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.
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.
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?
These has beens should be glad people are still pirating their music.
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
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.
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/
They can at most sue them for some sort of grey area "contributory copyright infringement"...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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?
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...
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
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).
I don't read replies by ACs.
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!
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.
:q!
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.
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.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
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".
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?
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.