Slashdot Mirror


Prince, Village People to Sue The Pirate Bay

castrox writes to tell us that The Pirate Bay's legal concerns are continuing to grow. Prince and the Village People are planning to sue the popular torrent site with the help of the Web Sheriff law firm. John Giacobbi of Web Sheriff has also asked Swedish band ABBA to join the cause. The suit is seeking "millions of dollars" in damages, although it's still uncertain to whom the charges will be directed. The likely targets are the four Pirate Bay founders who were indicted a few weeks ago on charges of breaking copyright law. Prince has taken investigative action against The Pirate Bay in the past.

435 comments

  1. yeah by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Prince, Village People, ABBA to Sue The Pirate Bay: The suit is seeking "millions of dollars" in damages

    Correction: They're seeking "millions of dollars" in fabulous damages.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:yeah by WK2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why must we scream at each other? Why can't we all just get along? Let's all go to the YMCA!!

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    2. Re:yeah by repvik · · Score: 1

      This is what it sounds like, when doves cry... Actually one of the very few songs Prince has made that is good. Now he's worth millions and millions, and is getting greedier by the day.

    3. Re:yeah by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I'm thinking the funniest part of this is, the Internet and filesharing has given these has-beens a new lease on life that they wouldn't have otherwise. C'mon, disco already???? There's a reason why we here in the States say "dead as disco".

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    4. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm assuming that the reason for the lawsuit is that ThePirateBay refuses to waste their space linking to torrents of Prince, the Village People and Abba when no-one wants it...

    5. Re:yeah by kidblast · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know if Prince's side wins the judge is going to be like:

      "Game, Blouses."

    6. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, disco has been making a resurgence for over a year now along with its other variations. It might have died in the eighties, but it seems to have been resuscitated. Then again, how could anyone from the States be wrong.

    7. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Actually, disco has been making a resurgence for over a year now along with its other variations.

      And if these trends continue... Aayyyyy...

    8. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually one of the very few songs Prince has made that is good.

      He's written dozens and dozens of songs that you probably know but don't realize he wrote. Dozens of hits for other artists. I'd list some, but I realize that no matter which ones I chose you'd dismiss them. So you can go look it up and maybe be surprised.

    9. Re:yeah by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm thinking the funniest part of this is, the Internet and filesharing has given these has-beens a new lease on life that they wouldn't have otherwise. C'mon, disco already???? There's a reason why we here in the States say "dead as disco".

      Maybe you don't buy it. Maybe the [average notional] Slashdot demographic doesn't buy it... But neither you nor that demographic are the whole of the music market. Or even a noticeable portion thereof.
       
      The most recent release of the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack is currently the 2,251st selling album on Amazon - which means it is selling pretty steadily, and nowhere near the 'long tail'. Clicking around shows quite a few other disco albums in the same sales range. Pretty impressive if you ask me. (My local big box music store dedicates a whole section to disco too...)
       
      Disco may be dead according to comedy routines - but its selling awfully well.
    10. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just looked them up. I've never heard of most of them, and the ones I do know are all shitty, generic pop-R&B.

    11. Re:yeah by ultranova · · Score: 2, Funny

      Disco may be dead according to comedy routines - but its selling awfully well.

      And eats brains as well.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:yeah by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wow, people are paying for and wanting the saturday night fever soundtrack for real? I just saw in in the 3 for $5.00 bin the other day where the shit is so lousy, they make you buy two otherd nobody wants just to get rid of them.

      I would say that is pretty impressive too.

    13. Re:yeah by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      Prince isn't really a has-been. Until he started this nonsense, he was a hero of mine for breaking free of the big labels and running his own studios. And didn't you see him perform at the superbowl last year? Even in the downpour he laid it down. That man can play guitar. If I ever get back to vegas, I definitely want to check out 3121. Prince has had a great influence on many artists, and has helped many of them along the way.

    14. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever get that feeling that you'd feel better if you could just throw up? I used to take Pepto-Bismol. Now I just put on some Prince, Village People, or ABBA that I got from Pirate Bay.

    15. Re:yeah by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Young man! Don't you download today,
      I said young man! Stay out of Pirate Bay,
      There's no need, to, copy, ancient 70's music,
      *doo doo doo*
      But it's fun to go to the Piraaate Bay!

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    16. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well now that he is a Jehova's Witness he must strictly follow the 11th commandment, "Thou shalt grub for every penny"

    17. Re:yeah by bkr1_2k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'll not dispute that Prince comes off as greedy, but I'll mention that he gives his CDs away for free at his concerts (at least the last couple of major concerts he's done) and his general excuse for acting like an ass is actually simply control of his own music. He tends to think he's the only person capable of making his music sound good and doesn't want it diluted with a lot of bad remixes.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    18. Re:yeah by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      How did this story not get the tag: youcantstopthemusic?

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  2. Civil vs. Criminal by Nemilar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know that in the US, there's a very big difference between the civil courts and the criminal courts. While it seems that under Swedish law, the hosting of torrent files doesn't appear to be a crime, does anyone know if they have the same sort of distinctions between civil and criminal courts? Could they be found innocent in criminal court, yet still be forced to pay thousands/millions of damages in civil court?

    --
    Nemilar http://www.techthrob.com - Visit Me!
    1. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by QuantumG · · Score: 0

      Duh, of course they do.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Shrug. They don't have thousands/millions to pay - the pirate bay is NOT profitmaking, it only takes a few nerds to keep it going. Any "victory" over the pirate bay would be merely symbolic - and probably pyrrhic, translating into increased support for the (unaffiliated with the Pirate Bay, but obviously sympathetic) Pirate Party, which is a surprisingly powerful political force in Europe at this stage (and the more the USA fights it, the more powerful it gets, thanks to strong anti-US sentiment in Europe due to the USA's assholery). It's not like the site itself can even be shut down by legal action due to its distributed nature, and even if it was, it's not like it's the only bittorrent tracker site.

    3. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Pirate Party, which is a surprisingly powerful political force in Europe at this stage [Reference needed]

    4. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, there is no formal distinction between civil and criminal law in Sweden. Law is law so to speak. But in practical terms lawyers specialize in different things and so on.

      Either way, the current case will pretty much establish whether tpb can be held accountable and they will either emerge victorious or disappear. So Prince and "web sheriff" are wasting their time.

      And BTW. Web Sheriff, *nice* name guys. (I mean for f*cks sake?)

    5. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Partially right. There is a civil law section of the law (which I call a formal distinction), but there are no special courts or anything like that.

      The bigger difference though, is that Swedish law has no concept of using fines as a form of punishment in it self, just as compensation for losses or emotional/physical suffering.

      Since a business entity can't claim to be "hurt" TPB can only be made to reimburse the losses suffered through their actions, and these losses has to be substantiated.

    6. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by nbert · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wikipedia is your friend. However, as the section "political impact" explains, their archivements are of rather symbolic nature as of now (the English wiki is slightly outdated, but there are no landslide victories to report anyways).

      Even though they are at a very early (and sometimes chaotic) stage I like to compare them to the green movement in Europe. In the early 80's many green parties formed in various countries because none of the existing parties served the aims of environmentalists. Nowadays they are well represented (check seats in the EU parliament) and their biggest enemies are the other parties picking up their cause. I'd love to see a similar development for all the pirate parties (especially regarding privacy).

    7. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by The+Empiricist · · Score: 1

      Shrug. They don't have thousands/millions to pay - the pirate bay is NOT profitmaking, it only takes a few nerds to keep it going.

      Does it really have to be profitmaking for a judgment to have impact? Nerds tend to make good money. A $1 million dollar judgment found against an individual running the site could be spread out over a 40 year career as $25,000 per year if interest isn't charged. For people who have six-figure earning potential, such judgments might be considered fair, and they would bite enough that they could discourage others from taking the place of the defendants.

    8. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd be impossible to compel them to work, especially in sweden. They'd just not work, and not pay. And I don't know where you're getting "nerds tend to make good money" from - most don't.

    9. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Pirate party? If the Pirate Party is a powerful force in European politics, then it would explain a lot about our current (NL) government, but afaik this party is a Swedish party and a fringe one at that. What's more significant as that there appears to be more support for modern copyright regulations in Swedish parliament beyond that one party.

    10. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by init100 · · Score: 1

      Could they be found innocent in criminal court, yet still be forced to pay thousands/millions of damages in civil court?

      I don't know. What I do know is that any damages would probably be in the thousands rather than the millions, especially if the currency is USD. Sweden is not the United States, and we don't have the kind of ridiculously high damages that the US has. I'd be surprised if they had to pay more than around 50,000 USD in damages, if found guilty.

    11. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Yes. If you are tried for a crime and found not guilty you can still be sued for the same actions in civil court and have a settlement against you. I could name more than one example, but I think we need look no farther than OJ Simpson, who was found not guilty of murder in criminal court, and yet found liable for wrongful death in civil court. QED

    12. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by The+Empiricist · · Score: 1

      It'd be impossible to compel them to work, especially in sweden. They'd just not work, and not pay.

      Sure, why not? You can always cut off your nose to spite your face. Why earn $100,000 and keep $75,000 (minus taxes) when you can earn $20,000 and keep $20,000 (minus taxes)?

      And I don't know where you're getting "nerds tend to make good money" from - most don't.

      A lot do...although I suppose it depends on what one defines as a nerd.

    13. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that doesn't matter. What matters is: You have to lose a highly publicized court case before you can make a case to politicians to change the laws to convince them to protect your business ass(ets)...

    14. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 1

      I know what the Pirate party is and I wasn't saying that it can't at some point become an important player one day. Let me quote again: "surprisingly powerful political force in Europe" -- that implies their political power right now is something else than minuscule. In reality, as the Wikipedia article you linked tells you, the only place where the Pirate party may have had some effect on policy is Sweden. Even in Sweden they would have needed something like six times the number of votes they received to get into parliament.

    15. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

      IIRC, if one *distributes* over $1000 worth of copyrighted works over an 18 month period, then it's a criminal offense in the US.
      And that doesn't mean $1000 worth of separate works, it could be just a single 99 cent song that you make available over p2p that 1011 people download over 18 months (distributing a 99 cent song to 1011 people is equivalent to distributing $1000.89 worth of works).

      I don't know about criminality regarding *receiving* (rather than distributing) copyrighted works. It may be that *receiving* over $1000 worth of copyrighted works over 18 months is also criminal, but I can't recall.

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    16. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >Yes. If you are tried for a crime and found not guilty you can still be sued
      >for the same actions in civil court and have a settlement against you.

      The "problem" here (for the web sherif) is that they are not charaged with any crime itself in the crimial case, they are charged with aiding (or is abet the proper word?). That is a concept in the criminal law only, not in civil law. You can't sue in a civil case for aiding/abeting. So they would need to show an actual infringment by the persons at Pirate Bay which is probably not so easy since if it was, it would for sure have been part of the original criminal case.

    17. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by jools33 · · Score: 1

      I think Web Sheriff are going to find this a hard sell in a Swedish civil court. I live in Sweden and I cannot think of a single instance where there has been a large award as a result of a civil law suit. The culture of filing suit for large scale damages simply does not exist in Swedish courts, all this will achieve is to publicize the pirate bay even more.
      It seems they also plan to sue in the US - and I'm guessing they are more likely to get results there - but is a civil case won in the US enforceable in Sweden - as far as I know the pirate bay does not physically operate in the US at all.

    18. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Are you speaking for Swedish law, of which I know nothing? Because in the USA where I live, you can certainly be sued for contributing to a harm. Most of us nerds remember the "contributory infringement" argument which was successful against Napster. Both "aid" and "abet" are terms of art, and I don't know their legal meanings in the USA, but similar things apply.

    19. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by Tweekster · · Score: 1

      If you think thepiratebay is not making some pretty good cash you are delusional.

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    20. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by Pofy · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was about Swedish law since that was the topic. The contributory/aid/abet/attempt/whatever is part of the criminal law and are general provisions that applies to basically any crime without there needing to be any special paragraph, text or such for each crime. There are restrictions as to what crimes one can apply it (can't be on to minor crimes, certain requirements has to be fullfilled and so on) but otherwise it applies generally. Thus it includes the copyright infringement that is considered as criminal.

      Another requirement is that there is an actual crime commited as well and usually you need to have a sentence for it although there is some rare cases with someone having been convited for a contributory crime whilne no one was ever convicted for the crime itself. This requirement is important in the Pirate Bay case (the criminal one) since they prosecutor needs to prove a crime has been commited and which should not have been commited without the aid he is accusing the persons from Pirate bay for.

      This is all regulated in kap 23 of the "brottsbalk" (the law handling criminal law) and it applies only to criminal cases, not civil ones.

    21. Re:Civil vs. Criminal by Myopic · · Score: 1

      +4, Informative. Thank you.

  3. Remember "A New Hope" by calebt3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Darth Vader: Your powers are weak, old man.
    Obi-Wan: You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

    1. Re:Remember "A New Hope" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pirate Bay: Your business model is antiquated, old industry.
      Music Industry: You can't win, Bay. If you strike me down, I shall sue you with more lawyers than you could possible imagine.

    2. Re:Remember "A New Hope" by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds exactly like the old Napster. The RIAA struck it down, and it has returned as BitTorrent, more powerful than the RIAA could possibly imagine.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    3. Re:Remember "A New Hope" by griffjon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, technically speaking; there were many networks between Napster and bittorrent -- AudioGalaxy; Gnutella and its various clients, Morpheus, Kazaa... They keep getting struck down; and keep getting more savvy and functional. bittorrent has value as an actual distribution channel (I'd argue that AudioGalaxy had the potential to be the solution for bridging P2P filesharing and a profit model for bands, but that's another rant).

      So even if bittorrent somehow gets compromised (too many bad seeds, spying, lawsuits, etc.), there will be another evolution in the sharing tools. It's a cat-and-mouse game that will continue until the Industry realizes that it's business model is gone and that it must (wait for it) innovate!

      But I dream.

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    4. Re:Remember "A New Hope" by STrinity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds exactly like the old Napster. The RIAA struck it down, and it has returned as BitTorrent, more powerful than the RIAA could possibly imagine.
      No, it returned as a suckass online music retailer that's had its ass kicked by iTunes and Amazon.
      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    5. Re:Remember "A New Hope" by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Sounds exactly like the old Napster. The RIAA struck it down, and it has returned as BitTorrent, more powerful than the RIAA could possibly imagine.

      No, it returned as Gnutella and other fully decentralized P2P networks. BitTorrent is like a turbocharged nitroglycerin-burning download accelerator, a conceptual descendant of GetRight and other programs which allowed you to download the same file from multiple hosts simultaneously in days past.

      Then again, Gnutella also uses the download mesh technology nowadays. Best features get recombined with small variations in endless new combinations, and the best combinations serve as models and inspiration for the next generation. That's evolution in action. Intelligent (to be generous) Design of the RIAA is hopelessly outmatched by it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:Remember "A New Hope" by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      BitTorrent, as implemented today, is also relatively decentralized. No one torrent is, but BitTorrent itself is as decentralized as the Web -- anyone can throw up a tracker, or put a torrent on an existing tracker and seed.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    7. Re:Remember "A New Hope" by ultranova · · Score: 1

      BitTorrent, as implemented today, is also relatively decentralized. No one torrent is, but BitTorrent itself is as decentralized as the Web -- anyone can throw up a tracker, or put a torrent on an existing tracker and seed.

      BitTorrent, as it exists today, isn't a network. Each torrent is in theory completely separate. As such it doesn't really make sense to talk about "BitTorrent itself", since there is no such entity, just a protocol used in numerous separate and unconnected transmissions. Each torrent fomrs its own mini-network, usually with a central server (tracker), altought trackerless torrent works pretty well too; and these mini-networks have nothing to do with each other. Consequently, BitTorrent doesn't support searching for files, since there is no network to search them from.

      Gnutella, on the other hand, is both a protocol and a network. All Gnutella clients in the world cooperate to form a single connected network for the purposes of searching for files. And the Gnutella network is completely decentralized.

      BitTorrent and Gnutella are thus fundamentally different. Gnutella is self-contained, since it supports searching the Gnutella network; you don't need any other program besides the Gnutella client to use it (not counting the OS, of course). BitTorrent, on the other hand, requires an out-of-band method of getting the torrent file in the first place; a BitTorrent client is useless on its own. In this way, BitTorrent is basically a replacement for GetRight and such programs: you click on a link in a webpage, and BitTorrent downloads the file.

      In a way this is like the difference between FTP and the Web: FTP servers are unconnected from each other, while Web servers form a greater entity, the Web itself.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:Remember "A New Hope" by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      I realize the technological differences. But I think you see the philosophical implications here:

      It may be possible to wire FTP servers together, by putting HTML pages on them, but I have no idea how current browsers would react. The Web is no more intrinsically connected -- in fact, there are a number of services which run over HTTP which aren't even particularly well connected internally, let alone to other servers.

      So, on that level, the Web is less of a "network" than Gnutella is.

      BitTorrent, while it is self-contained, is also every bit as much a "network" as the Web is. It's this way before even hitting the torrent file; I can Google for torrent sites, and some will link to others. At a lower level, there is actually a decentralized network built on top of BitTorrent, called DHT (Distributed HashTable), and even without that, one can add any tracers which are serving the same collection of files.

      From a user interface perspective and from a censorship perspective, it's really no worse than Gnutella.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  4. Anonymous Alternatives: e.g., Freenet 0.7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just as p2p sprang up when Napster went down, alternatives are springing up to take the place of 'regular' p2p and p2p sites that are under attack. Freenet 0.7 (and also 0.5) has a lot of movies, games etc. On 0.7, if you happen to have darknet 'friends' who also trade in similiar content then you're downloads should be as fast as regular p2p with the benefit of anonymity.

    1. Re:Anonymous Alternatives: e.g., Freenet 0.7 by FreenetFan · · Score: 1

      The Freenet 0.5 network is only populated by a few diehards now, but Freenet 0.7 has seen numbers increase from about 500 to 5000 over the last year. That is probably partly due to the activities of the RIAA and MPAA, but also due to major advances in Freenet's ease of use and speed recently.

      I would say it is a slight exaggeration to say that speeds can be as fast as regular p2p, due to the encryption and anonymity overheads, but a well-connected node can transfer a 700MB file in a day. And as you say, if your direct peers are also downloading the same file, it has the potential to be even faster.

      Definitely worth checking out if you are at all concerned about protecting your anonymity whilst filesharing.

      And it should be noted that it isn't just about filesharing, it has a more serious role to play in combating government censorship.

  5. In Soviet Russia..... by mickwd · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...I hope someone sues the Village People for the damage they've done to popular music :-P

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia..... by dummyname12 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or Prince, for the damage he's done to facial hair.

    2. Re:In Soviet Russia..... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Both in Soviet Russia and pretty much anywhere else, contemporary popular music does damage to the downloaders, not the other way round!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:In Soviet Russia..... by Mahjub+Sa'aden · · Score: 1

      Or ABBA, for wasting so much precious oxygen.

      --
      What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
    4. Re:In Soviet Russia..... by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, joke pattern doesn't get you!

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  6. Pointless by fintler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't they realize this is pointless? Even if they "win", they just give more media attention to torrent sites in general. Say the pirate bay goes down (and I don't think it will) everyone will just start going to a place like mininova, or one of the other hundred popular torrent sites.

    1. Re:Pointless by dnwq · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can they really give more attention to TPB than previous cases already have? As far as Streisand effects go, this one more case isn't going to have much of an impact.

    2. Re:Pointless by Threni · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Don't they realize this is pointless?

      Cheap advertising though, right? Especially for a has-been like Prince. Best definition of him I ever read was "possibly a reincarnation of one of Jimi Hendrix's pubic hairs".

    3. Re:Pointless by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 0

      People have been hating Prince since before you'd ever heard of him. I remember some of the invective some weekend-warrior guitar players used to hurl on him back in the 'Dirty Mind' era (pre-Controversey) when I worked in the Lincoln Bank Building on 8th and Hennepin.

    4. Re:Pointless by Kamokazi · · Score: 1

      And what is probably the more stupid thing is I bet most of the music piracy occurs over programs such as Limewire, and not torrents. So not only will it open people eyes to torrents (Discography? You mean I can download all their songs at once?! And not in shitty 128k quality?), it will also have a fairly minimal impact on music piracy initially.

      But I still highly doubt this will get any traction. TPB has proven to be rather immune to direct copyright infringement, and has ridiculed the Web Sheriff on several occasions. The only reason the other recent indictment has stood up is because it approaches it from a different angle (accessory to copyright infringement).

      And even still, even if any of this results in a verdict against TPB...the owners apparently don't even know where the site is hosted anymore since the '06 raid. They presume several different countries but have requested not to be informed of the location. So really probably the worst thing that could happen is the domain name gets forced down...and then it changed to thepiratecove.org or something.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
  7. Needed Tags by nuclearpenguins · · Score: 0

    Someone needs to tag this article Macho Men.

    --
    Anonymous Coward: "This is slashdot. Accuracy is second class citizen here, unlike King Bias."
  8. Downloaders are scared... by RichPowers · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not because they'll be charged with illegal file sharing, but because it will go on record that they in fact downloaded music by The Village People. Revealing that to the world should be enough punishment. :)

    1. Re:Downloaders are scared... by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Not as scared as those people who actually paid for it!

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  9. What's next, the GNAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, next thing you know they'll be getting sued by GNAA.
    <input type="checkbox" name="postanon" checked="checked" />

  10. Dear Prince by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dear Prince,

    I imagine you don't sell many records these days and receive little royalties. But that has less likely to do with piracy and more to do with the fact that you haven't been relevant in the music world in over 15 years. My 17 year old daughter probably has heard of you, but then, she's heard of the battle of hastings, too. The same is true of ABBA, but even more so.

    As for the village people, they were a comedy/novelty act. They had 3 hits, which were basically the same song, but delving into other aspects of man/man sex and it's various cliched incarnations in society. How much longer did you think that would be making money?

    Somebody like Jay-Z might have a point do this, but he's actually making music that people listen to.

    Mr. Prince, my little prince. Is is possible the record companies have put you up to this? I thought you split from the RIAA a couple years ago?

    1. Re:Dear Prince by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The parent is right you know. Prince's main audience is 40+ year-old women. I know, I bought his newest album for my mother. She was ecstatic.... she loved him when she was younger.

      As far as I know, Prince is not capturing a wide younger audience. He's just recapturing a part of his old one. He needs to do what Madonna does - rather than just make new music, he should change his image to attract the younger more dominant audience.

    2. Re:Dear Prince by QuantumG · · Score: 0, Troll

      Prince and Trent Reznor, the loudmouths who feel the need to tell the world how much they hate their record label, and how they are embracing self-publication and, in the case of Reznor, how corrupt The System is, man, and we all should rebel or something.. then, at the drop of a hat, they'll be standing on the copyright dole line saying "gimme gimme gimme".

      Get a real job.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Dear Prince by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      Dear Prince,

      I imagine you don't sell many records these days and receive little royalties. But that has less likely to do with piracy and more to do with the fact that you haven't been relevant in the music world in over 15 years. My 17 year old daughter probably has heard of you, but then, she's heard of the battle of hastings, too. The same is true of ABBA, but even more so. Right, but for the wrong reasons. Here, I'll fix it for you:

      Dear Prince,

      I imagine you don't sell many records these days and receive little royalties. But that has less likely to do with piracy and more to do with the fact that you have given out too many CD's for free under the guise of promotions. You are still *very* relevant in the music industry. If you had only given, say, half as many away, you would've made more in royalties. Maybe I'm partial, though, since I'm originally from the Twin Cities. But that doesn't explain why he was inducted in to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 2004, why he won two grammies in 2008. He also won a Webby in 2006 for being one of, if not, the first artists to release an entire album online (although that back in '97).

      I think the problem is just his lawyers got bored (or ran out of money and needed some more jobs) and said it was a good idea.
    4. Re:Dear Prince by pipatron · · Score: 4, Funny

      they'll be standing on the copyright dole line saying "gimme gimme gimme".

      I think you're thinking of ABBA here.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    5. Re:Dear Prince by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Dear Prince,

      I imagine you don't sell many records these days and receive little royalties.


      Dear Fellow AC,

      According to Wikipedia, the last album Prince for which they have sales info (the album "3121", from 2006) sold 1.5 million copies worldwide. The album before that sold 2.5 million. Also, Prince played the Superbowl last year and won two Grammys this year.

    6. Re:Dear Prince by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Please post the email address of your 17 year old daughter. We want to send her a copy of Jack-U-Off.mp3 from Prince's 'Dirty Mind' album. She can probably already lip-sync the words.

    7. Re:Dear Prince by loganrapp · · Score: 1
      I find it interesting that people stick up for the torrents originally because it was all about the record companies seeking their profits and it's not like the artists get paid a dime for the litigation, and now that an artist who isn't with a label, who's completely running the show himself and ensures that a more-than-fair share if not all of the revenues go directly to the artist, suddenly people are blustering, "well, he's a hack, so it doesn't matter."


      Nevermind that the artist in question is easily the largest influence in pop music alive today, both as a performer and a songwriter.

      Suddenly the artists are greedy too and supposedly on their way out (okay, Village People was on their way out when they got there, I'll give you that). "Get a real job?" Something tells me you've never met professional songwriting musicians.

    8. Re:Dear Prince by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      *I* never said that. You can't ascribe motivations to a group of people then get upset when not everyone in that group holds the opinions that you think they have.

      I actually know quite a few professional musicians, including composers, and not one of them considers it a "real job", so what the hell are you talking about?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    9. Re:Dear Prince by loganrapp · · Score: 1
      I never said anything about you specifically with the exception of the "get a real job" comment, so try not to do what you're suggesting I'm doing yourself.


      Live in a shitty apartment in LA, show up day in and day out to the studio, the shitty clubs, the shitty bars, get heckled, make barely enough to survive and then tell me what a "real" job fucking is. Waiting tables? Refilling copy machines and going to meetings? That's the easy route.

    10. Re:Dear Prince by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Dude, if you're a musician and don't like it, maybe you should just get another job, but the vast majority of musicians consider it entirely unlikely that they get paid for doing what they love.. and thus the real job comment.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    11. Re:Dear Prince by Mr+Stubby · · Score: 1

      I think Kevin Smith put it best when recounting his tale of working with Prince, as he quoted one of his assitants "Prince has been living in Prince world for quite some time" I think its pretty clear from any casual observer of his behaviour he does have a total disconnect with a reality in the same way i think Michael Jackson and many other wealthy celebrities have who become recluses and lock themselves in ivory towers away from the so called "meanness" of the world they constantly blame for their problems. That said i must admit I am a very big fan of Prince's music.. I am in awe of his musical talent, but as a person, i dont idolise him. Also the chances of record companies putting him up to this are slim to none, hes had no official ties to a record company for many years, only dealing with them with single cd deals for distribution rights on his albums that barely sell these days through the regular retail channels

    12. Re:Dear Prince by DynamiteNeon · · Score: 1

      http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/13/trent-reznor-to-chin.html

      I'm not really sure why you included Trent Reznor in there, but just for the record, he's actually been pretty vocal about endorsing downloading of music in some cases. I'd be very surprised if he turned around and sued people over it.

      Reznor also openly admitted to being pretty active on the bittorrent site Oink before it got shutdown.

      http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/10/trent-reznor-on.html

    13. Re:Dear Prince by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to be cutting a lot more slack if you seriously think teenagers don't know who Prince is.

    14. Re:Dear Prince by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heh, Reznor is a try hard. He encourages people to "steal music" because he thinks it makes him sound all underground and cool, but when you actually listen to him being interviewed you quickly discover that he's a big fan of copyright.. he's just not a big fan of his label. So when he says "steal my music" he's not saying it in an ironic "haha, as if music is property anyway" kind of thing, he's literally saying that he should be the one lording it over his fans, not his label, and so yeah, fuck them over for me. That's about as anti-establishment as forming a political party for anarchists.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    15. Re:Dear Prince by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      I think you're thinking of ABBA here.

      ABBA turned down a *billion* dollar offer to tour. I don't think they're too worked up about getting more money.

    16. Re:Dear Prince by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Live in a shitty apartment in LA, show up day in and day out to the studio, the shitty clubs, the shitty bars, get heckled, make barely enough to survive and then tell me what a "real" job fucking is. Waiting tables? Refilling copy machines and going to meetings? That's the easy route.

      It seems to me that right now one of the best things that could happen to you is to have millions of people illegally downloading your work.

    17. Re:Dear Prince by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      So you're saying there's little profit motive, right? So you're saying that he holds very little weight (at least with the younger generation)? It sounds to me like a relic like him wouldn't be worth the money to publicly shill for the RIAA. This is probably just his opinion.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    18. Re:Dear Prince by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      All you ABBAusers out there might want to take note that ABBA has been "asked to join" this case, which is not the same thing as "has joined". Don't make them the bad people until they actually join. Something which I think is unlikely, they got ridiculously wealthy as a group (IIRC they pocketed over a $100 million off of their music). They've turned down ridiculously huge sums of money to regroup for just one event, although they never "officially" broke up. They're unlikely to do this. They simply have no need for any more money from their songs which still sell and they still have a huge fan group buying up ABBAnything. They're doing other things now. So please please RTFA and think before you insult. This was one of the most successful bands of all time. Yes, I'm a fan, but I haven't bought anything ABBA in many many years, so I have no axe to grind.

      As far as PB being some group of heroes, well, I know I'll get flamed and modded down, but these aren't heroes. Sure maybe they're sticking it to the evil that is the recording industry, and they are unlikely to hurt the artists much, but only because the artists have been screwed by the industry. While I'm all for the idea of civil disobedience in the face of greedy warped pigs like the RIAA, and anything that hurts them and their cohorts running the music industry might be considered good. It's still stealing and enabling others to steal the work of the artists. You can call it anything you like, but the truth is unchanging and immortal, if you take something that doesn't belong to you and give it to someone else it's still stealing. Just because you have a copy of something doesn't mean you own the original thing. Of course the case could be made that the recording industry has been stealing from the artists for years. That still doesn't alter the basic truth that distributing and aiding the distribution of copyrighted works without permission is wrong morally and legally. Two wrongs still don't make a right. You who are uploading and downloading music without permission are just as wrong as the RIAA and the music industry. Although Sony is a seriously evil corporation and needs to be dismantled.

    19. Re:Dear Prince by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say what you will about the insanity of Prince suing Pirate Bay, but you've got to be kidding about Prince's being irrelevant. Did you not see the Superbowl performance from last year, which many musicians, non-musicians, critics, and so on said was the best Superbowl halftime performance ever? He also sold out the O2 Arena for his entire 21-night stay in London this last year. And when he's on tour, he's consistently in the top 10 or higher of total revenue, even when his concert tickets are half the price of other top acts'. And let's not forget that his recent 3121 album debuted at number 1 on the Billboard chart. That's hardly irrelevant.

      P.S. Even Jay-Z must think he's relevant enough to copy, since he borrowed "If I Was Your Girlfriend" to incorporate into a song he and Beyonce recorded.

    20. Re:Dear Prince by Idefix97 · · Score: 1

      ABBA has sold over 400 million records to date and still sells millions more every year!

    21. Re:Dear Prince by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      Dear Anonymous Coward,

      While it may be true that you don't listen much to Prince, some other people might disagree with your assertations.

      Here's a few highlights from the Wikipedia article about Prince in just the last two years:

      * Won a lifetime achievment Webby award for his use of the internet in 2006

      * Won best R&B artist in 2006 from BET

      * Won a Golden Globe for "Song of the Heart" in 2006

      * His song "3121" made it to #31 on Billboard R&B charts in 2007

      * Performed the half-time show for the Superbowl to 140M people, the most watched TV performance this century

      * Sold out 140,000 tickets to a single show in May 2007 in just 20 minutes

      * Won two Grammies for "Future Baby Mama" and "Songn of the Heart" in 2008

      And if you go back to 2004, his tour scored $87.4M -- the most profitable tour that year.

      So uh, yeah.

      --
      -David
    22. Re:Dear Prince by Pascoea · · Score: 1
      Somebody like Jay-Z might have a point do this, but he's actually making music that people listen to.

      I like your point. But I can't, in good conscience, agree with your example.

      While you are correct (presumably) that people out there are currently listening to Jay-z (why they are doing so is beyond me, but thats another discussion for a different day) His music is no more durable then Prince, Abba, or the Village People. 10 years from now (5, if I have any luck) he will be just as obscure as the others, and the only place we will have to hear his "music" is in some oldies bar, played right after "Walk Like and Egyptian" by the Bengals.

      Just my 2 cents.

    23. Re:Dear Prince by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Prince, the guy that is notorious for not paying his employees until they threaten a lawsuit is suing over money... great. I personally know/have known three of his ex-employees and one artist that built sets for him under contract and the only one that got paid on time was a bodyguard.

      Not sure where Reznor came from, but most of his angst was from breakups. Record companies deserve the grief they get, so I have no problem with bands like NIN and Radiohead sounding off against them.

          If you've never signed a record deal, I recommend doing it once as a musician, just to get screwed the hardest. Songwriters (and producers, AR guys, etc) get a cut of money coming in, whereas musicians pay recording, manufacturing and distribution costs from their cut before they get paid. I've seen a contract that required roughly 100000 CDs in sales before the musicians to see a dime, meanwhile, the songwriter would earn at least 5% of each ~$12 CD (hard to tell with promotional freebies and fan club discounts), or $60000. Oh - and radio performance royalties? They're paid exclusively to the songwriter and song publisher. In return, the label lets the band play the label's songs (in most cases, they own the rights by contract) without paying a door fee (they call this a performance rights license or reciprocation license in contracts), which is something they probably couldn't enforce legally, anyway - I've never heard of actors paying performance royalties, anyhow, and I'm sure they could learn their lines by books-on-tape just as easily as a script.

          In other words, as a musician, you're often better off with a daily or weekly live show than to record. Alternatively, it's possible to make a good living doing session work, especially if you can sight read music and live in an advertising town.

    24. Re:Dear Prince by glimmy · · Score: 1

      they'll be standing on the copyright dole line saying "gimme gimme gimme".

      I think you're thinking of ABBA here.


      Actually, I think that would be Black Flag.
    25. Re:Dear Prince by normal_guy · · Score: 1

      That's quite a verbose justification of an illegal act, copyright infringement. It's possible to justify fair use. You can argue that music companies need to adapt to the changing world. The door is open and can't be closed. You could even argue that Prince is getting even more exposure thanks to these files being freely distributed.

      However, the fact remains: unauthorized downloading of an artist's work is illegal, and should be.

      --

      Linux: Free if your time is worthless.
    26. Re:Dear Prince by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see the top 10 music downloads from TPB in the last month - I'd be willing to bet they're all forgettable and no one will give a shit about them in 10 or 20 years... ...aren't we culturally superior?

    27. Re:Dear Prince by k31bang · · Score: 1

      The same is true of ABBA, but even more so.

      Hey, many of ABBA's songs are listened to by the younger folk. Just not in the same old style.. More metal like. ;-)

      One band even had the cash to make a music video of their tribute version of Summernight City.

      --
      -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
    28. Re:Dear Prince by toriver · · Score: 1

      *whoosh*

      "Gimme Gimme Gimme" is a famous ABBA song.

    29. Re:Dear Prince by popmaker · · Score: 1

      *nitpick*

      It's actually "money, money, money".

    30. Re:Dear Prince by toriver · · Score: 1
  11. Web Sheriff already tryed to sue... by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... The Pirate Bay in the past. With a really hilarious response from TPB:
    White Stripes / WEB SHERIFF: email our response 2nd mail and response our fax (invoice) 3rd mail attached document We tell Faxxsheriff about our new site 4th mail our response.

    --
    I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
    1. Re:Web Sheriff already tryed to sue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a huge Young Frankenstein fan I couldn't start laughing after this fragment:)

      ----
      > Dear Frederik,

      It's spelled "Fredrik".
      ----

      Pure genius.
      And balls: it's not easy to keep your sense of humor working when replying to a lawyer who wants to bust your ass.

      Long live TPB!

    2. Re:Web Sheriff already tryed to sue... by Cheesey · · Score: 2, Funny

      No .torrent for a Swedish course? And I thought they had everything...

      --
      >north
      You're an immobile computer, remember?
    3. Re:Web Sheriff already tryed to sue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Web Sheriff is the equivilent of an indian outsourcer instead of hiring real lawyers. Websheriff covers a lot of independant music labels, and their staff just use form emails. Anyone recall the baby video with the prince song that was taken down from youtube?
      If ($word=="prince" && $nextword=="music"){&sendformletter($website);}

    4. Re:Web Sheriff already tryed to sue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I so enjoy reading responses from the Pirate Bay staff. I really enjoyed their critique of his poor command of the English language. If their first language is Swedish, then doubly so. They try to point out that he is pushing a rope. TPB (if I recall correctly) was taken down by Swedish police a few years ago, but when they found no copyright infringing material on the hard disks, everything fell apart (apparently all they found were those silly little torrent files). I understand that the Swedish police *had* to show that they were doing *something* in looking for stolen copyrighted material. Upon finding none, they discovered the true nature of torrent files, went through a null court procedure to have an entry showing that there is no infringement of copyright in distribution/storage of torrent files, and with the action taken by them and the courts, they could finally tell those silly people suggesting illegal activity to 'go push a rope'. Thank God Sweden is a democracy (the real kind), and the United States (a corporate funded fake, pseudo, pretend kind of democracy --democracy of the corporate interest--) has no jurisdiction there. American citizens are not subject to Swedish law, unless they commit a crime in Sweden, under Swedish Law. The reverse is also true. Swedish citizens are not subject to American law, unless they commit a crime in the US, under US law. TPB servers are in Sweden. American law does not apply there. These are very old debates (and the stupid Sheriff knows it). However, the humor I have received from the Pirate Bay emails to the stupid Sheriff, must be worth something. I am seriously considering purchasing a large case of cold beer and sending it to The Pirate Bay staff, for having such a good sense of humor, and making me laugh. Unlike the Sheriff, they (from their writing) appear to be intelligent, well read, thoughtful and humorous. I enjoy their retorts to blustery letters sent from blustery lawyers. They have demonstrated superior abilities in deflating overblown egos. I salute them.

  12. Has beens... by lordsid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These has beens should be glad people are still pirating their music.

    --
    IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
    1. Re:Has beens... by jmnormand · · Score: 2, Funny

      Judge: so the jurry has decided on $12 per infringement... that is... $132 to the defendant.

      Prince: Yes! now i can finaly win that bedazzler on ebay!!!

    2. Re:Has beens... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that anyone would want to copy their music. Not knowingly anyway.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  13. Elvis Too! by N8F8 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I heard they held a seance in Las Vegas and the medium channeling Elvis said he wants to sue.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  14. Smart move? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Using well known but old artists who don't sell much nowadays could be a smart move. The danger of a boycott campaign from fans is less likely to happen because those who were their most loyal fans are now in their 40s or more.

    I'm not sure about Prince, but Village People and Abba certainly don't sell much these days.

  15. Web hotels? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I totally agree. Weve said for years that web hotels who are making millions, even billions, by renting out web space to file-sharing websites should take more responsibility and control these websites, Giacobbi said.

    What the? This firm is called web sherrif, you would think they would have a slightly better grasp of the terms of the trade. It makes me almost instantly classify this suit as totally without merit and just a case of some stupid musicians being conned by a lawyer who smells a fat check (and not coming from the direction the musicians think).

    Claims of millions of whatever currency are already laughable enough, does this guy really think that thepiratebay its isp or in fact anyone even remotely connected to P2P makes billions? Does he even understand how much money that is wether you measure it in dollars, euro's or kronen?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Web hotels? by sqrt(2) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems simple to me, and I'm not a lawyer or anything. TPB is all about using P2P technology to let people trade things for free. One of the fundamentals is that there is no money changing hands for this to happen. TPB doesn't magically create a few cents out of NOTHING every time someone hops on a torrent. They probably make a little bit from advertising and t-shirts to cover their costs and put a little in their pockets but they deserve that for the service they are providing FOR FREE. A service that is completely within the letter, if not the spirit, of the law as it currently stand in their home country of Sweden. I would say Web Sheriff (Great name for a US based operation, idiots. As if we weren't hated for acting like the world's police already.) and the "artists" they are representing do not have a legal leg to stand on. I can't see much coming from this empty threat--this is not the first to be levied against TPB and they're still alive and well, and growing.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    2. Re:Web hotels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Telling your client that their suit has no merit puts no money in your pocket. Pursuing a fruitless case still gets you paid and you may even win damages for your client if you get a clueless judge.

    3. Re:Web hotels? by jpetts · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Web Sheriff is a UK-based operation, idiot.

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
    4. Re:Web hotels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Representing US clients it seems; but I get your point, [Insert needless insult here].

  16. It's a civil case. by DragonTHC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It will be interesting to see if artists et al can actually collect on this case. Since I don't believe tpb is actually violating swedish law.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:It's a civil case. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Neither do the Pirate Bay.

      It is, of course, possible that both you and they are wrong.

    2. Re:It's a civil case. by ragefan · · Score: 1

      It will be interesting to see if artists et al can actually collect on this case. Since I don't believe tpb is actually violating swedish law. What will be hilarious if they do actually win and collect anything, what the artist "cut" would end up being.

      "Thanks for helping us collect all that money from TPB, here's your $0.10."
  17. Sue? by barl0w2 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Good luck w/ that

  18. Web sherrif? Hahaha :D by Idaho · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously, they're sending in this clueless company "Web Sherrif"?

    I'm sure thepiratebay is getting scared now - see the links about halfway on that page to read the fine letters mailed between "the white stripes/Web sherrif" and thepiratebay admins.

    --
    Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
    1. Re:Web sherrif? Hahaha :D by Nimey · · Score: 1

      The name sounds like something out of Snow Crash, not so?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:Web sherrif? Hahaha :D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet Web Sherrif has in-depth knowledge of Swedish civil law.

  19. The interesting thing.. by castrox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The really interesting thing is that all these artists are old-timers whose glory days are long gone. All their work was produced (mostly) way back.

    This really brings out the real trouble with the system. Somehow music is a perpetual machine in terms of money making. Now, I get that if someone uses your songs in order to MAKE MONEY, then they should give some back to you (since you're alive), since your work is obviously making money.

    But going after file sharers just seems rather absurd to me especially since the artists considered haven't produced anything new in quite a while and so just wants free lunch. It DOES seem very greedy to me.

    I mean.. Get to work like everybody else?

    --
    Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/
    1. Re:The interesting thing.. by roadsider · · Score: 1

      Question: If I download mp3s of music I already own on vinyl, am I breaking the law? I really don't think I should have to re-buy the music I already own/license just because I no longer have a place to plug in or use my turntable. I got a bunch of vinyl records that I'd like to listen to, but I'm not going to spend hours converting them to digital.

    2. Re:The interesting thing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh great the new trendy thing to say around here is 'get to work like everybody else?' in the endless argument about the music industry.

      Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy their music; if you don't like it than do not buy it and go listen to your crappy indie/techno music.

      So if the artist hasn't been producing work from 7am-3pm like every other normal joe schmo than he somehow doesn't deserve to get money for his music; some pretty weak arguments around here and sounds more like a bunch of Utopia dreaming liberal loving socialist ideas being modded up as usual around here.

      If copyright laws do not seem to work in Sweden than why isn't somebody close sourced the Linux related source code and dance around the copyright laws there.

    3. Re:The interesting thing.. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      But going after file sharers just seems rather absurd to me especially since the artists considered haven't produced anything new in quite a while and so just wants free lunch. It DOES seem very greedy to me.

      Just maybe you should check your facts before posting.
    4. Re:The interesting thing.. by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      The really interesting thing is that all these artists are old-timers whose glory days are long gone. All their work was produced (mostly) way back. Yes, and if they don't receive royalties these many years after, there will no longer be an incentive for them to have produced it.

      The creative work might disappear in a puff of retroactive disincentivity!

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    5. Re:The interesting thing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The really interesting thing is that all these artists are old-timers whose glory days are long gone. All their work was produced (mostly) way back.

      This is not interesting, this is OBVIOUS.

      * NOBODY who is popular now would risk ther popularity and participate willingly in artistical suicide.

      * this is directed at OLD PEOPLE who do not understand what's going on and don't care, but if Village people and prince are against it, it must be bad thing - where's my torch and pitchfork!

      If it would be 20 years from now, they would digg up britney spears from the grave and include her in the lawsuite.
    6. Re:The interesting thing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think music artists like Ozzy Osbourne, Gigi Allen, Marilyn Manson, and the parade list of other musicians who credited making money in music prevented them from going on to a life of crime hurting others, would have benefited from getting regular jobs? Case in point - Charles Manson. If he would have gotten a recording contract like he wanted, would he have gone on to become a mass murderer? It is one way for these kinds of people to get out of the way of mainstream society and have a spotlight put on them.

  20. Sue for what? by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Million dollar damages sought for illegal file sharing Huh? TPB isn't sharing any copyrighted files? Not even indirectly, like an ISP does.

    They can at most sue them for some sort of grey area "contributory copyright infringement"...
    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:Sue for what? by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >They can at most sue them for some sort of grey area
      >"contributory copyright infringement"...

      That is part of criminal law (in Sweden). You can't sue in a civil case for "contributory something" you have to sue for the main illegal act which would be suing the people actually uploading and downloading.

  21. Prince sue? by Wowsers · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will Prince sue over his "Planet Earth" album he gave away for free in the Daily Mail 'newspaper'?

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:Prince sue? by gilesjuk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suspect there's Prince and then there's Prince's recording label.

      Many artists have left their label in protest, this action isn't always sanctioned by the artist.

    2. Re:Prince sue? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Prince doesn't have a label anymore. That was the whole flap which resulted in him using that symbol instead of "Prince", which ended when his contract did.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    3. Re:Prince sue? by Mr+Stubby · · Score: 1

      Technically the Daily Mail paid him a few million ( I forget the exact figure ) for the oppertunity, and then they gave it away for free :)

      So i'm guessing he'd still be upset if someones giving it away for free without paying him first :P

    4. Re:Prince sue? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      It's up to him. If he wants his album to be distributed that way, that's up to him, not to people who think "That's stupid; it's free!", and download it anyway. Besides, he may have some kind of deal with the Daily Mail whereby he gets a cut of the profits, or even just a favour for helping sell the newspaper. Either way, unless he specifically says that you may share it, you may not share it.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  22. Prince? by j235 · · Score: 5, Funny

    You mean the artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as prince?

    1. Re:Prince? by roemcke · · Score: 1

      No, it's the formerly artist known as Prince

    2. Re:Prince? by Synthaxx · · Score: 1

      Actually he's more like the formerly known artist formerly known as prince.

    3. Re:Prince? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      With any luck, in a few years he'll simply be "the artist formerly known".

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    4. Re:Prince? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always though that sign looked like a twisted female symbol -- "" http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xmlcharent/glyphs/100dpi/U2640.png

  23. Macho, macho man... by gerbouille · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why only Web Sheriff? Why not Web Indian and Web Construction Worker, too?

    --
    This post is displayed with recycled electrons
    1. Re:Macho, macho man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      _LOL_

      Well I got the joke anyway. Uncultured heathens!

    2. Re:Macho, macho man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he might have been the only one legitimately good with colours.

    3. Re:Macho, macho man... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "ugh, me log'um IP address."

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:Macho, macho man... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Why only Web Sheriff? Why not Web Indian and Web Construction Worker, too? They should have had a pirate in the Village People too! Actually, on second thoughts...
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    5. Re:Macho, macho man... by elvesrus · · Score: 1

      but Purple Beard wants to get paid too...

    6. Re:Macho, macho man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK. THAT is why posts modded as "Funny" deserve karma.

  24. Arrrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    So tell me where to donate to the DEFENSE fund.

    Remember, you can't have 'peanuts' without 'pet anus'.

    1. Re:Arrrr by rudeboy1 · · Score: 1

      I concur. I gather they have their own on-staff lawyer, who is reported to be one of the best in the country. I want to help out, but they don't appear to want any help. I could see how this might conceivably be a viable argument when they are defending themselves against the charge of making money off of copyrighted material. I have donated to the people that do the "Steal This Film" videos, but if there were a more direct way to help, I'd be all over it. I just got paid, so if anyone has a (legitimate) way of donating to their cause, let me know before I spend my paycheck on hookers and blow.

      --
      Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
  25. Torrent sites should be able to defend themselves by NewsWatcher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Suing a torrent site for copyright infringement is something akin to suing a map-maker because a thief used the information to find a bank that was robbed (and yes, I know that with copyright infringement nothing is physically stolen), or suing a telephone company because two criminals used the network to plan a heist.

    If all someone is doing is using information from a torrent site to find another party, and is not actively connecting the two copyright infringers Napster-style, then surely they can defend the accusations.

    --
    If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
  26. Added to my list of artists to avoid by Whuffo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    These has-been artists are using the legal system to prop up their declining income. Their sales are almost zero due to their "one or two hits many years ago" history; they've received as much money as their products would produce already.

    They're hoping for a big payday - but once the lawyers get paid there won't be anything left. The lawyers are just using these people to support another attack against their customers.

    A message for Prince, ABBA, and the Village People: your race has been run, get used to sitting in the sun. If you need more money, consider picking up trash and recycling the aluminum cans...

    1. Re:Added to my list of artists to avoid by geek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That may be true for ABBA and The Village People but Prince is quite well off with his own gig in Vegas. Prince has been very vocal about the music industry and how fucked up it is. Regardless of whether you call them has beens or not, people ARE stealing the music and not paying the artist. It's a crime, doesn't matter if they are still popular or not.

    2. Re:Added to my list of artists to avoid by Barseflips · · Score: 3, Informative

      While I can see that Village people or Prince might need more money, I very much doubt Abba need anything. It wasn't that long ago that they turned down the offer of one billion dollars to tour again. Björn and Benny make a LOT of money from musicals, with Mamma Mia being a massive hit (it has made around USD 2 billion). Abba had a few more than "one or two hits", and many bands have covered them since. To be honest, I doubt very much if Abba care that the pirate bay is facilitating the sharing of their material. In fact, being Swedish, they're probably cheering TPB on.

    3. Re:Added to my list of artists to avoid by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      If you need more money, consider picking up trash and recycling the aluminum cans...

      Or even going on a nostalgia tour. ABBA in particular's got no excuse - the last time they recorded anything new was more than 25 years ago, and these are the same people that turned down a *billion* dollars to do a reunion tour. There are plenty of old bands that continue to tour regularly (the wife insists we see Rick Springfield every year, for instance) to bring in income, maintain interest in their music, and hopefully gain some new fans rather than relying on twisting copyright law in some parasitic assumption that they're owed a living for past glories.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    4. Re:Added to my list of artists to avoid by ddrichardson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's also worth noting that Prince gave away copies of his last album in a paper, which was extremely unpopular with the music industry - so it's not as if he doesn't want his work distributed.

      --
      A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
    5. Re:Added to my list of artists to avoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the wife insists we see Rick Springfield every year

      Surely that's grounds enough for divorce, right there...

    6. Re:Added to my list of artists to avoid by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      That may be true for ABBA and The Village People but Prince is quite well off with his own gig in Vegas. If he's doing so well with his gig in Vegas -- a live performance which cannot be copied and thus is under no threat from file sharing -- then why is he bothering to sue? Either he's just greedy, or he's not doing so well in Vegas after all, neither of which paint him in a very good light.

      Regardless of whether you call them has beens or not, people ARE stealing the music and not paying the artist. It's a crime, doesn't matter if they are still popular or not. Yeah, it's illegal. So is driving 32 MPH in a 30 zone, ripping the tag off a mattress, smoking a joint, and playing poker online. No one in their right mind, however, would waste a dime enforcing those laws when there are still real crimes to prosecute.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    7. Re:Added to my list of artists to avoid by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      these are the same people that turned down a *billion* dollars to do a reunion tour
      Considering that two of them are divorced (Bjorn and Agnetha IIRC), it's not too surprising. A billion dollars is not enough compensation to tour the world for over a year with your ex-wife!
    8. Re:Added to my list of artists to avoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, you're only doing that now?

    9. Re:Added to my list of artists to avoid by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      It's also worth noting that Prince gave away copies of his last album in a paper

      Presumably because nobody would be stupid enough to pay good money for it.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    10. Re:Added to my list of artists to avoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but this piracy issue is a problem of his own making; since he chose to give his album away in the most vile of British right-wing tabloids, his fans had little choice but to turn to piracy if they wanted to get a copy.

    11. Re:Added to my list of artists to avoid by psymastr · · Score: 1

      It wasn't that long ago that they turned down the offer of one billion dollars to tour again.

      billion? what the hell are you talking about?

      --
      Improve at backgammon rapidly through addictive quickfire position quizzes: www.bgtrain.com
    12. Re:Added to my list of artists to avoid by Whatanut · · Score: 1

      Myth: If you remove the law tag at the end of your mattress, the police will pay you a visit.

      Fact: While you will NOT get arrested for removing the law tag, you should leave it attached because it serves as a means of identification to establish your warranty rights in the rare event any service need arises. Not to mention the fact that law tag labels prove authenticity, protecting consumers against fraudulent "copycat" mattresses.

      http://www.sealy.com/SleepSoundly/SleepSoundly.aspx

      --

      yvan eht nioj
  27. Village People suing the Pirate Bay by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't know exactly why, but the above sentence is full of all kinds of funny.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Village People suing the Pirate Bay by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      I don't know exactly why, but the above sentence is full of all kinds of funny.

      Well, think about it. You have a problem: there's a bay full of pirates openly looting and plundering and flouting the law. What do you do?

      Send for the Navy!

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:Village People suing the Pirate Bay by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      This is nothing to joke about!

      We're right now arming ourselves with our pitchforks and riding our elks and polar bears to raid TPB here in Sweden!

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:Village People suing the Pirate Bay by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      My imagination was more about a musical: the place is a courtroom - pirates on one side, Village People on the other. What starts as an acrimonious legal battle, develops into a romance of sorts, punctuated by singing and dancing. Not quite sure of the judge and jury's role in all of this, but both the pirates and the VP would have a lot of music time.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    4. Re:Village People suing the Pirate Bay by popmaker · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the "Web sheriff"! :D

      Seriously, sometimes things happen for some weird cosmic coincidence that are so inherently and outrageously funny... It sort of makes life worth living it,

  28. Yes, but look whose suing by Xest · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They're all bygones, they don't care what it does to the music industry, if it nets them cash damages then that'll keep them rich a bit longer, it's not as if any of them have amazing music careers racking in the fortunes for them anymore.

    I'd be more suprised if you saw modern bands that are still making a lot of money involved in this kind of suit for exactly the reasons you say, it'll do them harm long term because they still have a reputation and future loss of revenue to lose, these people suing really don't have much to lose in that respect.

    1. Re:Yes, but look whose suing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're all bygones, they don't care what it does to the music industry, if it nets them cash damages then that'll keep them rich a bit longer, it's not as if any of them have amazing music careers racking in the fortunes for them anymore.


      Regardless of what you think of them, I'd wager they've done more than you have. Also, you don't think Prince still has a lucrative career?

      Also, I don't believe Lars Ulrich's going after Napster has hurt Metallica.
    2. Re:Yes, but look whose suing by shoemilk · · Score: 1

      yeah, i mean look at all the number 1's metallica has had since then...

  29. In other news... by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...people are actually bothering to pirate works by Prince, the Village People and ABBA.

    --
    Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
    Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On February 2, 2000, ABBA turned down an offer worth $1 billion to get together again after 17 years. The offer came from an American-British consortium which wanted ABBA to reunite for 100 concerts to cash in on the current international revival of the catchy songs that brought the group fame and fortune.

  30. ARRRR-BA by Snufu · · Score: 0
    Prince, The Village People, and ABBA aren't threatening litigiation, they are threatening live performance. Much in the way the U.S. military smokes out insurgents by playing highly offensive music.

    ABBA: "Ohhhhh Fernando...."

    The Pirate Bay: "Weigh anchor mateys, thar serious this time!"

  31. I shot the Sheriff by iminplaya · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    But I didnt shoot no deputy...

    --
    What?
  32. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Web Sheriff I stopped reading there.

    Because I was laughing too hard to focus my eyes
  33. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Insightful
    *puts on Official "Playing Devil's(?) Advocate" horns*

    Suing a torrent site for copyright infringement is something akin to suing a map-maker because a thief used the information to find a bank that was robbed (and yes, I know that with copyright infringement nothing is physically stolen), or suing a telephone company because two criminals used the network to plan a heist. No, it's more like suing a map-maker when they produce a map that was specifically designed for (or with the intention that) it would be used for bank-robbing and similar activities, and included details pertinent to that activity.
    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  34. Hoist them swabies up by their own peter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny



    Hoist them swabies up by their own peter and we'll see who remains a man when it's all said and done.

    1. Re:Hoist them swabies up by their own peter by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Informative

      I certainly hope you know that the word is petard and you were just making a childish penis joke. I'd rather think you childish than stupid.

    2. Re:Hoist them swabies up by their own peter by schon · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd rather think you childish than stupid. You sir, are an optimist. :)
    3. Re:Hoist them swabies up by their own peter by aproposofwhat · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Arrr, but you landlubbers don't know that 'peter' is old navy language for a flag - probably derived from petard, but more correct in context.

      There's even a kids TV programme in the UK called Blue Peter, named after the flag that was used when a ship leaves port.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    4. Re:Hoist them swabies up by their own peter by Ulven · · Score: 3, Informative

      As a petard is a bomb, I'm not so sure that that is the origin of the blue peter.

      To be 'hoist by your own petard' is to be blown up by your own bomb.

      So says the almighty wikipedia.

    5. Re:Hoist them swabies up by their own peter by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hoist by his own retard?

    6. Re:Hoist them swabies up by their own peter by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      The origin of the word is the French word for "fart," which has always been my preferred interpretation of that phrase. :)

      --
      Fnord.
  35. why pirate bay? by Pvt.+Cthulhu · · Score: 1

    i never understood why the pirate bay always shows up in the news as being under fire for distributing intellectual property. in my experience, it never has any seeders.

  36. No by Bored+MPA · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's like suing someone for driving a bus full of people to the bank and handing them keys to all the vaults. Whatever your opinion about IP/copyright, the facts of this matter are clear:

    The site is called the goddamn PIRATE bay. It was not meant to be on the legal linux sharing side of things.

    The vast majority of people using it have never and will never pay the artists for their work. And considering the number of small release work on there (non-big name games and movies), and direct to DVD movies that are leaked (like Stargate), the pirate bay and other sites probably have a significant impact on fair compensation (and thus decisions to produce).

    And lastly, the PIRATE bay is clearly abetting the taking of income from individuals in a legally questionable (it's only legal in sweden, yay o_O) and clearly amoral manner...and they are profiting from it at the expense of others (like pirates). Note: Only the rich and popular can sue, I'm more concerned about those that can't.

    The real enemy here is copyright law that protects corporations more than artists, and freedom from DRM (corporations _will_ replace/enhance copyright with DRM technologies). But the point, the point is that the Pirate Bay is not one of the good guys just because you can get something for nothing.

    1. Re:No by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      And lastly, the PIRATE bay is clearly abetting the taking of income from individuals

      Taking? As in, they have the income, and then The Pirate Bay takes the income, and now The Pirate Bay has the income and the other guys don't?

      Or is The Pirate Bay doing something entirely separate that has the side-effect of preventing the income from ever coming to exist in the first place?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:No by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      DRM will replace copyright? Excellent; since there has been no DRM scheme TO DATE that still stands entirely undefeated against the legions of hobbyists and amateurs that take pleasure in circumventing those systems. Actually the entire venture is fundamentally impossible, it's not even a technical problem, it's just logic. You have two people, A and B, you're trying to keep content C from getting to B while allowing A to still use it. Only with DRM, A and B are the SAME PERSON.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    3. Re:No by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Nooo, it has the side effect of possibly maybe sort of preventing some income from manifesting in the first place, but also possibly maybe generates income that wouldn't have occurred in the first place.

    4. Re:No by alexhard · · Score: 1

      1. Nobody is 'taking' anyone's income. 2. Clearly amoral? I'd like to see you argue for that. 3. No, the enemy is copyright law that is completely fucked up, and corporations that have no clue about what their clients want, instead trying to sue them into buying their product. 4. Corporations are already moving away from DRM, and they are futile and useless anyway since hackers can bypass them at will and normal users are encumbered. DRM decreases the perceived value of a product, and increases the perceived value of the pirated copy, the demand curves are shifted accordingly. It makes you wonder if anyone at the big recording companies has actually studied economics. 5. The pirate bay is not one of the bad guys either. They simply point you to material (in your analogy, it's the torrent client that gives the keys, but it doesn't work anyway, because the bank loses money, while the holder of pirated material doesn't.) PS: You think people who download never have and never will pay artists for their work? http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2347/125/ A government commissioned study finds that people who download music are more likely to buy it. PS2: hand in your geek license (or punch your astroturf license) on your way out.

      --
      Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
    5. Re:No by alexhard · · Score: 1

      Proper formating:

      1. Nobody is 'taking' anyone's income.

      2. Clearly amoral? I'd like to see you argue for that.

      3. No, the enemy is copyright law that is completely fucked up, and corporations that have no clue about what their clients want, instead trying to sue them into buying their product.

      4. Corporations are already moving away from DRM, and they are futile and useless anyway since hackers can bypass them at will and normal users are encumbered. DRM decreases the perceived value of a product, and increases the perceived value of the pirated copy, the demand curves are shifted accordingly. It makes you wonder if anyone at the big recording companies has actually studied economics.

      5. The pirate bay is not one of the bad guys either. They simply point you to material (in your analogy, it's the torrent client that gives the keys, but it doesn't work anyway, because the bank loses money, while the holder of pirated material doesn't.)

      PS: You think people who download never have and never will pay artists for their work? http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2347/125/ A government commissioned study finds that people who download music are more likely to buy it.

      PS2: hand in your geek license (or punch your astroturf license) on your way out.

      --
      Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
  37. Young man! by DigitAl56K · · Score: 5, Funny

    Young man, I was once in your shoes,
    I said, I was.. downloading torrent files too,
    But it's stealing, and there is licensing due,
    So you've got.. to.. know.. this.. one thing:

    DUN DUN DUN DUNNUN

    It's fun to sue with the D.M.C.A.,
    It's fun to sue with the D.M.C.A.,
    They have everything there for lawyers to enjoy,
    Ain't no safe harbor for Pirate Bay, boys!

    P.S. Sorry, I had to.. :)

    1. Re:Young man! by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Funny

      Y Won't U Pay?

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    2. Re:Young man! by spir0 · · Score: 1

      that's the funniest damn thing I've read since the last funniest thing in the world I read.

      --
      The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
    3. Re:Young man! by dysfunct · · Score: 1

      Work of pure genius! Thanks, made my day :)

      --
      :/- spoon(_).
    4. Re:Young man! by WhiteWolf · · Score: 5, Funny
      Apparently I need to get in on the lawsuit action:

      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=220588&cid=17886098

      "I feel a SONG coming on!"

      Old Man, there's no need to feel down
      I said Old Man, pick your feet off the ground
      I said Old Man, there's a new law in town
      Lawsuits can make you feel happy

      Old Man, here's what you must do
      I said Old Man, do what your lawyer says to
      You can sue them, and I'm sure that you'll find
      They won't violate your copyright!

      It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A!
      It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A!

      It has everything you need to sue
      You can even screw YouTube!

      It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A!
      It's fun to sue with the D-M-C-A!

      You can take down the vids,
      You can enforce your rights
      It's all within your sights!
      :-D
      --
      Eye kneed eh Grammer chicken.
    5. Re:Young man! by oldhack · · Score: 1

      You know you'll go to hell for that, don't you. Jesus can't help you. Budda can't help you. Even the noodle god is helpless now.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    6. Re:Young man! by DigitAl56K · · Score: 4, Funny

      How dare you parody this a year earlier than me? I claim fair use of your fair use! Hah! I'll never take it down! (No seriously, this website has no delete button... ;))

    7. Re:Young man! by Snaller · · Score: 1

      You must record it and publish on youtube :)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  38. /references by emj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    none needed, they have no political support in Europe. They talk a lot though, but that doesn't mean that the common man over 25 knows what it is.

    1. Re:/references by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Actually, you're wrong. And your low /. uid suggests you're being wrong deliberately, to mislead, rather than through ignorance. The Green party has already started jumping on the pro-piracy bandwagon - http://www.iwouldntsteal.net/. That IS mainstream political support in Europe (the greens are actually in power/power-sharing governments in several european countries, such as Ireland and Germany).

    2. Re:/references by esper · · Score: 1

      And your low /. uid suggests you're being wrong deliberately, to mislead, rather than through ignorance.

      So does my even-lower /. UID mean I'm omniscient, too? Cool... I didn't know that!

    3. Re:/references by Pete · · Score: 2, Funny

      So does my even-lower /. UID mean I'm omniscient, too? Cool... I didn't know that!

      I did.

      You five-digit kids. Get off my lawn, etc.

    4. Re:/references by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which means that us Cowards with null uid are gods among /.ers

    5. Re:/references by darthflo · · Score: 1

      What makes you think Anonymous Coward has the null uid?

    6. Re:/references by mattsucks · · Score: 1

      They talk a lot though, but that doesn't mean that the common man over 25 knows what it is.

      The common man under 25 will eventually be the common man over 25. Building a lasting political movement takes time.
  39. Newsflash: Irrelevant and Washed Up want to sue by bignetbuy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Be honest, who downloads Prince or Village People songs anyway.

  40. Guess I was wrong about him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read (on slashdot no less) that Prince did the whole "Artist formerly known as prince" stunt as a means of rebelling against his RIAA-affiliated label. I mistook that to understand that since my enemy was his enemy, that made him my friend....and I was going to check out his music.

    But now I see that he, too, is a copyright monger, he just wants the copyrights for himself rather than for the label.

    Nevermind, I won't bother to listen to his stuff.

    1. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by leamanc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But now I see that he, too, is a copyright monger, he just wants the copyrights for himself rather than for the label. Or maybe he just wants to be paid for his work. I'm no fan of the RIAA, and have downloaded my fair share of torrents, but I wouldn't hold it against someone for wanting to stop the theft of their product. If they get all ignorant-Metallicaish about it, that's another thing, but do we really chastise people for wanting to stop the theft of their work?
      --
      :q!
    2. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Prince, the Village People, and ABBA are not the most torrented artists on TPB right now. They're old and the people who know enough about computers to torrent don't care enough about them to download. This is more of a "I'M STILL AROUND PAY ATTENTION TO ME" move, just like Janet Jackson's wardrobe "malfunction."

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    3. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Dan541 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But now I see that he, too, is a copyright monger, he just wants the copyrights for himself rather than for the label. Or maybe he just wants to be paid for his work. I'm no fan of the RIAA, and have downloaded my fair share of torrents, but I wouldn't hold it against someone for wanting to stop the theft of their product. If they get all ignorant-Metallicaish about it, that's another thing, but do we really chastise people for wanting to stop the theft of their work? But piracy isn't theft.

      This is just a moneygrab.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    4. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe he just wants to be paid for his work. You really think this is going to achieve that goal?

      It's Prince and the friggin' Village People we're talking about here. If people can't get that for free, they're not going to rush out to the record store. They're just going to find something else they can laugh at for free - now who does that benefit?

      If they get all ignorant-Metallicaish about it, that's another thing, but do we really chastise people for wanting to stop the theft of their work? Your repeated use of the word "theft" indicates that you might be a little "ignorant-Metallicaish about it" yourself.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    5. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by leamanc · · Score: 1

      But piracy isn't theft. So, let me re-phrase. Do we really chastise people for wanting to stop the piracy of their work?
      --
      :q!
    6. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Dan541 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      But piracy isn't theft. So, let me re-phrase. Do we really chastise people for wanting to stop the piracy of their work? yes,

      Anyone who steps in the way of progress should be punished I wish the piratebay could counter sue these idiots.

      ~Dan

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    7. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The copyright-supporting "artists" have found natural partners in the neofascist pro-corporate politicians in the USA and the EU, but they do not deserve the people's support.

      If they didn't want it copied, they shouldn't release it in the first place. I simultaneously support privacy of information held private, and publicity of information released to the public.

      Frankly, I rate my and others' ability to send/receive or not-send/receive any information I or they want uncensored and uninterfered with by a fascist state as more important than the ability for "artists" willing to collaborate with a fascist state to interfere in communications to prevent copying. If that means commercial artists cease to exist (not that I believe they would, we'd just get more art by people opposed to fascism and less art by people who support it), so be it.

      Unlimited communication freedom is simply more important than the "rights" of copyright monopoly holders. If the latter are threatened by the former, the latter must go.

    8. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Myopic · · Score: 3, Informative

      theft implies denial of use. if you don't deny use, it's not theft.

      the doesn't mean that copyright infringement is morally right, but it does mean copyright infringement isn't theft.

    9. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Well if your going to get all accurate about it, pirates sail the high seas, attack and board vessels and pillage the contents. What your talking about is people who infringe upon limited copyright terms and well, I suppose if they inset a cd into their drive and copy it they are creating a copy.

      Pirate bay are only providing links, and techinically speaking when you use a torrent, only portion of the work is actually copied from your computer and all the other portions come from other peoples computers. Technically speaking copying a portion of the work is covered with in fair use and is not a copyright infringement.

      It just happens that computers enable you to collate samples from multiple sources, and as such, reassembling of those legal samples is really a copyright infringement either, as each of the samples are legal fair use portions of the work.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by nizo · · Score: 2, Funny

      If it is shown in court that Pirate Bay is costing them all so much money, maybe PB can hook them up with some good torrents to cover the lawsuit rather than paying cash?

    11. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      theft implies denial of use. if you don't deny use, it's not theft.

      the doesn't mean that copyright infringement is morally right, but it does mean copyright infringement isn't theft. since its not hurting anybody I fail to see how it can be immoral I'm even supplying my own bandwidth.

      ~Dan
      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    12. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 5, Informative

      However, calling this kind of behavior "theft" is not new terminology.

      I remember when I was kid (40 years ago), people who sneaked onto trains, buses, ski lifts, etc. without a ticket could be convicted of "theft of service". In fact, in law, "theft" just means obtaining something illegally, regardless of whether you are depriving someone else of it. What you are calling "theft" (i.e. taking something away from someone else) is actually called "larceny". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft.

      It's like the term "assault": in common usage, it means "to strike someone". But in legal jargon, that's called "battery", while "assault" just means to threaten.

    13. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by canix · · Score: 1

      What exactly do you think this "progress" is?

    14. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      What exactly do you think this "progress" is? The transition from a copyright-based business model, where artists get paid for making copies (and have to expend lots of effort trying to keep everyone else from making their own copies), to a service-based business model, where artists get paid directly for creating and performing artistic works (and don't need to worry about copying, since they've already been paid by the time anyone has access to the work).

      Prince is halfway there already, with his Vegas show. Hopefully, after he gets humiliated by the Pirate Bay, he'll go the rest of the way.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    15. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      For me it would be the downfall of the entire music industy.

      ~Dan

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    16. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

      "But now I see that he, too, is a copyright monger, he just wants the copyrights for himself rather than for the label."

      That's funny, I thought that the slashdot position was that while artists do deserve payment, labels don't, and it's the latter that justifies piracy. And if only the labels were removed as middle-man, then slashdotters would have no problem paying the artists and would be against piracy. Guess that was a bunch of bullshit. I already knew that, but I am indeed surprised to see you so forthrightly admit it.

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    17. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by canix · · Score: 1

      What happens to an artist who only wants to make a record: who pays for that "performance" and how much? Are you suggesting that only live performance are worthy enough to get paid for?

    18. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by canix · · Score: 1

      To what end?

    19. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      It is progress away from a business model that assumes that making a copy is an expensive venture, where the publisher needs to have his investment protected. Copyrights were for the benefit of the publisher, to grant him legal protection from other publishers.

      Thus assumption no longer fits an age where large volumes of information can be easily duplicated across an international network, and where the cost of recording and producing music is also plummeting. The audio file itself is no longer expensive to duplicate or distribute, yet the business models of the publishers rely upon their for-profit media being the sole source.

      Many artists are moving away from relying upon publishers for their source of income, and publishers will have to come to terms with the fact that they no longer control the "oxygen" of the artists.

    20. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      TO the end of commercialised music all this copyright laws do is cause troule, hinder freedom of speech and privacy.

      Just look at the stories on slashdot alot of the bullshit is a result of the music industry its time for it to go.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    21. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1, Interesting
      An 'artist' who only wants to make a record?

      Sorry, that sort of 'artist' has missed the boat if they want remuneration for their efforts - the world has passed them by.

      Live performances nowadays are the only way to make money, and just because recordings made money last century doesn't mean that there's an automatic right to make money from recordings in this century.

      It's technological progress - get over it.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    22. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      making money on art isn't a right.

    23. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Zombywuf · · Score: 1

      I just took a dump, it was amazing, I demand you pay me for it!

      Simple fact is, artists do not have a right to get paid for everything they do. The whole notion of recording music on to little discs and selling the disks is just over 100 years old, prior to that they'd have to go out and earn their bread. Imagine if you could record the sound of you doing your job for an hour or so and be getting paid for people using that sound 50 years later.

      --
      If you can read this you've gone too far.
    24. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by mooterSkooter · · Score: 1

      I'm not quite sure that adds up. There is still some milleage left in selling a physical 'thing'. My brother's band (www.epic45.com) actually enjoy the process of making the physical CD, the cover, the artwork, the notes etc as well as making the actual music. And many people still enjoy owning such artifacts. I'm all in favour of alternative methods of accessing music, I think the whole Radiohead thing was excellent (though I was very dissapointed to see TV adverts a few weeks after the web sale). Now this moan at the pirate bay is fair enough - as long as the 'moaners' are offering a download themselves.

    25. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by dave1791 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An artist can choose his distribution model. If he wants to freely distribute it and make his money on concerts, the can go with a creative commons license and be done with it. If he chooses a different scheme, that is his choice. As the creator, he has the freedom of choice and it is not our right to dictate to him how he goes about it. If we don't like his terms, we can simple not listen to his music. Nobody has put a gun to our heads and forced us to listen to Purple Rain.

      Disclaimer - I too dislike the RIAA and MPAA. I too loathe DRM. I too torrent - specifically "Avatar" season episodes for my Kids that are no available in the country I'm in. I also feel that people should be compensated for their work and when I can finally order the season 3 compilation on DVD, I will. A lot of this moral posturing of Pirate Bay and its supporters is simply a cover for "I'm a cheap bastard and don't want to pay for my entertainment".

    26. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by gsslay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're old and the people who know enough about computers to torrent don't care enough about them to download. Yeah, cos you need like a degree in Computing Science to install a torrent. It truly is the cutting edge of technological advancement. Doesn't it use quantum theory in parts?

      Plus everyone over 30 is senile and were using chalkboards and quills while today's youngsters were inventing this new inter-web thing. They did this in-between inventing good music and sex. Aren't they clever?
    27. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People old enough to care about those groups probably make enough money to afford the $.99 per song to listen to music they like. Their integrity is also worth more than $.99 per song.

    28. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      An artist can choose his distribution model. If he wants to freely distribute it and make his money on concerts, the can go with a creative commons license and be done with it. If he chooses a different scheme, that is his choice.

      Can an artist distribute by having armed men broadcast his music in public areas and then charge for the pleasure of listening, for example? No. There are limits to what an artist is allowed to do. There's a certain amount beyond which he is not allowed to trample on the rights of others in the manner that he distributes it (and in this case, I define "right" as "permission to do something that I am able to do"). He is not allowed, for example, to keep me from letting others listen to it in my presence, or to keep me from transferring that right to someone else.

      Mostly because doing otherwise is generally considered absurd. I don't have to listen to my CD through headphones only, and I'm allowed to sell it. Whether or not you agree that this is true, there are some important points here:

      1) Artists don't have exclusive control over how they distribute. The only thing that they have ultimate control over is whether or not they choose to do so in the first place.
      2) Expanding the control over the distribution means decreasing the rights of the recipients of the media.
      3) The line drawn with regard to mutually exclusive rights (such as rights of distribution) are determined by law (i.e., supposedly by public decision), not by something set into the foundation of humanity.

      As the creator, he has the freedom of choice and it is not our right to dictate to him how he goes about it. If we don't like his terms, we can simple not listen to his music.

      I don't believe he has that freedom. You presuppose that #3 is being done correctly, or that it's some sort of right inherently granted to the creator that would therefore be immoral.

      Nobody has put a gun to our heads and forced us to listen to Purple Rain. ...and I wake up every morning with a smile on my face because I know that it will be yet another day where I don't have to listen to Purple Rain.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    29. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by o'reor · · Score: 1

      This is more of a "I'M STILL AROUND PAY ATTENTION TO ME" move, just like Janet Jackson's wardrobe "malfunction."
      All in all, I'm glad that they chose to make that legal move -- anybody else shuddering at the idea that the Village People of today could have had a "wardrobe malfunction" instead ?
      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
    30. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      If he wants to get paid for his work, then he'd better keep working. No one has a "right" to get paid over and over for a single act of creation.

      And its copyright infringement, not theft.

    31. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the others, but Prince definitely sells his music via downloads on his website as well as on physical media.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    32. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by billius · · Score: 1

      Live performances nowadays are the only way to make money, and just because recordings made money last century doesn't mean that there's an automatic right to make money from recordings in this century.

      I think this has been the case for longer than people care to realize. With very few exceptions, most musicians out there essentially use the CD almost soley as a promotional tool for their upcoming tours and have been doing so for some time. That's why, nine times out of ten, the major labels are the ones who get pissed while the artists could care less, since more people listening to their music generally correlates strongly to more people coming to concerts and buying t-shirts, beer, etc.

      And I'm not just talking about the your local singer/songwriter at the coffee shop. I myself am an avid death metal fan (and probably wouldn't be one if it weren't for file sharing) and a few years ago got a chance to meet and hang out with the band Cannibal Corpse, who are the best-selling band of all time for the genre. They even conceded that throughout most of their career, which began around 1989, the majority of their money was made by touring and selling shirts.

      The bottom line? If you're really interested in compensating the people who are *creating* the music, the live show is the place to do it. You should definitely buy the CD so the band doesn't get dropped from the label, but live shows are where supporting the artists has been and will be for some time to come.

    33. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by morari · · Score: 1
      So it's just like Metallica and Napster?

      At least Metallica and Prince can be considered has-beens. That's more than one can say about the Village People and ABBA.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    34. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by dave1791 · · Score: 1

      "Can an artist distribute by having armed men broadcast his music in public areas and then charge for the pleasure of listening, for example?"

      You can't seriously mean this as an argument in favor of torrenting? I believe the proper term in this case is red herring. Try an argument along the lines of "they don't have a right to install a rootkit" and you'll get more mileage.

      "1) Artists don't have exclusive control over how they distribute. The only thing that they have ultimate control over is whether or not they choose to do so in the first place."

      Sorry, but I disagree with this point. Yes, there is fair use, but yes, they can also lock it with DRM if they please, distribute only on vinyl, distribute it with a restrictive EULA that states that you can only listen to it on a hot summer night when the moon is full (y'know, to experience it as the artist meant it to be experienced) or whatever. The market may not accept some of these measures, but that does not preclude the artist from trying.

      "2) Expanding the control over the distribution means decreasing the rights of the recipients of the media."

      Agreed and this is why I don't buy DRMed music or anything made by Sony. Which brings us back to point 1.

      "I don't believe he has that freedom. You presuppose that #3 is being done correctly, or that it's some sort of right inherently granted to the creator that would therefore be immoral."

      Even if it is being done incorrectly, does that excuse breaking the law? If you live in a democracy (and please don't trot out any tiresome slogans about democracy being a farce and the need for revolution), then you have the power to change the law through organizing.

      And I do believe that the artist does have the power to set an EULA within the law, just as we have to power to accept the terms and listen, or not accept them and pass. Anything else is the selfish narcissism of the rich (all of us who live in the west classify as rich here) masquerading as socialism - we're talking about entertainment here, not the difference between starvation and having enough to eat.

    35. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of this moral posturing of Pirate Bay and its supporters is simply a cover for "I'm a cheap bastard and don't want to pay for my entertainment".


      A lot of this moral posturing on Slashdot is simply a cover for "I've spent thousands of dollars on media and I can't stand to think of other people getting the same stuff for free."

      When you've spent your whole life under copyright law, it's quite a shift to break out of that mindset. You have to realize that the copying of public information is completely natural and not morally wrong, illegal though it may be.
    36. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Watts+Martin · · Score: 1

      Except that ABBA isn't still around. ABBA's songwriters are overseeing the nostalgia-fest ABBA musical "Mamma Mia!" (movie version to be infesting theaters near you this spring), but the group not only hasn't been together since 1982, they actually turned down a concert promoters' offer for a reunion tour that was estimated to be worth around $1B. (This isn't as crazy as it sounds when you realize that they've sold nearly 400 million records worldwide; they're easy to mock for "Dancing Queen," but they were actually a pretty influential band.)

      The Village People may actually be that desperate for money, but I doubt any former member of ABBA is. The "Web Sheriff" is likely trying to bring them on board solely because they're Swedish.

    37. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I considered an additional phrase specifying that just because it is copyright infringement also doesn't mean it's morally wrong, but I decided it was unnecessary. I see I should have added the phrase.

      For me, I think it's in a vast sliding-scale gray area between okay and not okay. Basically, I agree that people should have a way to profit from intellectual endeavors; but I disagree that people have an inherent right to control their intellectual creations. It's a difficult balance. In the past we made the balance using time limits, but now we have unlimited copyrights. The only remaining balance is fair use, which we still have, mostly, but that could disappear too.

      I think it's high time that our community establish Moral Copyright. (In fact, moralcopyright.com is available.) We need to have a community conversation for what copyright should be, in a moral sense, and then write that down, and then do the best we can to self-police to that standard. For instance, I like a copyright term of 15 to 20 years, transferable; with fair use rights. What if, together, we could convince places like The Pirate Bay to self-police and only have content older than 20 years? Then when the media covered the lawsuits, there would be a storyline about Legal Copyright versus Moral Copyright.

    38. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by mooterSkooter · · Score: 1

      DRM free?

    39. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by hicksw · · Score: 1

      You are denying Prince the use of your money.

    40. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      This argument is trotted out all the time - "We use P2P to get the music /we/ want. Indie bands, unsigned acts, obscure genres only available on import!"

      Yet you go to any top 10 downloads tracker, and what do you find? A near mirror of the appropriate top 10 chart that week. Which indicates that, for the masses, they really /are/ there to get all the "mass market trash pumped out by the mindless zombie record labels", they just are incapable of admitting so.

    41. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      What happens to an artist who only wants to make a record: who pays for that "performance" and how much? Whoever wants him to make a record and is willing to pay him for it. Most likely, that means a group of his fans pooling their money.

      Of course, it's possible that there won't be enough people willing to pay for the record, in which case the artist should find something else to do. An artist who no one wants to pay is in the same boat as a barber, architect, or anyone else who no one wants to pay.

      Are you suggesting that only live performance are worthy enough to get paid for? I'm not suggesting anything about worthiness. Anything that you do is "worthy" of being paid for as long as you can find someone who's willing to pay you for it. Fewer and fewer people these days are willing to pay for making copies, but that's not where the real value comes from anyway: it comes from the original act of writing, recording, or performing.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    42. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Mr2001 · · Score: 0, Troll

      An artist can choose his distribution model. If he wants to freely distribute it and make his money on concerts, the can go with a creative commons license and be done with it. If he chooses a different scheme, that is his choice. As the creator, he has the freedom of choice and it is not our right to dictate to him how he goes about it. Yes, I agree that he has the right to choose how he distributes his work. But I contend that you have the right to choose how you distribute his work, and I have the right to choose how I distribute his work. I won't dictate to him as long as he doesn't try to dictate to you, me, or anyone else.

      Nobody has put a gun to our heads and forced us to listen to Purple Rain. They have, however, put a gun to our heads and attempted to force us not to use our CD burners or internet connections to reproduce certain numbers. That's just as bad.

      I also feel that people should be compensated for their work and when I can finally order the season 3 compilation on DVD, I will. I completely agree that people should be compensated for their work. But making copies isn't the work of an artist, it's the work of any trained monkey with a computer, and I have little desire to pay someone for a copy when I can find thousands of people willing to make me a copy for free. Artists should be compensated for the work that they're uniquely qualified to do -- writing, recording, and performing -- by charging directly for it.

      A lot of this moral posturing of Pirate Bay and its supporters is simply a cover for "I'm a cheap bastard and don't want to pay for my entertainment". And a lot of it is principled belief that has nothing to do with being cheap and everything to do with human rights, free speech, and frustration at an industry's unsustainable business model being propped up by everyone else's tax dollars.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    43. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      This argument is trotted out all the time - "We use P2P to get the music /we/ want. Indie bands, unsigned acts, obscure genres only available on import!"

      Yet you go to any top 10 downloads tracker, and what do you find? A near mirror of the appropriate top 10 chart that week. Maybe you meant to reply to a different comment, because although you sound like you're disagreeing with me, you actually seem to be agreeing. Prince and the Village People are not on this week's top 10 chart. Anyone who's downloading "In The Navy" is doing so as a joke, and if legal action prevents them from getting it, there are a million other things on the internet they can laugh at instead.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    44. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      You can't seriously mean this as an argument in favor of torrenting? He was pointing out that artists already have limited freedom in choosing a distribution model, and therefore it's not out of the question to propose some more limits.

      Yes, there is fair use, but yes, they can also lock it with DRM if they please, distribute only on vinyl, distribute it with a restrictive EULA that states that you can only listen to it on a hot summer night when the moon is full (y'know, to experience it as the artist meant it to be experienced) or whatever. Actually, you can't use an EULA like that for music. EULAs only work for software because software has to be copied before you can use it.

      Even if [the law granting exclusive rights] is being done incorrectly, does that excuse breaking the law? Well, yes. Why wouldn't it? Are you one of those people who believes every law must be obeyed at all times, no matter how wrong it might be?
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    45. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by packeteer · · Score: 1

      Plus everyone over 30 is senile and were using chalkboards and quills while today's youngsters were inventing this new inter-web thing. They did this in-between inventing good music and sex. Aren't they clever?

      You pretty much hit the nail on the head old man. You are a geriatric genius.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    46. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Good joke. Does that mean it's theft because I don't like Prince's music, and thus wouldn't buy any anyway?

    47. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by dave1791 · · Score: 1

      "Well, yes. Why wouldn't it? Are you one of those people who believes every law must be obeyed at all times, no matter how wrong it might be?"

      Can I trust you to only break laws that don't harm others in some way? What if you believe that my wife should be "shared" and neither she nor I agree? Victimless "crimes" are something I don't lose a lot of sleep over, but the vast majority of laws - wrong headed or not - don't fall into this category. The law is an attempt by society (at least in democracies) to carve out the best set of rules for society to live by. Sometimes legislators are corrupt. More often, they are simply ill informed and mean well, but don't deeply understand the subject matter and don't grasp the subtleties of the laws they make. Often, they fall into the trap of fads and sound bites; whatever the media has judged the flavor of the month. There is a good way to deal with stupid laws; agitate, organize, get the law changed. There is also a bad way to deal with stupid laws; break it and be self righteous about it. This last part is what irritates me about PB and its supporters. I don't mind the torrenting so much. Realistically, these people were not going to pay for it anyway - OR - they find the pirated version more convenient (look ma! No restrictions on what I can play this thing on). What I do mind the faux morality.

    48. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Can I trust you to only break laws that don't harm others in some way? Yes. The law isn't the only check on immoral behavior, and in fact many immoral behaviors are perfectly legal. A moral person will act morally whether those acts are legal or not; it's a mistake to confuse a person's willingness to blindly obey the law with his possession of a conscience.

      Victimless "crimes" are something I don't lose a lot of sleep over, but the vast majority of laws - wrong headed or not - don't fall into this category. This particular one does.

      There is a good way to deal with stupid laws; agitate, organize, get the law changed. There is also a bad way to deal with stupid laws; break it and be self righteous about it. So, if you found yourself back in the 19th century and slavery were still legal... well, you can guess where I'm going with that. Are you really saying it's always wrong to break the law? Everyone should just keep their heads down and act "within the system" until the law changes -- and if these bad laws are never changed, everyone should just keep obeying them indefinitely?

      What I do mind the faux morality. I don't think there's anything faux about it. Most people are able to distinguish between morality and legality, and it's not unreasonable to believe that copying is moral even if it isn't legal.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    49. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by dave1791 · · Score: 1

      I never said that it is *always* wrong to break the law. Given your extreme example of slavery, it would be right to break the law.

      And by the way, equating copying and slavery IS faux morality. That argument has certainly not changed my mind about the self interestes nature of the moral posturing. If people had a real, genuine moral problem with the way music and films were produced and distributed, they would boycott them. Boycotting also means NOT listening or watching. That would change the industry in a heartbeat. They don't boycott the product of the MPAA and RIAA because they lack either the discipline to turn their backs on top-down pop culture or really, genuinely do want that product, but don't want to pay for it. Pirating something is not a moral statement against distribution systems. It is a statement that you want what they make, but are unwilling to trade for it. Therefore the RIAA and MPAA feel justified in their actions. After all, in that case, these people (the entertainment industry) "know" that the other people want what they make, but piracy is cutting into sales.

      So rather than moral posturing, how about a bit of discipline instead? If people stopped buying from major record labels/studios AND the torrents vanished from the scene, then I'd respect the argument as a moral one. Until then, I'm not impressed.

    50. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by dave1791 · · Score: 1

      I'll call your bluff here. I won't make it easy and choose a typical commercial license either or use a major studio or record label as my example. Creative Commons has a myriad of different licenses for an artist to choose from. Does he want it to be freely distributed for noncommercial use? Does he want to allow derivative works? Etc. Let's assume that the artist has chosen one that allows free distribution for non-commercial use and derivative works, as long as those derivative works are non-commercial. This works out to the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Do you have an obligation to follow the specifications of his chosen license? According to your statement above, you feel that you are free as a bird to use it for commercial purposes. After all, he did try to trample your freedom and dictate to you how you can distribute his work. What if he does not want derivative works? Let's not talk about art for a moment. Let's talk about code. Suppose someone distributes code under GPL. GPL is a license with very strong terms. Suppose you find it inconvenient to have this code as GPL. Do you have a right to ignore the GPL license and incorporate this code into a closed source codebase? Here is the zinger... GPL only works because of copyright. If you did that, it would be a copyright violation.

      You should spend some time lurking on deviant art. Artists go through a lot of angst about having their work stolen and many have horror stories about not being paid for a commission or having someone use their work, unattributed and unremunerated. These people pour their hearts into their work in a way that I never would with a piece of code. In fact, the consensus there is that when an artist takes a commission, they should retain all distribution rights to prevent the customer from commissioning someone cheap and then reselling it for megabucks. I've commissioned a couple of logos through deviant art for an open source project I'm on. In both cases, I allowed the artist to retain ownership and license them under one of the CC licenses that corresponds roughly to GPL.

      Please respect their rights as human beings before you make them collateral damage in your "moral"crusade. Then again, in my cynicism, I believe that there is nothing moral about this crusade.

    51. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't know whether they're DRM free. I buy all his music on CDs and then rip them with whatever codec I feel like at the time. Although his last couple albums were "enhanced" so you couldn't [easily] do that with the store-bought albums, only with the free giveaways.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    52. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Walter+Carver · · Score: 1

      Or maybe he just wants to be paid for his work. We all do but we don't act like that.

      do we really chastise people for wanting to stop the theft of their work? It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement.

      Prince isn't losing from this. People who pirate music wouldn't buy them anyway.
    53. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      If people had a real, genuine moral problem with the way music and films were produced and distributed, they would boycott them. Boycotting also means NOT listening or watching. I have a moral problem with copyright, the idea that someone else should be given veto power over my freedom of speech in order to make a buck. I have no moral problem with films or music themselves.

      They don't boycott the product of the MPAA and RIAA because they lack either the discipline to turn their backs on top-down pop culture or really, genuinely do want that product, but don't want to pay for it. It is a statement that you want what they make, but are unwilling to trade for it. So what? Thanks to the nature of information, it's possible to avoid trading for it without having to give anything up. The rights holder isn't getting paid either way, so why is it any better for consumers to go without (lose-lose) than to download and enjoy the work anyway (win-lose)? Giving it up only serves to punish themselves.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    54. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      I'll call your bluff here. Not sure what you think I'm bluffing about, but bring it on.

      Let's assume that the artist has chosen [...] the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Do you have an obligation to follow the specifications of his chosen license? According to your statement above, you feel that you are free as a bird to use it for commercial purposes. Correct. As long as I don't take credit for someone else's work -- which would be fraud -- I believe there should be essentially no restrictions on how I use or distribute it.

      What if he does not want derivative works? Then he should've kept his work to himself.

      And who does he think he is anyway: Zeus, causing brand-new ideas to spring forth, fully formed, from his mind? Who on earth can honestly say his work isn't derivative of something else? If you're going to build upon the work of others, you have to expect that others will build upon your work too.

      Suppose someone distributes code under GPL. GPL is a license with very strong terms. Suppose you find it inconvenient to have this code as GPL. Do you have a right to ignore the GPL license and incorporate this code into a closed source codebase? Yes. But then everyone else has the right to take your closed source application, share it freely with each other, reverse engineer it, distribute the decompiled source code, make derived works, and so on.

      Here is the zinger... GPL only works because of copyright. If you did that, it would be a copyright violation. The GPL mainly serves to give back the freedoms that copyright takes away.

      It does go a little bit beyond that, but I'm willing to give up guaranteed access to the original source code in exchange for all the other benefits of abolishing copyright. (RMS disagrees with me here, but oh well.)

      Artists go through a lot of angst about having their work stolen and many have horror stories about not being paid for a commission or having someone use their work, unattributed and unremunerated. Not being paid for a commission = breach of contract. Having someone else use your work unattributed = fraud. You don't need copyright to protect yourself against either of those.

      Please respect their rights as human beings before you make them collateral damage in your "moral"crusade. I do. I just don't believe that set of rights includes the "right" to veto other people's speech, or to extract a profit whenever someone else benefits from work that you did in the past.

      Then again, in my cynicism, I believe that there is nothing moral about this crusade. That's fair enough - I feel the same way about your side. I believe copyright advocates, despite any public posturing about their "rights", are mostly motivated by greed, laziness, and the jealous desire to prevent others from enjoying anything if they (the advocates) don't get a cut of that enjoyment.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    55. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by dave1791 · · Score: 1

      "I have a moral problem with copyright, the idea that someone else should be given veto power over my freedom of speech in order to make a buck. I have no moral problem with films or music themselves."

      You avoided the question. What would you do with the CC licence case I described above? And would it be okay to use GPL code in a closed source codebase?

      "So what? Thanks to the nature of information, it's possible to avoid trading for it without having to give anything up. The rights holder isn't getting paid either way, so why is it any better for consumers to go without (lose-lose) than to download and enjoy the work anyway (win-lose)? Giving it up only serves to punish themselves."

      Which pretty much answers my question above. You sir, have a self serving concept of morality.

    56. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by dave1791 · · Score: 1

      "The GPL mainly serves to give back the freedoms that copyright takes away."

      WRONG! I suggest you go read up on GPL. It USES copyright as a device to keep software free. And it is not okay to incorporate it into closed source codebases. MIT and LGPL allow that, but not GPL.

      The rest of your post just leaves me speechless. Do you actually KNOW an artist? You can never actually created anything in your entire life have you?

    57. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by dave1791 · · Score: 1

      Apparently you did answer the GPL question. As I said in the other thread, I am speechless.

    58. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      You avoided the question. What would you do with the CC licence case I described above? And would it be okay to use GPL code in a closed source codebase? Those questions were in a different comment. My response is over there (on preview, I see that you've responded there).

      Which pretty much answers my question above. You sir, have a self serving concept of morality. No, just a rational one. Morality is about how your actions affect other people; in a world with no other people, it wouldn't make any sense to talk about morality. Therefore, Act A and Act B are morally equivalent if they have exactly the same effect on other people. And in this case, they do: the only difference between "I won't pay you for this or listen to it" and "I won't pay you for this but I'll listen to it anyway" is how it affects the person making the decision.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    59. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      WRONG! I suggest you go read up on GPL. It USES copyright as a device to keep software free. Look, I know how the GPL works and what it does. The only real difference between a world where all software is GPL'd, and a world where software is not covered by copyright or patents at all, is that in the first scenario, all the source code is provided for you. Without copyright, the software is still just as free in the sense that you can use, share, and fork it however you want -- you just might have to do some reverse engineering.

      And it is not okay to incorporate it into closed source codebases. MIT and LGPL allow that, but not GPL. Of course. But I thought you were asking for my opinion, not asking me to interpret the GPL for you.

      My opinion is that, in a world without copyright, it would be fine to incorporate open-source code into closed-source projects (as long as it were done without committing fraud). I don't think the GPL or Creative Commons licenses are fundamentally any more important than any other licenses. The freedoms that they're meant to protect are important, but we can get most of those freedoms anyway just by abolishing copyright.

      Do you actually KNOW an artist? You can never actually created anything in your entire life have you? Yes and yes (one example is in my sig). That's two strikes, care to take another swing?
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    60. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by dave1791 · · Score: 1

      OSS != Public Domain. One common and legitimate use of GPL is dual licensing. I release something as GPL. You are free to use it, fork it, modify it and pass it on as long as you stick to the rules laid out in the license. If you don't want to release YOUR own code, then you can license it from me commercially as I'm still the copyright holder. This little bit is critical for OSS to flourish. Many people create code as a hobby and give it away, but are not generally prone to doing so *instead* of eating and paying the bills. Dual licensing allows someone to give away software to those who have the religion and still pay the bills from those who don't. It allows companies to do the OSS thing, which gives us CVS, SVN, Eclipse, MySQL, etc.

      Or perhaps I just plain don't want anyone to use my work for certain uses, period. E.g. the US Navy has a game engine called Delta 3D. It is used to create training simulations. It is LGPL so that the contractors who use it don't have to release their source code and it is basically an integration of best of breed components that are compatible with LGPL. Suppose that you were a contentious objector who had created a component useful to game engines, such as an AI superclient and you did NOT want the military using it. Then release it as GPL and they won't touch it with a 10' pole.

      So you know a professional artist? Have you ever asked them how they would feel if everything they created was always public domain by default? None of the ones I know (three pianists in the family) would be happy with that.

      And I can't help but notice that you only distribute binaries of your IRC client and not source. I'll refrain from any cheesy demands that you release your source as there are many legitimate reasons not to do so, but I do find it interesting. May I ask if you use GPL code in your - free as in beer, but not free as in speech - closed source IRC client?

    61. Re:Guess I was wrong about him by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      OSS != Public Domain. Of course. What I'm saying is I'm willing to give up OSS in exchange for making everything (essentially) public domain. What I value about OSS is the freedom, not the source code.

      Many people create code as a hobby and give it away, but are not generally prone to doing so *instead* of eating and paying the bills. Solution: hire those people to write code which they will then give away. This is already done in the OSS world.

      Or perhaps I just plain don't want anyone to use my work for certain uses, period. [...] Suppose that you were a contentious objector who had created a component useful to game engines, such as an AI superclient and you did NOT want the military using it. I'm not impressed. Why should you be able to dictate how people will be able to use the code you've released?

      If you want to maintain control over it, keep it to yourself. Once you release it, it's out of your hands. If you're so worried about the military using your code, maybe you just shouldn't write anything that they'll find useful. My software has been used by people I don't like, for purposes I don't approve of, but it's not my place to judge them. I'm a programmer, not a preacher.

      So you know a professional artist? Have you ever asked them how they would feel if everything they created was always public domain by default? None of the ones I know (three pianists in the family) would be happy with that. Yeah, some of them would be unhappy. But you know what? Lots of people today aren't happy with copyright, and there are surely more of them than there are professional artists. If the purpose of the law were to maximize happiness, the file sharers would win by a landslide.

      But the law isn't there to make people happy anyway, it's there to guarantee rights, and IMO the right to share information freely is more important than any alleged right to sell copies.

      And I can't help but notice that you only distribute binaries of your IRC client and not source. I'll refrain from any cheesy demands that you release your source as there are many legitimate reasons not to do so, but I do find it interesting. May I ask if you use GPL code in your - free as in beer, but not free as in speech - closed source IRC client? Actually, it is open source. That isn't obvious from my crappy web site, but here's the SourceForge project page.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
  41. Very true. But.. by emj · · Score: 3, Informative

    In Sweden it's not very usual that you get fined big amounts, so we are not talking about millions euros in fines.

    1. Re:Very true. But.. by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      we are not talking about millions euros
      It might still be millions of dollars ;-)

      </sarcasm>
  42. Re:what do they all have in common? by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh noes, the Pirate Bay is getting sued by the gheyz! Eh, you do realise that ABBA was made up of two pairs of couples (who were either engaged, married or divorced at the time the group was active)?

    Anyway, it should be noted that this guy has *tried* to involve ABBA in this. I don't see anything indicating that they have even responded yet, let alone confirmed their agreement with him. I suspect that he wins either way (even if they don't get involved, having their name connected still gets him more attention).

    Potential basis of ABBA legal action against the Pirate Bay: "I've been cheated by you since I don't know when" (thrown out due to vagueness surrounding the dates of the alleged infringments).
    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  43. Established acts by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's interesting to note that it's established acts that seem to take this course of action against digital distribution and newer acts use it to distribute their music. I think it's interesting because distributing music via these emerging channels represent a lower barrier of entry into the market for new bands and a, somewhat obvious, challenge to the status quo for established acts (and the management structures that surrounds them).

    I don't see this as bands vs. the pirate bay, but as old distribution model vs. new distribution model. The new music business model is emerging and trying to mold itself to what consumers, who use the internet, want. The old business model swats down the new business model where ever it emerges and will attempt to change laws and the very nature of the internet to do it.

    The by-product of the music industries attempts to do this have two consequences if allowed to continue. 1) Banal crappy sounding music with very little originality and fewer bands (and they are made to an accountants recipe of what sells) and more seriously 2) The ability for business to innovate better business models using the internet will be hampered by the legal framework left over from the music industries legal maneuvering.

    How do acts like Prince and The Village People know that their music isn't reaching a new audience *because* of places like the pirate bay? As a whole I think because the music industry is not prepared/able to adapt (it lacks the imagination) eventually it will be replaced, hopefully soon, and that their main fear is that the artists themselves will be able to have a direct relationship with the people who want to listen to their music and yield an income from that direct relationship.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  44. KLF is gonna rock ya! by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who got a bit of deja vu when Abba was mentioned?

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:KLF is gonna rock ya! by Verteiron · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, I just thought of Ikari Warriors.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    2. Re:KLF is gonna rock ya! by szyzyg · · Score: 1

      Ahhh great days great days.
      If only more bands were like the KLF the music business would be a more interesting place.

    3. Re:KLF is gonna rock ya! by nerdonamotorcycle · · Score: 1

      nope. I remember 1987, too.

    4. Re:KLF is gonna rock ya! by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be brilliant if The KLF sued PB for patent infringement or some similar nonsense? Anyway, yeah, KICK OUT THE JAMMS MOTHAFUCKAS!! ;-)

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    5. Re:KLF is gonna rock ya! by Skippy_kangaroo · · Score: 1

      Did you mean nostalgia rather than deja vu? You can tell them apart based on the location of the rash on your body - if the rash is on your torso it's deja vu, if the rash is in your groin it's nostalgia.

      At any rate, ABBA never died. They live on in Australia thanks to the efforts of Bjorn Again, Muriel's Wedding and a lack of alternatives.

  45. Doesn't Sweden have harsh hate speech laws? by stratjakt · · Score: 0

    I bet this is a trick into goading them into making homosexual jokes when mocking the letters. There's no way it CAN'T be.

    They might be seeking "ass action" status.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  46. What about a countersuit? by mangu · · Score: 3, Interesting
    In their legal pages, there's this email from Microsoft


    Notice how the lawyer claims that "the source code for Windows 1998, Windows NT, and/or Windows 2000 ... is on your system at the following location:
    http://tracker.piratbyran.org/torrents-details.php?id=2614,"


    and further on they state that "The information in this notification is accurate. I swear under penalty of perjury ..."


    The information in that email is NOT accurate, since no part of the source code has ever been in the location they mention. Wouldn't that be ground for a countersuit for defamation, or whatever it's called?

    1. Re:What about a countersuit? by TeraCo · · Score: 1

      In this context I would suspect that 'system' means the greater bittorrent network (coordinated by the PB server) rather than 'system' as in physical computer hardware.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    2. Re:What about a countersuit? by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      >The information in that email is NOT accurate, since no part of the source code has ever been in the location they mention.

      That location contains a hash of the source code, which is a derivative; if they had the source zipped up, the email would be just as accurate.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    3. Re:What about a countersuit? by Sique · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not exactly. While a ZIP file contains the same information as the unpacked file, a hash just contains a fingerprint which is sufficient to correctly identify a file. If I send you the ISBN of a book I read, you are able to correctly identify the book and get it yourself. But in now way I have send you a copy or a compressed copy of the book.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    4. Re:What about a countersuit? by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 1

      A hash is derived from a data set, but can't be used to generate/(re)construct a data set... so I can't imagine how possessing a hash has any illegal basis. Depending on the kind of hash, I guess...

      --tedb0t

    5. Re:What about a countersuit? by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      The penalty of purjury applies to the bit you elided, not the bit you included. Specifically, where it says "I swear under penalty of
      perjury that I am authorized to act on behalf of Microsoft in regard to its exclusive rights in the work(s) identified above"

      I.e. the DMCA makes sending takedown notices for works you don't own a perjury offence; a copyright holder or their agent cocking up or just not doing due dilligence or even just being asshats and sending a notice about the wrong work entirely is not covered by the perjury penalty.

      Besides, it's all fairly irrelevent since the DMCA does not apply to swedes in sweden running a swedish website!

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    6. Re:What about a countersuit? by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      >Depending on the kind of hash, I guess...

      Exactly; if "the identity function" or "gzip" is your hash function, you're gonna have problems.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    7. Re:What about a countersuit? by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 1

      Heh, I originally meant that as a marijuana joke, but yes, good point X-)

  47. Sensationalist Headline? by The+Real+Nem · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought for a minute there that the Prince of Sweden had teamed up with a random Swedish village to sue The Pirate Bay.

    My train of thought went from anger at the demeaning and archaic reference to the Swedish populous as "village people", to puzzlement about what possible copyrights the prince and villagers could hold in common, to loss of what little respect I have left for those groups.

  48. Well this makes me so mad... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    I'm going to continue to not buy anything from Village people or Prince. Unless I happen to hear a song from either of them that I think is good enough that I decide to buy a CD.

    Somehow I can't quite get to the level of rage that some people manage about one commercial organisation suing another over a dispute about a legal matter.

  49. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's more like suing a map-maker when they produce a map that was specifically designed for (or with the intention that) it would be used for bank-robbing and similar activities, and included details pertinent to that activity. No, it's more like being a manufacturer of map tools ( The Pirate Bay ) and the ones making the the maps ( The Users ) are making maps 'for bank-robbing and similar activities, and included details pertinent to that activity.'
  50. Forget old media, try indy records and books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prince and ABBA are corporate sell-outs. Listen to indy bands and read indy books like America Deceived (book) which was banned from Amazon and Wikipedia.

    1. Re:Forget old media, try indy records and books by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      So the guy's contacted ABBA in an attempt to get them to join, there's no record of them even having replied as of yet- let alone agreed, and you're still calling them corporate sell-outs on the basis of this?

      Anyway, ABBA were always a very commercial band. Sp to me, ABBA selling out would be them producing shitty music- and unlike bands like The Rolling Stones, ABBA stopped recording when they came to a natural end, haven't been back together since, and turned down a reported $1 billion to tour again.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    2. Re:Forget old media, try indy records and books by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I'm willing to bet that the "indy book" you linked to (vanity-published, to use the traditional terminology) was banned from Amazon for being yet another vanity-published conspiracy title, and "banned" from Wikipedia when the guy tried to give it its own page, posted long diatribes in Articles for Deletion explaining why it was important information, despite the fact that WP probably gave it no worse treatment than any other non-proven notability vanity published book, and the author took this to be another part of the conspiracy. Just a guess.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    3. Re:Forget old media, try indy records and books by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      read indy books like America Deceived (book) which was banned from Amazon and Wikipedia. I read the preview pages. It's utter rubbish. 136 page fiction novel? Most pages are short lines of bad dialogue? Full of misspellings*? Amazon doesn't take bad self-published short stories, and Wikipedia doesn't either.

      * e.g. the derogatory term for Italians is "wop", not "whop"
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  51. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Suing a torrent site for copyright infringement is something akin to suing a map-maker because a thief used the information to find a bank that was robbed (and yes, I know that with copyright infringement nothing is physically stolen), or suing a telephone company because two criminals used the network to plan a heist."

    A better analogy would be to sue the manufacturer of the software that libraries use for managing their book catalogs. After all, that software allows any potential copyright infringer to walk in off the street and find the book they are searching for. They can then pull the book off the shelf to read it without the user paying a cent in compensation to the publishers. Even worse, someone could attempt to copy the entire book! If it weren't for that catalog, none of this would be possible.

    Oh, wait, my lawyer is telling me that reading a book in the library, borrowing it, or even copying it isn't necessarily an infringing act ...

  52. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, it's more like a website hosting torrents of songs and movies, and being sued by the copyright holders.

    I'm really not quite sure what the point is of your analogy.

  53. Can you say 'Streisand effect" and mean it? by zappepcs · · Score: 1

    Seriously, all they are doing is calling attention to the fact that they are socially inept business creatures with not one clue how to treat their customers. If you march backward in time a few decades, you will see that the business practices then were to give customers value for money, and to be the one that gave them more or something unique.

    Apparently, the 'music biz' has lost touch with that entrepreneurial spirit and moved on to 'sue the fuck out of everyone till they pay us in our graves' business model.

    I have only these words to say:

    1 - Buggy whip maker
    2 - Horse Farrier
    3 - Whale hunter
    4 - Lamp Lighter
    5 - Gold Miner
    6 - Candle maker
    7 - 8-track tape manufacturer
    8 - DOS code writer
    9 - Transatlantic passenger liner captain
    10 - Japanese longshoreman...

    Well, hell, by now you get the idea. Crying to the teacher that ALL the other kids on the playground are stealing from you is not going to go too far for too long. The problem of this whole situation is never really looked at correctly. In the main instance, the music business that is claiming harm here has two historical facts surrounding it:

    1 - They were the ONLY way to get into big money music arena
    2 - They controlled ALL of the distribution

    What they are suing for is insubstantial next to the fact that what they have lost is those two things.

    The intarwebtubetrucks stole their business while they were not looking, or more pointedly, while they had their heads buried in a nice tidy pile of cocaine.

    What is not recognized nor even noted is the fact that they ARE in fact dinosaurs. Their business is to create fashionable music groups and advertise them. Whoops, those damned intarwebs have taken that from them. All they have left is copyrights (which by all accounts they basically bilked the artists out of) to keep them afloat in expensive lifestyles and habit forming drugs.

    Now, you ask, why do I insist on intimating that they are all drug addled ass-wipes? Well, I answer: Prove that I'm wrong.

    Show us one or three or even a dozen folks in the big money music business who actually are not? Then contrast and compare that to the rest of them? Go ahead, use Anonymous like efforts to uncover it all, then tell/prove me wrong. The trouble, even if you find some, is that most are exactly what I'm implying.

    This leads to the sad conclusion that this small group of private businesses who are using their money to influence the rest of the world's governments. If anyone needed a bastille day, it IS the music and movie industries.

    I'm not against anyone making some money, not at all. The sad fact is that the **AA do not create anything. They leach off of actual artists, using their talent to make money for distribution and popularization. In retort I send you NIN, Radiohead, and a host of indie groups that are changing how we, the people, see the entertainment industry. The sad truth is that the **AA are not innovating. They continue to want to sell the fucked up buggy whips. Damn them to hell. I can't wait till their money runs out.

    Slowly but surely, people and businesses are learning the lesson, Barbara fucked up, and they need to avoid what happened to her. It is a slow process and it will take a lot more demonstrations, a lot more people in court asking the judge to force the plaintiff to defend their ridiculous damage claims.

    The good news: We are getting there. There is light at the end of the tunnel. Better news is that independent artists are showing the way by taking a risk, offering their content for free or whatever you will pay. Amazingly, such experiments are successful, despite the stealing. They make money by CUTTING OUT THE BLOOD SUCKING MIDDLEMEN.

    Finally, TPB is involved because they are helping to facilitate the great change that IS NEEDED for the music industry to remove itself from the collective death grip of the **AA. They are the focal point (so to speak) of this whole change. Do they deserve our support? HELL

    1. Re:Can you say 'Streisand effect" and mean it? by rueger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not to quibble but...

      1 - Buggy whip maker - Yup, still around.
      2 - Horse Farrier - there are many thousands of farriers working in the US and around the world.
      5 - Gold Miner - likewise gold mining still goes on, and underground mining is still common throughout the world.
      9 - Transatlantic passenger liner captain - Um - who do you think captains the transatlantic ocean liners?.
      10 - Japanese longshoreman... And who unloads ships in Japanese ports? The ten thousand unionized dock workers? Oh right, Sailor Moon...

    2. Re:Can you say 'Streisand effect" and mean it? by ravenshrike · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The point was they are orders of magnitude less important than they were, except for the last.

  54. I didn't know by EEPROMS · · Score: 0

    there were so many gay pirates out there.

  55. I For One... by rueger · · Score: 1

    Will not be buying the next Village People album! Nor will I buy tickets for their next world tour!

    Ick. Or visiting their web site again... Can you say Geocities? I knew you could!

  56. No court date needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This won't go to court...they'll settle through ARRRRR-bitration!

  57. amoral? by nten · · Score: 1

    amoral seems a strong word for copyright infringement. You can view morals as something handed to us from God, or a set of instincts designed for species protection, but in either case how does driving commercial entertainment workers out of business apply? If all for profit art (movies music, video games (despite what Ebert says), and more traditional fare) went away overnight, I would be ecstatic. I might even argue that purchasing this crap is amoral. But I won't because its really not that important.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
    1. Re:amoral? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      amoral seems a strong word for copyright infringement. You can view morals as something handed to us from God, or a set of instincts designed for species protection, but in either case how does driving commercial entertainment workers out of business apply?
      You've missed one category: society's values. In fact, I would actually argue that the morals handed to us from God are part of society's values. These values are derived from what helps society function, and what helps societies improve. Most of the morals "handed to us from God" had (and many still do have) directly positive effects for our society. Anyway, I'm getting off topic.

      The point is that copyright helps us function. It encourages the production of culture, which we, the people, enjoy. It (hopefully) ensures the wealth gained from producing a work is proportional to its popularity (i.e. however many people appreciate it), which is consistent with the principles of the free market and capitalism. The act of denying compensation to someone who has worked to contribute something positive to society is considered amoral. That's sort of covered in the Eighth Commandment though.
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  58. OpenBankMap.org by emj · · Score: 1

    You can build it on top of openstreetmap.org, and I'm pretty sure it's going to be as illegal as publishing bomb making literature. (US Army)

  59. I'd sue TPB too, if I were them by AlgorithMan · · Score: 1

    I'd sue TPB too, if I were them... i mean seriously - TPB doesn't seem to feature them enough... how are they supposed to become popular if only a fraction of their music is offered on the #1 p2p site?

    I bet some evil rival musicians pay TPB to discriminate against prince and the village people!!!one
    where are the antitrust lawsuits???

    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
    1. Re:I'd sue TPB too, if I were them by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Damn, I wish I had the modpoints I had a couple days ago....

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  60. Not anonymous anymore!!! by russlar · · Score: 1

    the benefit of anonymity. Not anymore, you insensitive clod!
    --
    Anybody want my mod points?
  61. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    No, it's more like being a manufacturer of map tools ( The Pirate Bay ) You're implying that TPB are simply the innocent (or at least uninvolved) party creating generic tools that *just happen* to be used by some people for certain purposes. That's nonsense; regardless of the legalities and the moral rights and wrongs of the matter (on both sides), TPB know full well and are open about what they're doing, and what their site is intended to be used for. Even the name gives a slight clue to this!

    As I said, this is not intended to pass judgement about either the legality or morality of what TPB are doing (in any jurisdiction). But I can't stand to hear BS pseudo-legalistic rationalisations trying to pretend that they're an uninvolved third party. If we were just discussing the torrent search engine itself, it could plausibly be looked at that way (there are plenty of legitimate (*) uses for BT). But as I said, that's not the case.
    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  62. Prins Phillip och byborna stämmer The Pirate by emj · · Score: 1

    That's a wonderful headline. :-)

  63. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to sue Walmart for making products available for me to steal.

  64. Actually.... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Prince, The Village People and ABBA are suing because people are NOT downloading them enough. Prince tried making a statement on the issue, but no one could understand him and the The Village People got tired trying to spell out the message. A spokesperson for ABBA said the group would comment after they all finished get new blond highlights in their hair.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  65. Prince and The Village People? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They do know no one would pay money for their "music" right? Especially not 10 and 30 years after they were last relevant.

  66. sigh... by emj · · Score: 1

    No I'm very right, the Pro Piracy movement is a very small movement, they have managed to get people to listen to them in the youth organisations of the big parties here in Sweden. But as to being a big political force it's just laughable. Further, I state that Pirat Partiet themselves have no chance of getting any political representation in Europe or in Sweden.

    If they do get elected I will print this message and eat it.

    1. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to have an interest in downplaying the significance of the pirate movement. You use weasel words and seem to be trying to act as an opinion leader. You're not. You're an asshole. It's not "just laughable" - fact is, the smarter politicians see the writing on the wall. The younger voters and soon-to-be-voters want copyright reformed.

    2. Re:sigh... by emj · · Score: 1

      Well I can't respond to that.. :-( makes me sad, it's even impossible to know wether you are the same person.

  67. You know you've made it by The+Second+Horseman · · Score: 2, Funny

    when you get sued by a toothpick in a purple doily.

  68. Re:what do they all have in common? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1
    (Self reply)

    Eh, you do realise that ABBA was made up of two pairs of couples? Euh... I just realised that this doesn't necessarily contradict what the troll was saying. Time for some clarification:-

    Eh, you do realise that ABBA was made up of two pairs of mixed-sex couples? That's what I meant :)

    Mind you, I realise that the possibility of kinky inter-band shenanigans crossed the minds of some people. I'm not convinced that Benny-on-Bjorn action was high in many people's fantasy stakes, but Agnetha and Frida were probably a different kettle of fish(!)
    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  69. Re:what do they all have in common? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two pairs of couples = Four couples = Eight people.

  70. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot to mention that said map-makers knowingly and continually makes maps for robbers, just as the telco knowingly provides (and advertises) a directory for its criminal clientèle.

    But the map-maker and telco aren't actually committing the crime, so it's not like they are doing anything wrong.

    By the way, I have no problem with bank robbers and criminals performing heists, unless they endanger the children.

  71. I have a plan by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Funny

    I know a way out of this. The Pirate Bay just has to change their name from "The Pirate Bay" to some weird and completely unintelligible symbol that nobody knows how to say. How can the lawyers sue them if they can't even say their name?

    1. Re:I have a plan by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 1

      Sure, but how would DNS resolve it?

    2. Re:I have a plan by DGolden · · Score: 5, Interesting

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punycode, probably. How about this? (okay, the .org registry probably doesn't support that, and /.'s [link-warning] thing makes it look less cool, but some DNS might).

      --
      Choice of masters is not freedom.
    3. Re:I have a plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you just blew my fucking mind, dude

    4. Re:I have a plan by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      You are presuming the said artists know how to pronounce anything in the first place.

    5. Re:I have a plan by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 4, Informative

      You have hit upon the irony here, that Prince actually changed his name (and back again) because of draconian trademark and copy rights. He tried to fight "the Man", and now is convinced that every copy has equal value. Every unauthorised copy that exists on a hard drive or in the flash ROM, whether it's your home computer or an iPod, means one less CD sold to him. Yes, he does seem to believe the hype that each copy means a lost sale.

      But in the end, it doesn't surprise me. After all, his fight has always been not about money but control. If it weren't for performance rights being protected, he would have been successful in preventing Tom Jones and Art Of Noise from recording "Kiss". Thus it is only logical that he would hate file sharing, a medium that he cannot control.

    6. Re:I have a plan by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      For anyone who doesn't get it, hover over the link and it should say "thepiratebay" rotated 180 (i.e. upside-down and right-left).

      That's cool.

    7. Re:I have a plan by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Yes, he does seem to believe the hype that each copy means a lost sale.

      Not a lost sale, exactly. Anyone who has taken a copy has made a purchase but the purchase price has not yet been collected. So it's not so much that "every copy" represents someone who "would have purchased", it represents a vast pool from which some people can be persuaded to pay - and this represents large potential gains.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    8. Re:I have a plan by popmaker · · Score: 1

      But lawyers can rotate too, I think. That is, if you pay them enough.

  72. Re:what do they all have in common? by tehniobium · · Score: 1

    What you should probably understand is that there is a distinct difference between "gays" and gheyz".

    Gay means homosexual. Ghey according to urbandictionary.com:

    "Usurping the traditional term GAY to take the homosexual meaning out and leaving in the lame."

    This fact has also been explored in purepwnage (purepwnage.com) and ctrl-alt-del (www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/) :)

    --
    No kitty, this is my pot pie!
  73. I'm truly shocked by spir0 · · Score: 1

    the most shocking part of this is that the Village People are still alive.

    I mean, what 1 or 2 songs and they can afford to live for decades? they really are creaming the profits.

    --
    The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
  74. everybody! sing along! by night_flyer · · Score: 1

    Young man, are you listening to me?
    I said, young man, what do you want to be?
    I said, young man, you can make real your dreams.
    But you've got to know this one thing!

    No man does it all by himself.
    I said, young man, put your pride on the shelf,
    And just go there, to the R.I.A.A.
    I'm sure they can help you today.

    It's fun to be a slave to the R-I-A-A.
    It's fun to be a slave to the R-I-A-A.

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  75. everybody... by owlnation · · Score: 1

    Sing! D...M...C...A...

  76. Re:what do they all have in common? by Ninjaesque+One · · Score: 1

    Two pairs of couples should be 2 ^ 3, or 8 people. I was aware that ABBA had 4.

    --
    Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
  77. They really need is to enlist Twisted Sister.... by HeavyDevelopment · · Score: 1

    That would really seal the deal. Complete slam dunk. TPB wouldn't stand a chance.

    --
    Badges!?! We don't need no stinking badges!
  78. /. can't see (beyond) its own prejudice... by trims · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll leave out the silliness of suing TPB for contributory copyright infringement, as I'm pretty sure we all agree that this isn't sane.

    However, looking at the comments above, I see a horrible pattern: people excoriating ABBA, Prince, and TVP as "old timers" and "not producing anything recently" and therefore somehow immediately irrelevant and undeserving of receiving some compensation for their work.

    Now, I realize that /. is heavily 20-somethings (which means, you weren't conscious before about 1990), but I think enough of us here are a bit older that we can recognize that music produced in the 80s and (gasp) even the 70s might still have some worth. Now, the 95+ year copyright is a bit ludicrous, but even ABBA and TVP's songs are still in their mid-30s as to date from creation. And Prince's stuff is a rather young 25 at the oldest. I think it's entirely reasonable that someone have the ability to own a copyright for 25 years. TPB may not be (rationally) responsible, but the people filesharing ABBA haven't got a legal, moral, or ethical leg to stand on.

    And, to shove something back at this audience that it often trumpets: teenieboppers aren't the only music consumers! If the music industry is to survive, it has to realize that continuing to sell to 30/40/50 year olds is a viable market. And, let's face it, much of that market is interested in nostalgia. I certainly haven't finished filling out my collection of favorites from the 70s. So, (gasp) there should still be substantial value in selling music a couple of decades old to 30+ people.

    So, the attitude of "what have you done for me lately" is bullshit. Nirvana hasn't produced anything in 15 years. They don't (i.e. can't) make money from touring. Does that mean I can pirate their stuff with impunity, since obviously, Kurt doesn't need any of the royalties.

    It's attitudes like that that mean we're not taken seriously.

    Moderate copyright, rigorously enforced, is a boon to society. Our problem is that copyright is approaching a perpetuity. The reaction to that may be widespread piracy, but let's not kid ourselves that we're somehow "better" than the opposition. Rioting for change is still rioting, even if you manage to get something changed. Vote with your dollars, as its by far the best way (ethically, morally, and socially) to effect change - support those artists willing to embrace new business models, and shun those who prop up the old channels.

    One last thing. Here's a question for everyone:

    Under the current copyright system, if an artist (formerly popular), who hasn't produced anything in a decade or more, and won't (or can't) tour, decides to make their catalog available digitally (as MP3, at some reasonable X per song), yet absolutely abhors filesharing, and sues everyone they can which shares their songs, asking for several thousand dollars (mostly as a deterent) per song in penalties, would you support them?

    -Erik

    --
    There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
    1. Re:/. can't see (beyond) its own prejudice... by Shados · · Score: 1

      I bow before you, as that was one of the best expression of the situation I've read in a long time. Finally someone else on Slashdot who gets it. Bravo!

    2. Re:/. can't see (beyond) its own prejudice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, I realize that /. is heavily 20-somethings (which means, you weren't conscious before about 1990), but I think enough of us here are a bit older that we can recognize that music produced in the 80s and (gasp) even the 70s might still have some worth.

      Okay, fair enough.., but how old do you think the average pirate-bay "pirate" is?
    3. Re:/. can't see (beyond) its own prejudice... by pv2b · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I beg to differ. The attitude of "what have you done for me lately" isn't bullshit.

      In most lines of work, you do your work that you're paid to do, get your paycheck and that's all the compensation you'll ever get or should get. You don't expect to be paid throughout the endurance of said work. Imagine turning up at a former place of work in say 10 years and telling them, "hey, I see you're still using that data center I designed for you 10 years ago, give me more money", you'd be laughed out of there.

      Now, the current model of selling music recordings doesn't quite work like that. You record your music, then you sell it hoping to get some or all of that money back. Even make a profit if you're lucky.

      Finally, just because there's a market for nostalgia doesn't mean that copyrights should automatically span so that artists can cash in on it. What you'd call nostalgia, I'd call history, or cultural heritage, and should not be locked up to be only sold on the whim of the copyright holder.

      I guess the difference between us is not one of principle, but of degree. You want something like 25 years. I want something closer to 5 years, and to make clear that copyright protection preventing duplication should only cover *commercial* duplication of said work. Older works are valuable, yes. That's precisely why commercial distribution of such works shouldn't be bottled up longer than neccessary. 5 years is plenty of time to have a monopoly on a work, to have an opportunity to turn a profit on it.

    4. Re:/. can't see (beyond) its own prejudice... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I'll leave out the silliness of suing TPB for contributory copyright infringement, as I'm pretty sure we all agree that this isn't sane.

      No, we don't all agree on that issue.
       
       

      However, looking at the comments above, I see a horrible pattern: people excoriating ABBA, Prince, and TVP as "old timers" and "not producing anything recently" and therefore somehow immediately irrelevant and undeserving of receiving some compensation for their work.

      The worst part is that one of those is still producing new material - but it's not on the charts so many people don't even realize it exists. They don't even bother to check.
       
       

      And, to shove something back at this audience that it often trumpets: teenieboppers aren't the only music consumers! If the music industry is to survive, it has to realize that continuing to sell to 30/40/50 year olds is a viable market.

      The music industry damn well knows this. That's why I (and anyone else who cares to) can buy tons of older music right off the racks. The last time I was at my local big box music retailer I could have filled a shopping cart with older bands - and not just the arena filling ones or the double platinum albums either. Heck, they even have a fairly nice (if small) selection of George Gershwin.
       
       

      It's attitudes like that that mean we're not taken seriously.

      Along with a generally carefree attitude towards facts to accompany the carefree attitude towards other peoples rights.
    5. Re:/. can't see (beyond) its own prejudice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One last thing. Here's a question for everyone: Under the current copyright system, if an artist (formerly popular), who hasn't produced anything in a decade or more, and won't (or can't) tour, decides to make their catalog available digitally (as MP3, at some reasonable X per song), yet absolutely abhors filesharing, and sues everyone they can which shares their songs, asking for several thousand dollars (mostly as a deterent) per song in penalties, would you support them?
      No. The rest of us have to get up in the morning and go to work. So should you.
    6. Re:/. can't see (beyond) its own prejudice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So.... You're saying that society needs to pay money to Nirvana because they can't tour? That's ridiculous.

      So they can't tour because their lead singer is dead. Cry me a river. If you were working with a team on some sort of project, and the project lead died (and he was the only person that could complete the job), do you think that people should pay you money because now you can't turn your project into something profitable?

      I can see the benefits of a socialist welfare policy that prevents people from falling into homelessness and tries to get them back on their feet, but this is not what you propose. You are saying "they can't make money on their work anymore, so we as a society need to help them make money off of their work. Not by making the work better or improving it, though. No. We should give them money by sacrificing our rights and locking up that which has become part of our culture so that they can sell it back to us."

    7. Re:/. can't see (beyond) its own prejudice... by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      I guess if an artist has only 5 years to make a profit, than any copyright infringement in that period is a much more serious offense. Capital punishment perhaps?

    8. Re:/. can't see (beyond) its own prejudice... by trick.one · · Score: 1

      Finally, a sane comment in this thread.

      Seriously, I can't stand all this faux-righteousness when it comes to copyright law. You don't want to pay $20 for an album or a movie? Fine, neither do I, it's absurd. But stop pretending like that makes downloading music for free something other than piracy. And stop pretending like piracy is some Robin Hood-esque act that only hurts the greedy cigar smoking industry fat cats.

      If you're actually serious about changing the way the entertainment industry works, remove yourself from their system. Stop consuming their product. Where there is no demand, there is no market. By consuming their product en masse --albeit illegally -- you are simply validating their product and hence the way they do business in the grand scheme of things. You are telling them that as soon as they figure out how to do legal distribution a little better (like iTMS is doing), you'll be ready to slurp down their shit.

      People act like they're bringing down Babylon by pirating stuff, like it's some kind of civil disobedience or something. And then an actual musician will come out and say something against filesharing, and the overwhelming reaction is to discredit their legitimacy. "Prince and Abba are just jealous because they're not in the limelight." Yeah, I'm sure that must be it. Because Prince is clearly a one-dimensional cartoon character who will stop at nothing to be the center of attention. He's never, you know, displayed any sort of nuance or interest in record label politics or the music industry.

      All this leads me to one conclusion: the rabidly pro-p2p /. crowd is just a bunch of cheap and lazy bastards. Too cheap to shell out $20 for an album, too lazy to do anything about it because they don't want to give up the tunes and the flicks and the games. Cheap and lazy, but lucky enough to be in a position where they can (a.) pirate the shit for free with relative ease, and (b.) cover it up by making a lot of noise about how evil the *AA is. And whenever something comes along that takes the attention away from how horrible the *AA is, it's tarred and feathered into oblivion.

  79. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prince is still touring. Concerts pretty often.

    I thought it was the recording industry who gets all the money from music sales, and the artists make there money from touring.

  80. you misunderstand the function of DRM by Bored+MPA · · Score: 1

    It is to increase the time (read:cost) required to obtain unlicensed copies of works. As such, it encourages people (that can afford to) to buy copies instead of spending their time searching for them (or waiting for cracks). Basic economic theory. DRM is supposed to keep normal consumers purchasing products -- it's not simply targeted at people pirating.

    In addition, IF copyright were to disappear today some of its uses would be replaced by DRM, different format qualities, different packages, etc. Regulation is just one way to control distribution. There are business and regulatory solutions for many market situations.

    1. Re:you misunderstand the function of DRM by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      Check out some of the torrent sites (if you don't already) and search for new movies. You can get copies of movies that are still playing in theaters, and not always low quality copies filmed on shaky digital video cameras. I'm talking about high quality DVD screeners and copies ripped off from inside the industry. And once it gets on the net, that's it, game over. DRM only has to be broken once, and the distribution channels we have right now are simple enough to be learned by pretty much anyone (torrents are not THAT hard to use once you setup your client properly).

      Same with the other restrictions you mentioned. They can release all the different formats they want with tiered pricing, different quality, packaged deals; what ends up on the torrents will be the best quality, most complete copy. If they gave up on copyright tomorrow, if the whole industry said overnight that we're switching to an entirely technical based solution to combat unauthorized (that very word loses meaning once copyright is abandoned) copying, then the NEXT day there would effectively be no barriers to copying. They need copyright because it gives their actions legitimacy and because they know DRM will never work to deter all but lowest hanging fruit of "copyright infringers". And that's a very low standard. Using nothing but google and some free tools most people could circumvent something like iTunes DRM for example without much trouble.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  81. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  82. what, only those 3? by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 1
    that leaves a lot of room for some of you people to sue TPB as well after recording a crappy song and uploading it ... if you wanted to get some tabloid attention, now is the time!

    --
    "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
  83. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by sys_mast · · Score: 1

    I might be wrong, but I thought that TPB and other torrent sites also had Linux/BSD sections(what would be the right word, tracker?) that are perfectly legal in all (or almost all) countries? So in my eyes that makes them more of a normal map maker to follow your analogy.

    Or is Linux a HaXoR tool?

    --
    Those who can, do.
  84. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

    actually its more like suing a tourist information office,
    for telling you where the post office is,
    so you could buy a map,
    to rob a bank.

    the pirate bay don't even link to copyrighted material( files on computers) they link to links to copyrighted (torrent trackers) material.

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  85. Missing the tags by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

    Wow, no "MAFIAA" tags on this one. All the responses attacking the artists on this one (just about every high-modded response) shows that Slashdot is willing to blindly attack anyone who gets in the way of stealing music. Let's stop pretending it's a matter of principle.

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  86. In other news, crap musicians sue piracy firm by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    Honestly, the real crime here is that anyone is actually listening to their crap.

    You know what? They should try to get signed on to this suit all of the "artists" referenced by Weird Al in this parody:

    You can torture me
    With donnie & marie
    You can play some barry manilow
    Or you can play some schlock
    Like new kids on the block
    Or any village people song you know
    Or play vanilla ice
    Hey, you can play him twice
    And you can play the bee gees any day
    But mr. dj, please
    Im beggin on my knees
    I just cant take no more of billy ray

    Dont play that song
    That achy breaky song
    The most annoying song I know
    And if you play that song
    That achy breaky song
    I might blow up my radio, ooo...

    You can clear the room
    By playind debbie boon
    Or crank your abba records until dawn
    Oh, I can even hear
    Slim whitman or zamfir
    Dont mind a yoko ono marathon
    Or play some tiffany
    On 8-track or cd
    Or scrape your fingernails across the board
    Or tie me to a chair
    And kick me down the stairs
    Just please dont play that stupid song no more

    Dont play that song
    That achy breaky song
    You know I hate that song a bunch
    And if you play that song
    That nauseating song
    It might just make me lose my lunch, ooo...

    Dont play that song
    That achy breaky song
    I think its driving me insane
    Oh, please dont play that song
    That irritating song
    Id rather have a pitchfork in my brain...

    Dont play that song
    That achy breaky song
    The most annoying song I know
    And if you play that song
    That achy breaky song
    I might blow up my radio, ooo-woo...

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  87. Just let them try to sue by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Funny

    Young man, there's no need to feel down.
    I said, young man, pick yourself off the ground.
    I said, young man, 'cause you're HD-DVD won't play
    There's no need to be unhappy.

    Young man, there's an app you can load.
    I said, young man, when you're DRM blows.
    You can run it, and I'm sure you will find
    Many ways to have a good time.

    It's fun to violate the d-m-c-a.
    It's fun to violate the d-m-c-a.

    You can unlock every DVD to enjoy,
    You can give the finger to that marketing ploy ...

    It's fun to violate the d-m-c-a.
    It's fun to violate the d-m-c-a.

    You can get movies clean, damn that's quite the deal,
    You can watch them wherever you feel ...

    Young man, are you listening to me?
    I said, young man, do you like your movies?
    I said, young man, you do you want to be a stooge?
    But you've got to know this one thing!

    No law gets passed by itself.
    I said, young man, big money pays for itself,
    And look here, it bought the d.m.c.a.
    You get the shaft with no lube today.

    It's fun to violate the d-m-c-a.
    It's fun to violate the d-m-c-a.

    You can unlock every DVD to enjoy,
    You can give the finger to that marketing ploy ...

    It's fun to violate the d-m-c-a.
    It's fun to violate the d-m-c-a.

    You can get movies clean, damn that's quite the deal,
    You can watch them wherever you feel ...

    Young man, I was once in your shoes.
    I said, I was down and out with DRM blues.
    New technology was eating my wallet alive.
    I felt that high-def was so jive ...

    That's when someone came up to me,
    And said, young man, google up some de-css.
    It's a tool to break the d.m.c.a.
    They can start you back on your way.

    It's fun to violate the d-m-c-a.
    It's fun to violate the d-m-c-a.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  88. People would actually download YMCA on purpose? by MrGHemp · · Score: 1

    Prince, The Village People & ABBA... being downloaded, really? And are they sure it wasn't a mistake, like the file wasn't listed as "Jessica Alba Nude" or something. The concept that no one would pay for their music is easy for me to grasp, but that people would knowingly download YMCA or what not is hard for me to grasp. I think the first big challenge for these guys is going to be finding evidence that both someone posted their music, and that someone else actually downloaded it... and that either wasn't a mistake... hehe.

    1. Re:People would actually download YMCA on purpose? by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      Is Prince not "The Artist Formally Known As..." any longer? Not that I have any interest in the over-rated little turd's "music" anyhow.

      In either case, perhaps now would be a good time to change his name to "The Artist Currently Known As Dickhead".

      And no, I don't believe that music should be free whatosever, I just find it very difficult to believe that corporate mult-millionaire puppets like Metallica and Prince are having to lead lives of poverty as a result of a few songs being copied.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  89. TAFKAFP? by tepples · · Score: 1

    You mean the artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as prince? What about the artist formerly known as Fresh Prince?
  90. Web Sheriff by nastro · · Score: 1

    Why do I picture Web Sheriff as Yosemite Sam trying to get the mule moving?

    YAAAH, MULE! YAAAAH!

    1. Re:Web Sheriff by rts008 · · Score: 1

      I think this is more of a case of:

      Woah! Mule! I said Whoah!! *gallops of of edge of cliff with shacked look on face*

      But I like your style, and think Yosemite Sam and his mule makes a great analogy here....Well Done!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  91. People still pay attention to Prince by shyberfoptik · · Score: 2, Informative

    Selling out over 140,000 tickets in 20 minutes? Playing 21 consecutive concerts in London? People pay attention to Prince.

    1. Re:People still pay attention to Prince by OECD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Selling out over 140,000 tickets in 20 minutes? Playing 21 consecutive concerts in London? People pay attention to Prince.

      Of course. That's why his rich-guy-rummaging-for-coins-in-the-sofa routine is so ridiculous.

      Hell, I bought Prince cassettes when I was a lad. But I'm done with him. He can party like it's the last century all he wants.

      --
      One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    2. Re:People still pay attention to Prince by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      People who are computer savvy enough to torrent music aren't the people who listen to prince. Period.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  92. Prince is a Madman by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Here in NYC, Prince routinely drives up in a limo to downtown record stores that sell bootlegs, grabs every CD with his name on it, storms up to the counter to rant at the nerds at the cash register, then stomps out of the store back into his limo.

    I wonder if he then sells them on eBay.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  93. Guess you were wrong about... everything, really by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

    Well if your going to get all accurate about it, pirates sail the high seas, attack and board vessels and pillage the contents.

    /me sighs.

    The word "pirate" has been used in the current context since long before modern computers even existed, as any etymological dictionary will tell you.

    You're pretty much completely wrong on the knee-jerk arguments about fair use as well, in almost any jurisdiction in the West.

    Please at least do some basic fact checking before you post a smart-ass response, particularly if you're going to criticise people for not being "all accurate about it"!

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  94. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by lysse · · Score: 1

    So in fact, very similar to prosecuting a young woman for owning some dodgy books and writing some silly poems...?

  95. Sing Along by Barumpus · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It's fun to sue just like the R-I-A-A
    It's fun to sue just like the R-I-A-A....

  96. Re:Guess you were wrong about... everything, reall by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you should read what you post "Meaning one who takes another's work without permission", your not taking it you are only copying it and as a torrent technically only small fair use portions of it at any one time ;).

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  97. good point by shyberfoptik · · Score: 2, Funny

    And yet, it's the least-ridiculous of all his routines. Unless assless pants quit being ridiculous.

  98. Why? by wraithguard01 · · Score: 1

    My question is why anyone would want to download their music, free or otherwise?

  99. With a name like Web Sheriff ... by pavon · · Score: 1

    I would expect for them to know about as much about computers and law as the founder of CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet. And look at the email that someone posted above - Web Sheriff is using an AOL email address for their official legal correspondence. That is professionalism there.

    1. Re:With a name like Web Sheriff ... by FreenetFan · · Score: 1

      Web Sheriff are part of a group called Entertainment Law Associates that includes Web Sheriff and Wild West Management.

      You can see mugshots of the gang, including ringleader John Giacobbi on this page.

      Looks like "Big Jeff" is the heavy mob they send in when all else fails!

      Wild West Management manage such titans of the music world as Eyes Wide Open, The Hot Puppies, Mirima / Sloman, The Korgis, and ... that seems to be it.

  100. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone better tell Blizzard and OS-distributors that they're using a service "that was specifically designed for (or with the intention that) it would be used for ... and similar activities, and included details pertinent to that activity" when Blizzard and OS-distributors disseminate their software. dun, dun, dun!

    Wait! You mean that torrents can be used for legal purposes too? No way! That's not what the MAFIAAs were telling everyone :(

  101. Or... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    ... y'know, you could just stop.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  102. The best crossover episode of by SlowEmotionReplay · · Score: 1

    The Venture Brothers and Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law, ever!

  103. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by edschurr · · Score: 1

    The Top 100 list at tpb is perhaps telling--and the Top pages for the subsections too (because the Top 100 is dominated by video and audio). It looks like even the Top Unix section is more pirated things than not, though it is much more heterogeneous there.

  104. oh, come on by shyberfoptik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree Prince isn't the most torrent'ed artist. However, I am "computer savvy" enough to torrent, and yet I listen to Prince. Other "computer savvy" people listen to Prince. Plenty of people who aren't "computer savvy" listen to your favorite band.

    If a Prince torrent is out there, expect him to sue whether or not he's a top download. Attention grab? Maybe, but a bigger attention grab is playing the Super Bowl. It's possible he's suing because he wants money for it's own sake. Just sayin.

  105. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it sounds like older people are buying records anyway.

    I'm guessing that is not the demographic that is downloading music. In fact, most of this older demographic is probably only vaguely aware that you can you can download music from the Internet.

    You see the problem with Prince's approach, I trust?

    The people who are illegally downloading music aren't interested in prince's music. And those are interested in his music don't download.

  106. It aint like that by gary+gunrack · · Score: 1

    There's no need to talk trash. The worst that can be said about the guy is that he's an idiot for suing the Pirate Bay. He continues to make albums on his own terms, and continues to perform with top-notch bands.

  107. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by Swampash · · Score: 1

    For those of you unfamiliar with red-light districts in the Southern Hemisphere, Sydney Australia's "King's Cross" is the grandaddy.

    If you seek it, whatever it is, chances are it can be bought down a sidestreet in "the Cross" any night of the week. Like drugs, for instance. You can buy drugs in King's Cross, Sydney, Australia.

    There -- according to the "torrents are stealing" argument, I am now a drug dealer. I didn't actually provide you with the drug, but I gave you instructions on where to get them yourself. And, of course, that's exactly the same thing.

  108. Re:Guess you were wrong about... everything, reall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The word "pirate" has been used in the current context since long before modern computers even existed, as any etymological dictionary will tell you. And it was largely propaganda back then, too. Goebbels pretty much made propaganda a science, but it existed long before then.

    There were actually multiple levels of propaganda- Some "Pirates"(in the rape-and-pillage sense) of the High Seas were only being labelled as such because they dared import goods without paying duties - i.e. smuggling. Some were honest, moral people who simply disagreed with unjust taxation and the centralised state. That didn't make them evil, in fact in my book it makes them good.
  109. Re:what do they all have in common? by k8to · · Score: 1

    Of course the reality is more "term which continues to use the term gay as a derogatory while cowardly pretending not to."

    Insensitive: that's so gay.

    Insensitive, cowardly, and disengenuous: that's so ghey.

    --
    -josh
  110. Just Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Another head shaking day. I have *points* the village people on vinyl. Yes I actually do. I have CD's and vinyl ranging from The Pet Shop Boys, to Average Lavigne, The Village People to Pantera. When I go to thepiratebay dawt arrrrg, I search up stuff like that because I leave torrents running over night, and it's just simpler for me to download that stuff and put it on my iPod/cell phone/psp/chip player/wtfeverthing when it's in a compact little mp3 format. I'm not downloading stuff I don't already own, especially when it's THAT old. I have even bought *shock and horror* songs off of iTunes when it suits me to do so. This, however, is the last of the straws.

    I can't understand why they don't just give it up. Prince's 1999, Purple Rain, etc. are ubiquitous enough, that thepiratebay is not going to hurt anyone giving it away for free. And if as many of us as have already done so can recite (or rewrite) the words to YMCA, then I would have to say the same thing goes for The Village People (whom until moments ago, I had assumed all dead). At some point in our lives, or the lives our parents, siblings, or beloved gay friend, we have owned, had in our posession, or have been given a copy (not copied, but a retail copy) of this ubiquitous music. I am going on a music strike. I will purchase no more music. Period. At this point I have enough music to listen to continuously for over 3 months, without repeating the same song twice (not counting remixes and covers). I don't require any more music and I have too much loathing for the main stream companies to want to purchase anymore music. I will break out my record player, and don my mp3 device, and I will enjoy the music I have until I hear that this nonsense has ceased. What else can we do besides bitch? Just stop buying it.

    1. Re:Just Don't Get It by base3 · · Score: 1

      Even though they should be, vinyl albums, cassettes, and CDs aren't license tokens that give you the right to hunt down a new copy. The recording industry insists that if you want a digital copy, you need to buy one--and also insists that even if you take the trouble to pump your phonograph or cassette player through your line-in and format shift that way, that you're committing copyright infringement. That said, I think this is a publicity stunt to generate sales from the nostalgia crowd who doesn't use TPB et al anyway, rather than a genuine effort to interdict traffic in YMCA and Macho Man.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  111. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    ... and when asked (repeatedly) to stop distributing those maps, he laughs, calls robbing banks "free expression" or some such crap, and declares himself a defender of "free expression", all the while making an assload of money off the whole sordid affair.

    Yeah, I don't really like TPB. Sorry.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  112. Found it for you, course by a native! by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://thepiratebay.org/search/swedish%20chef/0/99/0Here you go, elementary swedish lessons by a native

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  113. One million dollars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *pinky on lip

  114. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by deblau · · Score: 1

    Ah, but if you start down that path, then you'll end up arresting people who write books on, say, how to rob a bank. Or how to build a nuclear bomb. Or how to [insert whatever activity you don't like]. And you're well on your way to book burnings and fascism. Thank God for the First Amendment.

    --
    This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
  115. Can't wait! by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    Because if The Pirate Bay gets convicted, the next obvious target is Google. You can find at least as much pirated content using Google as you can using The Pirate Bay, and they're both indexing services that just provide links to sites or other means to retrieve the illegal content. So if The Pirate Bay goes down, providing links to means to retrieving illegal content is banned and Google has to be next. And I'd love to see the fool trying to do a legal face-off with Google on their very core business... It's gonna be more bloody than all the real life pirate confrontations throughout history!

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  116. Re:what do they all have in common? by tehniobium · · Score: 1

    Haha no you're wrong, gamers/geeks are totally the most sensitive people on the planet ...since when was this an issue :)

    --
    No kitty, this is my pot pie!
  117. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by ozamosi · · Score: 1

    That's nonsense; regardless of the legalities and the moral rights and wrongs of the matter (on both sides), TPB know full well and are open about what they're doing, and what their site is intended to be used for. Even the name gives a slight clue to this! The name gives a hint of their origins, The Pirate Bureau, who they were originally a part of. The Pirate Bureau's name is a pun of The Anti-pirate Bureau, the Swedish anti-piracy agency that represents the movie and game industries.

    Self-confessed pirates, which is what the The Pirate Bureau is an organization of, are people who believe in privacy, freedom of cultural expression, and is against the current laws regarding immaterial property, among other things. I was a pirate for years without having any pirated material on any of my disks (it wasn't the pirate part that stopped, though).
  118. Then stop downloading prince torrents!!! by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    Fair enough.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  119. you can be sure this will reflect on your fans by unity100 · · Score: 1

    real well.

    we gonna love you SO much more after you pull this worthless stunt out of pitiful greed for a few $m more, that your album sales gonna skyrocket. ah, and village people, you will instantly be catapulted to great fame again after you join this shit.

  120. Re:what do they all have in common? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > made up of two pairs of couples

    That's 8 people total?

  121. Copyright of the.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Copyright of the has-beens, for the has-beens and by the has-beens shall not perish....

  122. UNIX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.

    It's probably confusing to them because they thought Eunuchs have no man parts...

  123. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pirate Bay sues you!

  124. Re: Anything You Can Do.... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

    (Sung to the tune of "Waterloo" by ABBA)

    My my, at Pirate Bay, Metallica did surrender
    Oh yeah, and Prince has met his destiny in quite a similar way
    His CDs are all on the shelf
    He's always repeating himself

    Pirate Bay - Prince was defeated, you won the war
    Pirate Bay - promise to seed there for ever more
    Pirate Bay - couldn't pay Prince if I wanted to
    Pirate Bay - nor Benny or Bjorn or those other two
    Pirate Bay - YMCA on my hard drive too

    RIAA tried to hold you back but you were stronger
    Oh yeah, and now it seems their only chance is giving up the fight
    Of renting the music to us
    Why do they make this awful fuss?

    Pirate Bay - RIAA screamed, you just showed the bird
    Pirate Bay - Prince had a fit what a childish turd
    Pirate Bay - Lars Ulrich beat off upon his drums
    Pirate Bay - while 5 gay men wiggled their bums
    Pirate Bay - is YMCA on their hard drive too?

    And how could Prince ever complain
    His CDs are in bargain bins

    Pirate Bay - Hetfield is smashing up his guitar
    Pirate Bay - Prince might just wish he could play a chord
    Pirate Bay - corporate puppets are running round
    Pirate Bay - they want to drive you into the ground
    Pirate Bay - with YMCA on your hard drive too?

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  125. The solution: Torrent web hosting by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

    I have been thinking about TPB, and the problem is that there is a target. It should be possible to use a torrent type of scheme to create a website. The problems are authorship and stuff like that but not insurmountable.

    Once it is removed from the requirement of an ISP and DNS, there is no action possible and no way to prosecute or sue.

  126. ...and yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet his entire audience is over 40.

    Perhaps the guy is puzzled why his royalties aren't what they used to be from the "Purple Rain" album. He really is irrelevant to the music scene in 2007. I happen to think the guy is extremely talented. But for all of his grammys, aside from music critics and long-time fans, who even listened to those albums? Not kids. And as to selling out a show, my wife dragged me to a Michael Buble concert last year. It sold out in minutes. And when I went there, it mainly consisted of older women, their husbands who went along, clearly uncomfortable. But it was packed with a nice, orderly, old crowd (and I have to say, the guy and his band are top-notch), and completely irrelevant to the music scene.

    So while what you're saying is true, it doesn't nothing to dispute what the OP said.

  127. Copyright/Copywrong we need a REAL debate by mlwmohawk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What I find most troubling is that "copyright" was originally, in the U.S.A anyway, established as a method to provide compensation for creators to contribute to the thriving culture, with the understanding that after a while it would fall into public domain.

    By "publishing" a work, the creator makes their "property" public. *If* the public finds the property useful, the owner should get paid, as he has created something of value. At what point, however, has the "value" passed from the creator to the public? Think of it this way, after some point in time, a work remains valuable less of its own worth, but more of the collective use, its effect on society, and reference to it. At that stage, the creator of the work should no longer be compensated.

    The second issue is commercialization of the work. Many band members I know are all in favor of "file sharing," but don't like the idea of ever seeing their songs used for selling beer, or at least not without them being part of the negotiation and being paid.

    Copyright need a real debate. There are issues of artists rights and the right to compensation if they create something special. There are also the inherent cultural ownership of popular works, quite frankly, great works become part of culture and must be owned by the society for the good of the society, much like taking land by eminent domain.

    Publishing is a two sided sword, by making something public, the upside potential is that you make a lot of money. The downside risk is that you lose ownership of your work. The current copyright mafiaas want to keep the upside potential and eliminate the downside risk. Its great business if you can get it.

    1. Re:Copyright/Copywrong we need a REAL debate by Durnsilicious · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right about why copyrights were created, they were supposed to create a balance. A Balance between lassiez faire economics, and a society that would have a culture. However, the problem with capitalism, is that it promotes greed. Even the richest people in the world still work, still invest, knowing that it's a zero-sum game, to gain one dollar, someone has to lose at least one dollar/Euro/Rupple/Seashell. So Like most laws meant to protect the integrity of anything that isn't money, it got twisted over years and years of people trying to figure out how to profit off of it. We need a real debate, but unless you can find a way that having a real debate would make someone a ton of money, it won't be heard. Furthermore, Artists are upset over this because in the state of affairs today, they only get a small percentage of the money their creation brings in. The label ends up ripping off most of their artists treating them like prised possesions rather than contributing artists. The Record labels, are only beneficial to a point, we are now seeing more and more artists surpassing that point. For instance, Dr. Dre no longer needed to be part of a label, so his label gave him a label of his own, so he can help the step below him, which ended up being Eminem, who surpassed that point aswell, and got his own sub-label, and now we have Shady Records, a sub-division of Aftermath, a Sub-Division of Atlantic, a sub-division of Viacom?....[not sure about that last part,] And thats when the labels are either forced into being responsible or just happen to have a heart of gold, and decide they should do that. Because in reality, now Viacom, and Clear-Channel are entirely obselete, what do they do other than own other companies? [I can't spell, so shut the fuck up if your thinking of telling me that]

  128. Bigger issue anyone? by Durnsilicious · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you take like .8 seconds to click the link and look at the related article, you'll probably be more disturbed than amused. The pirate Bay being sued is no longer a big deal. They have shown time after time that they will not shut down, what they are doing isn't exactly illegal, and it CANNOT be stopped. The artists involved want your ISPs to TRACK YOUR INTERNET ACTIVITY..... how is this not a bigger deal. The pirate bay is a fringe organization that is currently a juggernaut, fueled by broke college students and their will to change the world. But ISPs, not so fringe, not so independent, and definitely not fueled by broke college students or any will to make the world more livable. In America we should have seen this coming, patriot act and all, but Big American Douche corporations stretch overseas, so you dirty-assed foreign motherfuckers have to deal with this too. Why is what 2 washed out artists do to piss off four Swedish kids more important than 1984-esque corporate espionage on your personal activity?

  129. Be Careful! Prince is FIERCE! by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

    You guys should take this lawsuit more seriously. Prince is ferocious... anyone needing proof only needs to watch this heinous video of him on the prowl - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcMuTsBFQTE

    --
    You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  130. Weird Al sez... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Swedish band ABBA
    I believe you mean the international supergroup ABBA !
  131. copyright is corrupt and evil, sharing is ethical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the truth is we are where we are because we shared

    IP law is the corruption of the right of fair use and the public domain

    if we don't fight for what's right, we will surely lose it

  132. Anyone that downloads Price and the Village People by sorrydaijin · · Score: 1

    deserves not only to be fined, but to be subjected to all sorts of "this is not torture"

  133. Lawyers following example of Nigerian scammers by Foundryman · · Score: 1

    LOL, I'm guessing these lawyers see the same opportunity as some well known Nigerian scammers. Just fire off letters to every musician you can find promising them a big share of the money to be had from filing suits again these notorious web sites. Only the letters are coming as from: Mrs. Maryam F. Abacha, Attorney at Law. Instead of wife of dceases diplomat...

  134. tattoo by genican1 · · Score: 1

    Still a slave? (to the m.a.f.i.a.a.)

  135. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by Monoliath · · Score: 1

    No, it's more like suing a map-maker when they produce a map that was specifically designed for (or with the intention that) it would be used for bank-robbing and similar activities, and included details pertinent to that activity.

    This doesn't quite fit what's happening here either, here's why; the 'map' in this particular scenario wasn't 'specifically designed' or with the 'intentions' that it 'would be used' for bank robbing and similar activities, it's simply a map for finding locations...now what you do at and with those locations knowing what 'kind' of locations they are before hand...is YOUR civil responsibility, NOT the map makers.

    Make sense? Although I can totally understand you're devils advocation :)

  136. Sue for what? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    What are they going to sue for, as the piratebay hasn't committed any crime in their country? Or do they have the same sort of 'no ramifications sue for anything you feel like today' sort of civil laws over there?

    I say we setup a fund. Any idiot artist/CEO/etc that attempts nonsense like this gets a contract put out on them and we use the 'fund' to pay for the hit. After 2 or 3 i bet the madness will stop.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  137. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    As I describe here, while it is quite possible to argue that a tracker on its own has legitimate uses, when you take into account TPB's self-declared position (which they are totally open about), this makes things different.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  138. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

    But where are the cars? Won't somebody please think of the cars??

  139. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    Okay. It's like being the organiser of a group of people who manufacture parts of a car from a blueprint derived from a car, and send them to each other:)

  140. Did I say what I used bittorrent for? No. by shyberfoptik · · Score: 1

    I've never downloaded a Prince album. I'm a Prince fan. Is this confusing?

  141. re: theft of service? by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    No.... "theft" really does NOT mean you obtained something illegally, REGARDLESS of whether another person was deprived of it. What you forget in your example is, sneaking onto a train, bus, etc. occupies a SEAT. You've taken that physical space away from being available for a paying customer, who was supposed to receive it in return for the purchased ticket.

    It's arguable that there were "plenty of empty seats, so nobody was short of one anyway". But you had no way of knowing that would definitely be the case at the time you chose to sneak on-board. Furthermore, by occupying the space on the vehicle, you might have inadvertently caused some measure of inconvenience for a paid customer that you didn't even realize you caused. (Perhaps someone with difficulty walking wanted a seat close to a door, which you sat down in - forcing them to move closer to the rear of the bus or train?)

    In the case of music or software copying, there was simple nothing physical deprived from ANY party (assuming you didn't steal the blank media used to store the data!).

  142. SOMETHING YOU MAY NOT HAVE CONSIDERED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that maybe prince KNOWS it's a bad idea. so do the village people. maybe they're our allies, and what they really want is legal precedent supporting thepiratebay. :):)

  143. whynot blame the routers? by gsgleason · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they should focus their angst on those who actually have millions of dollars to pay for their "damages." How about Cisco and Juniper Networks, who provide most of the internet's packet flow. If a torrent search engine is an accessory to infringement, then the routers that actually route the data should be also.

  144. He denied Weird Al... by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

    Maybe a little off-topic, but...

    An interviewer once asked "Weird Al" Yankovic if any artists had specifically told him not to do a parody of their songs. Although as a parody, he has the right to anyway, he is really a nice guy who respects the wishes of the artists in that regard.

    He said that the only artist who wouldn't let him parody a song is Prince.

    A little while later, the interviewer asked him what his concerts are like. His answer was, "They are a lot like Prince's concerts, except that mine are deliberately funny."

    1. Re:He denied Weird Al... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coolio also said no, though Weird Al thought he had an okay so he went ahead with "Amish Paradise".

  145. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    *double devil's advocate*

    No, it's more like suing a map-maker when they produce a map that was specifically designed for (or with the intention that) it would be used for bank-robbing and similar activities, and included details pertinent to that activity.


    No, it's more like suing the publisher of the Anarchists Cookbook when someone commits a crime with it.

    /when you double devil's advocate are you necessarily arguing with the original argument?
  146. Web Sheriff? by Rysc · · Score: 1
    --
    I want my Cowboyneal
  147. Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    ...or like a phone company that produces a phone book that only contains numbers of insecure dialup access points to government networks.

  148. In the US anyway... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    I guess if an artist has only 5 years to make a profit, than any copyright infringement in that period is a much more serious offense. Capital punishment perhaps?

    It's supposed to be 14 years, and imprisonment is even an option.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  149. Mod parent UP! by WK2 · · Score: 1

    Someone should mod the parent up. How can an original parody be redundant? I checked with google, and it seems the above lyrics are original. They're good too.

    --
    Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
  150. DMCA by shentino · · Score: 1

    Why doesn't thepiratebay just implement DMCA style ISP takedown notices?

    That would immunize them against many lawsuits.

  151. Prince and the Recording Industry by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

    I realize that most slashdotters are not big prince fans (I am a huge fan), but his history with regard to the recording industry
    is pretty interesting. Famously fucked by Warner Brothers, he used contract loopholes to release on other labels. He manipulated
    industry charting techniques by releasing triple and quadruple albums to chart platinum (they count as more than one sale).
    The concert giveaway and the newspaper giveaway were charting cheats also that caused billboard / soundscan to revise their
    rules. Basically Prince guaranteed himself Platinum / Diamond status for musicology by "including" the album in the price of
    the concert ticket. If you didn't know, Prince tours are generally more than one night in big cities and sold out. That is alot
    of "album sales". When the industry said "you can't do that", the next time around he gave away the album free with a daily
    newspaper, gaining chart position, and thereby visibility, in the process.

    --
    music lover since 1969