to the penalty - the penalty is part of the law after all

6) I pointed out that death-row prisoners are high in minorities even compared to the population of prisoners who commit similar crimes. This isn't about how commits more crime; it's about the fact that a half-decent lawyer gets you off a death sentence unless you've done a really nasty crime.

7) Again, problems with the system apply to the penalty. You shouldn't have a penalty that is so unevenly applied.

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God, I don't apply any special value to life other than mine. OTH, I believe in humility (you obviously don't, you arrogant nosewipe), avoiding making irreversible mistakes (last time I looked, nobody ever came back from the dead, not even Jewish carpenters), and a belief in the adage (that originated in the US) that "it's better to let a guilty man go free than send an innocent one to jail". And at no point did I say "People are special" or "Life is sacred".

Actually, my biggest problem with the death sentence is that it doesn't work. It's always put in as a "tough on crime" measure - but it doesn't provide any deterrence. It doesn't save any money - the appeals process for most death row cases costs more than the life-with-no-parole option. It doesn't just get the guilty - too many death row victims have been vindicated after their deaths, and even the ones who get reprieved during the appeals process shows the problems with the system. And without exception, in the US, it's put in (and taken out) as a political stunt, rather than a serious law enforcement measure, with set goals for success or failure that would lead to rational debate.

And, BTW, as someone advocating for a violation of the US constitution (the whole "lack of rights" bit), you are technically guilty of treason. Unfortunately, in the US, treason is only a capital crime for military members, so if you want to see yourself put to death, you'll need to self-enforce, so to speak.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, then you pressed the button because you were misinformed, not by accident, right? You deliberately took action, that in hindsight turned out to be wrong because of the misinformation, which was caused by an accident. IOW, pressing the button was the wrong thing to do, but you didn't do it by mistake, thus it was no accident. Q.E.D

Do not execute people, and you will have a nice zero in your "wrongly killed" column. Try everything you can to avoid killing people in traffic or at your workplace, and you might still get that zero turned into something else. See? It's not the same.

Re:Heh

[Greg.Rodden]

That's what the death penalty should be for: attempted suicide. "Here... let us give you a hand there"

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

You're mixing sides of the analogy.

I don't support the death penalty because it has been shown that it is NOT an effective crime deterrent

We've never had an actual Death Penalty.

We have a IF-you-commit-a-bad-enough-crime,-in-the-'wrong'-part-of-the-country,-and-you're-a-certain-race,-and-the-prosecutor-needs-to-be-re-elected,-and-the-risk-of-riots-isn't-to-big,-and-the-jury-doesn't-feel-too-sorry-for-you,-and-none-of-your-mandatory-appeals-work,-and-the-press-doesn't-work-up-too-much-sympathy-for-you,-and-the-governer-doesn't-need-the-minority-vote-this-year,-then-after-40-years-you-might-get-put-to-Death-Penalty.

It's a far, far different thing.

You'll get to save a few dollars a year and a few people will die for it. Seems like an even trade to me.


A few MURDERERS will die.

middle class white folks are the most numerous population group, and the least likely to be executed.

Correlation is not causation. Perhaps "middle class white folks" commit fewer murders?

you'd rather have $22.03/year in savings than a clean societal conscience

There is no such thing.

I for one, oppose my government killing anyone in my name.

No one uses your name.

It actually is a perfect method... no one innocent dies from that

Depends on how you define 'perfect'. Getting rid of all automobiles would result in the elimination of pedestrian deaths. You could say that is a 'perfect' solution... until you starve to death because the trucks that bring food to your local grocery store no longer exist.

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

Well, then you pressed the button because you were misinformed, not by accident, right?

But my being misinformed was accidental.

Do not execute people, and you will have a nice zero in your "wrongly killed" column.

And a huge negative in the 'money', 'safety', and 'sanity' columns.

Keeping prisoners costs money. That's a fact. Why keep providing all the comforts of home (heat, light, food, tv, reading materials, internet acces, etc) for life to a person who has proven themselves to be a danger to Society? The rest of us out here in the 'real world' have to work our asses off for these things. Why should bad people get given stuff and the Good people have to work twice as hard? What kind of logic is that?

Prisoners do occassionally escape. No executed prisoner has escaped their coffin to kill again.

I'm willing to accept some 'innocent'* people being killed by our admittedly imperfect system, as long as we seek to perfect that system.

*No-one is truely innocent.

In soviet Sweden...

[Anonymous Coward]

In soviet Sweden The Pirate Bay sues you!

Re:Heh

[mclaincausey]

The death penalty is wrong because an imperfect system shouldn't be put in control of life and death when criminals can just as easily be separated from society and possibly rehabilitated in other ways.


1) Very little "rehabilitation" takes place in prisons.
a) Prove it, recidivism rates are not 100%, more like 60-70% and b) the prison system is incorrectly set up as a punitive instead of a rehabilitating system.

Regarding points 2 and 3, perhaps you should do some research before you open your mouth and "remove all doubt."

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

recidivism rates are not 100%, more like 60-70%

So, what, about 1/3 of prisoners are "rehabilitated"? With such an excellent record as that, I'm surprised there's any crime at all.

b) the prison system is incorrectly set up as a punitive instead of a rehabilitating system,/i>

It's supposed to be punative. If a puppy craps the floor, you don't send him to therapy to 'rehabilitate'- you whack him on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper. To avoid getting whacked, the dog learns not to crap on the floor.
This is animal training 101- use pain to stop bad behavior and pleasure to reward good behavior.*
Now, with humans, we are intelligent. We can see the pain that others are going thru, and don't necessarilly need to be subjected to it ourselves. But what lesson do we learn when career criminals are let out after only a few years, to rob and kill again?

*Even training methods that don't use physical punishment use mental and emotional punishment. That's why you yell "DOWN Boy" or "NO, Boy" at the dog- to assert your dominance and make the dog feel bad it's doing something against your will. Yes, it's more complex than that, but that's what it boils down to.

perhaps you should do some research

The only reason Death penalty cases cost so much is because of the many appeals. Toughen the penalties for wrongful convictions, and get the verdict right the first time, then cut out the appeals.

Re:Heh

[Oldav]

I sincerely hope you end up on death row for a crime you didnt commit, then you might have a reasonable view, otherwise your just a mindless fucking jerk, who is stupid enough to think that violence will solve violence. No civilised coutry has the death penalty, THATS HOW YOU JUDGE WETHER A COUNTRY IS CIVIZED OR NOT. The US is not a civised country. It is the first empire to go from rise to decline without a period of civilisation in between.

Re:Heh

[focoma]

Rarely happens. When it does, I think they should find out WHY the verdict was wrong. Did a cop not do his job right? Withhold evidence? Did a lab tech screw up an analysis? Did the Prosecutor ignore an alibi? Then they hold THAT person for trial- charge: Murder.

So, Mr. Robinson, we're about to end your precious life for allegedly committing a heinous crime. But not to worry. If you didn't do it, after all, we'll make sure to execute the people responsible for your conviction. So it's all good. What did you say? What if you were merely a victim of a rare limitation of current methods and that no one would be criminally responsible for your wrongful execution, other than maybe the legislators who passed the Death Penalty into law? Well I don't know, Mr. Robinson, I guess shit just happens. Now would you please hold out your hand to the officer with the syringe? Okily dokily...

Get with the programme

[Uggles]

There is no such thing as an "original" in the digital age. Hence copyright should keep up with progress (be renewed) and not try an apply its analogue rules to new media. Glad to see TPB is standing up to the cyberbullies...

Re:Heh

[Seumas]

Except mine wasn't really an analogy. It was a precise description of the actual event without any analogies. :)

Re:Heh

[N3wsByt3]

Let's cut the crap. All humans are fallible, and juries and judges are human... ergo, they are fallible, ergo wrongful deathpenalties will always exist.

People who are pro basically say it's worth to have a few innocent deaths if it means we can keep the death-penalty going and kill guilty ones as well. I find this argumentation absurd, and hypocrite.

If YOU were the one facing death when being innocent, would you still promote the death-penalty? I doubt it. If you can't support it when you're in the victims' place, you shouldn't support it at all. If you say it's ok if some die innocently, you should be ok if you're the one dying too. If you're saying it's not acceptable, and you agree that it's unavoidable that some will be put to death innocently, then logic dictates you should not find the death-penalty acceptable.

Furthermore, I do not share your optimism about how racism is all a thing of the past. It's less overt, yes. And you can close your eyes for it, and pretend in modern times, the USA has put all that past behind. But in reality, human nature isn't that easily converted. The black minority may believe in 2, but it's equally easy to guess what the white majority believes. And, due to different causes (higher unemployment, etc.) they are right too. But the causes of *those* is never asked. All other things being equal, who will have - generally speaking - the most chance of finding a job: a white male, or a black male? I think you know the answer. Why do - for the *same* kind of crimes - white people get consistently less jail time then black people?

It's pretty naive to assume that no lingering racism (consciously or not) remains, and that all people act with a sort of Utopian 'all are equal' mentality. That's the theory (which is strived for by new laws) - not the practice (with it's foundation in human nature/upbringing).

Re:Heh

[sjames]

Think about it: would a cop try to frame someone for murder if they knew they would be put to death if the frame-up was discovered?? Would a prosecutor ignore evidence if they kney they would end up getting the death penalty??

By your argument, 100% of everyone on death row is either insane or innocent since nobody in their right mind would commit a crime knowing they'll get the death penalty for it.

Otherwise, yes, they would. Some percentage of DAs (and other politicians) as well as cops eventually feel that they're above the law and so don't have to play by the rules. They'd never believe THEY could even be brought to trial. Sadly, it seems to be true all too often.

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

People who are pro basically say it's worth to have a few innocent deaths if it means we can keep the death-penalty going and kill guilty ones as well. I find this argumentation absurd, and hypocrite.

Do you drive?

People who are pro[driving] basically say it's worth to have a few innocent deaths if it means we can keep driving cars around. Do you "find this argumentation absurd, and hypocrite"?

If YOU were the one facing death when being innocent, would you still promote the death-penalty?

Yes.

All other things being equal, who will have - generally speaking - the most chance of finding a job: a white male, or a black male?

As a minority, there are openings available to a black man that a white man can not even apply for. So, I'd say the black man... IF he bothers to look for a job.

Why do - for the *same* kind of crimes - white people get consistently less jail time then black people?

Firstly, you assume the crimes are the same when they may not actually be.
Second, you assume there is no context. (Person A may go quietly when arrested, Person B may fight and get charged with Resisting Arrest. When they get sentenced, Person B, as more of a danger than Person A, gets a longer sentence.)
Third, you assume no history. A person with a history of other offenses will naturally get a longer sentence for 'the same crime' as a first-time offender.

Re:Heh

[N3wsByt3]

"Do you drive?"

No.

"People who are pro[driving] basically say it's worth to have a few innocent deaths if it means we can keep driving cars around. Do you "find this argumentation absurd, and hypocrite"?"

If there would be a viable alternative that deals with their mobility: Yes.

"If YOU were the one facing death when being innocent, would you still promote the death-penalty?

Yes."

Well, at least you would be consistent, to which I applaud you. But forgive me for being a bit skeptic until the time you would actually be in that situation. To be prepared to unjustly die for your preference for the death-penalty (instead of life-long imprisonment) seems a bit *too* martyresque. Certainly, if I were to be imprisoned unjustly and they would say: it's that, or all the criminals go free, I might be inclined to accept it...if those were truly the only conditions to choose from. If some other reasonable alternatyive would exist to choose from, however, I would choose that. It strikes me as a form of zealotry that you would prefer to keep the death penalty, even when facing an unjust death, when there is a ready available alternative, which is used in practically all the rest of the world. It makes sense to protect others even with your death if that's the only choice. It's rather fundamentalist in nature if you want to die just to be sure some real criminals are put to death too.

"As a minority, there are openings available to a black man that a white man can not even apply for. So, I'd say the black man... IF he bothers to look for a job."

Theoretical bullocks. Whatever legal openings there are, they can't fight an employer who doesn't want blacks. And if you refer to 'positive discrimination': that's an oxymoron.

"Firstly, you assume the crimes are the same when they may not actually be."

I don't assume anything. there was a paper made on this issue, and *they* said it. Ok, not 'the same' (obviously, it can never be exactly the same); but for 'similar' crimes. Whether or not they are the same, statistically speaking, that doesn't matter, unless you argue that somehow, black people always do more and worse than white people when committing a crime.

"Second, you assume there is no context. (Person A may go quietly when arrested, Person B may fight and get charged with Resisting Arrest. When they get sentenced, Person B, as more of a danger than Person A, gets a longer sentence.)"

So you assume black people and hispanics are consistently more resisting arrest, fighting, being a danger, etc. then white people? Have you anything to back that up? And is it impossible that they are being a bit harder targeted than white people *by* the police? Or do you claim there is no racism with the police neither?

"Third, you assume no history. A person with a history of other offenses will naturally get a longer sentence for 'the same crime' as a first-time offender."

As far as I can remember the codnitions were similar too.

I can't find the paper back online, but I did find this: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:X2eXQ5_-MNYJ:www.scienceblog.com/cms/blacks-who-kill-whites-are-most-likely-be-executed-13844.html+sentences+for+blacks+and+white+people&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=be

Now, regardless of all the different factors that may or may not come into play (and I do agree other factors do play a role too), your staunch refusal to acknowledge that race may, indeed, also be a factor of importance, is a bit astonishing.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just quote the foreign minister of Nicaragua (I think): your argument, while completely rational, is totally insane.

Re:Heh

[s4m7]

We've never had an actual Death Penalty. Well, if we put someone to death, as a penalty, that's kind of what's meant by "death penalty." The fact that all these circumstances surround it is a political reality that you're not going to escape through legislation. and by the way, nice job breaking the layout.

A few MURDERERS will die. and some NON-murderers, which is the whole point here. If the justice system kills someone innocent due in part to your support of the death penalty, it's on your head, like it or not. That's part of the responsibility we bear in a participatory government.

Getting rid of all automobiles would result in the elimination of pedestrian deaths. You could say that is a 'perfect' solution... until you starve to death because the trucks that bring food to your local grocery store no longer exist.

Well I wouldn't starve to death, because I live on a farm. But your point is well taken: eliminate non-cargo traffic, and pedestrian deaths dwindle to near zero, while the benefits of internal combustion engine vehicles persist.

Besides, I've so far left out the fact that with lengthy appeals processes, the cost of executing prisoners is very well on par with keeping them incarcerated. Nevertheless, you continue to argue that saving money is worth having bloody hands, and for me, that makes your opinion pretty much irrelevant.

Re:Heh

[fredklein]

The fact that all these circumstances surround it is a political reality that you're not going to escape through legislation.

"Members of the Jury, how do you find?"
"Guilty, your Honor."
"Bailiff, take the guilty man out behind the courthouse and put a bullet thru his skull."

There- a way around all the legal BS. We just need to change the law to allow for immediate executions.

and some NON-murderers, which is the whole point here.

And when I walk down the sidewalk, I step on an occasional ant. I'm not concerned about that, and I'm not concerned about an occasional innocent person being put to death. Shit happens. Sucks to be that person, yes. But that scenario would be extremely rare if everyone involved in the case was held responsible as I suggest.

If the justice system kills someone innocent due in part to your support of the death penalty, it's on your head,

Nope. It's on the head of whoever screwed up.

Well I wouldn't starve to death, because I live on a farm. .. where you produce EVERYTHING you need to survive??

eliminate non-cargo traffic, and pedestrian deaths dwindle to near zero, while the benefits of internal combustion engine vehicles persist.

So now "near zero" deaths is acceptable. Make up your mind.

Besides, I've so far left out the fact that with lengthy appeals processes, the cost of executing prisoners is very well on par with keeping them incarcerated.

There are TWO solutions to that: Abandon the Death penalty and keep people locked up for life, OR eliminate the lengthy appeals processes. You favor the former, I favor the latter. Both solutions will keep the killers away from the rest of society (discounting early releases and escapes), but one is much cheaper.

you continue to argue that saving money is worth having bloody hands, and for me, that makes your opinion pretty much irrelevant.


And you seem to want to waste other people's money (including MINE) on keeping killers alive and in good health, so they can be released in 5 years to kill again, or in the most extreme cases, for life.