Slashdot Mirror


Pirate Bay Operators Stand Trial On Monday

Anonymous Pirate writes "Operators of The Pirate Bay stand trial on Monday in Stockholm. The four defendants from the popular file-sharing web site are charged with being accessories to breaking copyright law and may face fines or up to two years in prison if found guilty. The four defendants have run the site since 2004 after it was started in 2003 by the Swedish anti-copyright organization Piratbyrån. The Swedish public service television announced that they are going to send a live audio stream from the trial. It will be broadcast without editing or translation."

54 of 664 comments (clear)

  1. News in english about the trial: by Alsn · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://trial.thepiratebay.org/ Is the "official"(if there is such a thing) blog about the trial.

    1. Re:News in english about the trial: by aliquis · · Score: 5, Informative

      MPAA asked for 15.4 million $ earlier, don't know if that's still the number. The swedish lawyer was on TV this morning but I don't remember what she said.

      When asked if it wasn't like supplying crowbars she said that the swedish limits for accessory was low and mentioned a battering where one guy had hold the other guys jacket while it was going on he was condemned for accessory assault (or whatever the english word would be.)

      They also asked what would happen if TPB wasn't condemn for anything, and what would happen to the copyright and so on then, but she hadn't thought about that and it didn't existed in her mind ...

    2. Re:News in english about the trial: by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I thought that they had long ago tested the laws (and won) on whether the site was legal and how they couldn't end up in the slammer for this?

      Even in interviews in mags and the like, they certainly came across as super-positive about potential legal issues?

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    3. Re:News in english about the trial: by aliquis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, bringing the tour bus home:
      http://www.piratbyran.org/s23k/ :D

      I doubt they will be alone outside the court ;)

    4. Re:News in english about the trial: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is a Swedish precedence regarding BBS style forums where copyrighted material was uploaded. The host of the BBS was acquitted, and this is what TPB has been leaning on so far.

    5. Re:News in english about the trial: by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the most obvious problem is that the music and movie industry did create this problem themselves by ignoring the customers and not providing the formats they wanted.

      "Free" isn't a format...

    6. Re:News in english about the trial: by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For most people it isn't about free as in beer, but rather, as Richard Stallman might say free as in freedom (although for the record he has stated that he will not own DVDs that have DRM which so far is very few published DVDs, "Freedom Downtime" from 2600 Magazine is about the only one that I can think of right now although there probably are a handful of other mainly obscure titles). If I purchase a movie then I expect to be able to make backup copies, format shift, watch on any device of my choosing in private or in the company of friends, skipping to any point on the DVD at any time (i.e. no "prohibited" operations, mandatory commercial previews, FBI warnings, and other assorted bullshit), lending the movie to my friends, as I would a book or CD, and generally enjoying my purchase in any way that I wish short of public performance or distribution. For example, I don't expect to have the right to project the movie on a screen in a public park as some people have been known to do where I live. Apparantely, that is too much to ask which is a major reason why I haven't bought any DVDs for about a year now (I have rediscovered reading, outdoor activites, and other forms of entertainment that do not involve the MAFIAA) nor have I downloaded pirated copies. I have a very low opinion of Hollywood in general and most of their movies, especially their more recent works, in particular. In fact, most of my current DVD collection consists of documentaries on various subjects, a very few hollywood films (generally in the Science Fiction and Fantasy genre, LOTR trilogy for example), and some anime (I am a fan of GITSAC and Miyazaki). I probably fit some typical Slashdot profile I suppose, but I just expect to have control over my own property and if I pay for something then it is my property damnit and all of that shrink-click-wrap license agreement bull can kiss my ass as far as I am concerned. The only reason we have crap such as "license agreement" is because of lawyers and lawsuits and consumers who are too meek to grow a pair, stand up, and demand their property rights. As long as people let companies like the MAFIAA members get away with this kind of crap then they will keep claiming ever more "rights" for themselves until somebody pushes back and tells them "no". Of course, Hollywood always donates heavily to the Democratic party and the MAFIAA has placed their goons in the Department of Justice, courtesy of the Obama Administration, so don't expect any "change that you can believe in" anytime soon on copyright or DMCA reform. Obama had better watch those MAFIAA goons he put in charge at the Department of Justice, they are a potentially massive PR liability just waiting to boil over with the young internet savy voters who pounded the pavement on the campaign trail and kept the blogs and tweets going to put him in office. Talk about slapping your supporters in the face...sheesh.

    7. Re:News in english about the trial: by MoellerPlesset2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I thought that they had long ago tested the laws (and won) on whether the site was legal and how they couldn't end up in the slammer for this?

      Yes, since they haven't actually distributed any copyrighted material themselves, it makes it pretty unclear in terms of the Swedish laws.
      It's worth noting that they were operating for years without any action, because the prosecutors were skeptical. The reason they got raided and subsequently prosecuted was due to political pressure coming from the Minister of Justice, who in turn was being pressured by the US government. The Pirate Bay raid led to a political scandal, since Sweden has a separation of powers between the cabinet and executive branch. IOW: A minister cannot tell his department what to do directly. While Minister Bodström wasn't found to have broken the law, it may have been a contributing factor in his party losing the election later that year.

      While I'm optimistic about their chances, there are some complicating factors that make it an interesting case. For one thing, they have advertising on the site and have made money off it. Since for-profit copyright infringement is a criminal offense in Sweden, it's a question of whether they're indirectly contributing to that crime, and are therefore accessories. I believe that's the prosecution's argument, anyway.

    8. Re:News in english about the trial: by guyminuslife · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1) WOTDR
      2) No, for most people, it's really about free as in beer. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that for the most part, people would literally prefer free beer over free speech.

      "Hey, I'll give you a free beer if you shut the fuck up about politics."
      "Sounds great!"

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    9. Re:News in english about the trial: by advocate_one · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bzzzt wrong... when the MP3 craze kicked off, the labels were ridiculously slow off the mark providing content in the new format... if you wanted it, then you had no choice but to rip it off a CD... then when they did start providing MP3s, they weren't proper MP3s, but proprietary DRM'd low quality crap and they were still charging the full price for what was effectively low quality crapola... so people who wanted to listen without offending their ears at the horrible encoding artifacts you get from low bitrate rips, were still forced to rip their own CDs to get quality...
      MP3 sharing only really took off when dialup rates improved or people got network access on college campuses...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    10. Re:News in english about the trial: by h4rm0ny · · Score: 5, Insightful


      You'd need to back your opinion up with some serious, verified statistics to convince me. Everyone I know who pirates (which with the exception of old people, is almost everyone I know except myself - even a musician I know pirates other people's work), they pirate because they don't want to pay. Yes, they download music they wouldn't have bought otherwise (the "no lost sales argument" so popular with piracy apologists), but they also download all the movies and music they would have bought otherwise. It even hits cinemas, as I try to get mates to go to see a movie that might interest them and get the reply "downloaded it and seen it already."

      The argument that piracy doesn't hurt sales and cost the companies and artists money, is false. My experience directly contradicts it.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    11. Re:News in english about the trial: by guyminuslife · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it does in aggregate. I know that for plenty of things I've pirated, I've ended up generating revenue for the people involved. For instance, I pirate a lot of books. If I like a book and it's something I think I'll want later, I'll go out and buy the dead tree version. I watch BSG on Hulu nowadays and generate ad revenue for the show (and when I have money I'll buy it on DVD), but I would never have gotten into it if I had started watching broadcasts in the third season. (Who's the woman in the red dress? What's a "frakking toaster"?)

      Again, I'm perfectly aware of the fact that piracy exerts a net negative force on media producers, and that for everything I can think of that got money from me because of piracy, there are a gazillion things I might have bought but didn't. But it's not *entirely* bad for them, assuming the work is quality.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    12. Re:News in english about the trial: by Elldallan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      IANAL.
      This trial is not something that will be resolved quickly, I expect it to take around 5 years atleast since it will almost certainly appealed up to and including the Supreme Court and possibly even further going over to the EU court.

      Nothing of significance is ever resolved at the 'Tingsrätten'(approximate equivalent to a district court) since the only individual in the court with a law degree(except for the lawyers on each side ofcourse) is the judge, the other members of the court are selected citizens of good standing.

      The legal grounds in this case is shaky at best but should they be found guilty the fines and reparations will be nowhere near the requested amounts because The Pirate Bay founders are not beeing charged with accessory to commercial scale infringement but with several specific infringements and there's a roof as to high the fines for each infringement can go.

    13. Re:News in english about the trial: by 1u3hr · · Score: 5, Insightful
      these guys don't have a hope in hell, all the speeches about fairness in copyright won't save them. they were running a site which made millions off porn advertising and it's primary product was providing links to copyright infringement.

      Google and every other search engine would be equally culpable.

    14. Re:News in english about the trial: by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      eBay provides links to stolen items. I guess they're accomplicies to burglary and robbery.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    15. Re:News in english about the trial: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I downloaded xvid / divx torrents of DVDs I already owned because ripping the content myself, and therefore bypassing CSS protection, would breach UK law.

      I have 150 DVDs on an external drive which I watch movies from. I don't want to have to watch 15 minutes of trailers and warning before each movie, and I don't want to have to search through the collection for a disc which may or may not be too damaged (through use) to actually work. It's a matter of convenience. They have my money, I have my useable product. Why can't they leave it at that?

      Anon for obvious reasons.

    16. Re:News in english about the trial: by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For most people it isn't about free as in beer, but rather, as Richard Stallman might say free as in freedom

      I think slashdot can serve as a good example of how complete and obvious bullshit can be earnestly believed and endlessly repeated with total conviction by thousands of otherwise intelligent people. Please spare a second to think about whether what you just said is really true or are you just automatically repeating something you hear so many times here. Majority of people go to pirate bay in order to download free stuff that otherwise they would have to pay for. Simple as that. Nothing to do with freedom. If you want to get worked up about freedom there are plenty of issues for you that are far more important than some restrictions on DVDs.

      If I purchase a movie then I expect ........

      You can expect anything you like, including but not limited to a free vacation on the international space station and an erotic massage from Natalie Portman but that doesn't mean you have any right to. There is a difference between desires and rights. Movie studios (to take one example) make a movie, hence they set the rules for how that movie will be sold. You are free not to buy if you don't like those rules.

      The only reason we have crap such as "license agreement" is because of lawyers and lawsuits and consumers who are too meek to grow a pair, stand up, and demand their property rights.

      Not exactly clear on what you mean by property rights here. On one hand you say you want the "rights" to share the movie with your friends, on the other hand you acknowledge that public distribution is not included in those rights. Well the issue here (as in with regards to the pirate bay trial that we are talking about) is in fact public distribution. I don't think movie industry really has a problem with you sharing it with a handful of friends, it's more of a technical problem of how to allow you to share it with your friends but not with the rest of the world. The problem with that, which is almost too obvious to even have to spell out and yet so many people don't seem to get it, is that if you have the right to freely share your movie with everybody in the world through a widely available, simple to use and quick download it would mean that only one copy of the movie will ever be sold, which means than no movies can be made with any expectation of profit, which means that almost no movies will be made anymore.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    17. Re:News in english about the trial: by sd.fhasldff · · Score: 4, Informative

      Double Jeopardy works differently in different countries. Originally part of "common law", double jeopardy laws vary throughout Europe, but generally look more like the Canadian version than the US version. In short: Appeals to a higher court are not considered a NEW trial, but rather a continuation of the old trial.

      In Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights provides a measure of protection, specifically Protocol 7, article 4:

      Article 4 - Right not to be tried or punished twice

            1. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.
            2. The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case.
            3. No derogation from this Article shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention.

      As the article implicitly states, unless you have been FINALLY convicted, you can be tried again.

    18. Re:News in english about the trial: by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Interesting
      they were running a site which made millions off porn advertising

      It'd be interesting to see your working there. I can't imagine that the porn sites pay much for their advertising. After all, they're advertising to pirates; why pay for porn when you can just grab a torrent of the stuff? And that's before you ask whether the ads are seen at all. It's not as if a pirate is going to think 'Oh my - if I visit this ad-supported website with Adblock Plus switched on, that's like stealing' now, is it?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    19. Re:News in english about the trial: by Skrapion · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's also about formats, though. I download TV shows from TPB, and you know what? I can watch every single one of those shows for free with my bunny ears, but I refuse to be tied to a TV schedule. For me, TPB is the 21st century version of a VCR.

      Luckily, up here in Canada, CTV and their subsidiaries have realized that they can broadcast on the Internet, make money off of advertising (business as usual, for them) and their customers won't be robbed by the cable companies.

      Now, if only Hulu would extend their contracts to other countries.

      --
      The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
    20. Re:News in english about the trial: by LingNoi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So why not get the RIAA into your pockets?

      Buy one share in all the RIAA companies and bitch at the share holders meetings as much as you want. You're a share holder and they have to listen to you.

      Get enough share holders together and you can force the company to change. Ask them questions like why they are wasting our [shareholders] money on lawsuits instead of new markets.

      If you want to beat them you got to play them at their own game.

    21. Re:News in english about the trial: by cliffski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "What about downloading stuff that the local television networks are too cheap to buy themselves"

      If you want to see movies that arent on TV yet, buy the DVD. Or rent it. or borrow a friends DVD.
      Don't think you are magically entitled to have every piece of entertainment delivered to your eyeballs for free the minute its finished.

      Your last statement is just "everybody does it". Hardly an excuse. Is that how you judge how to behave in society? You just do what everyone else does, regardless of the harm your actions have on others?

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    22. Re:News in english about the trial: by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What does porn advertising have to do with anything?

      Google provides links to infringed copyrighted content. So does Pirate Bay.
      Google makes money from advertising. So does Pirate Bay.

      OOoooohhhh! But Pirate Bay's advertising is PORN!!

      Oh, well. That settles it, then. We find the defendant guil-cup of the charge of accessory to copyright infringement.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    23. Re:News in english about the trial: by noundi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why? Because google links to other than copyrighted material? Well go ahead and punch yourself in the face. The comparison to google is not stupid, it's not identical since no fucking comparisons in the world are, but it's close enough to make a point, which you don't get. This makes you stupid my friend. Now go troll somewhere else.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    24. Re:News in english about the trial: by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pirate Bay specialises in what other people tell it exists. Google trawls everything, looking for itself.

      In many ways, this makes Google more culpable, as it is doing all the legwork. TPB is just a forum where people post links.

      It'd be like shutting down /. if everybody posted links to iso's of the latest Windows release.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    25. Re:News in english about the trial: by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or time to...you know... get copyright back to something that at least resembles its original intent, at least in the US. There's no reason whatsoever to justify the Beatles recordings still being under copyright, for instance.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    26. Re:News in english about the trial: by Thaelon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, but DVD is an awful, user-abusive format.

      Ever heard of "user prohibited actions"?

      Yay, I'm forced to watch previews on a movie I paid for. And I can't skip the FBI warning. And I can't skip the stupid menu animations. How about region coding that generally forces you to buy a more expensive copy that you don't actually own?

      The alternative is to download a DVD/blu-ray rip DRM unencumbered, no FBI warning, no forced previews - hell, no previews. No user prohibited actions. I could store it easily on any media I choose - such as carry it to a friend's house on a thumb drive. I could fast forward and rewind more easily than a DVD. I could store it on a big fat network drive with thousands of others. I could stream it anywhere I have the bandwidth to watch it. It's easily transferred from media to media - as fast as you can copy files.

      DVD and Blu-ray couldn't compete even if they were free.

      Free may not be a format, but a non-DRMed data files are a blessedly versatile format whereas DVD & Blu-ray is incredibly restrictive by comparison.

      --

      Question everything

    27. Re:News in english about the trial: by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey guys, I found the latest windows iso with google just like the parent poster mentioned! I decided to post it here for everyone else. I hope /. does not get shut down for it.

      This new version is pretty slick, much much faster than previous versions, and it seems incredibly stable, unlike any version of Windows I have ever used before. Only problem is the command line makes no sense. Must be that new powershell thing? Anyways, here is the download:

      New Windows ISO

      --
      Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    28. Re:News in english about the trial: by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      After all, they're advertising to pirates; why pay for porn when you can just grab a torrent of the stuff?

      This is why the adult industry has done so well on the internet: they're smarter than the average businessperson.

      Just because lots of porn is available illicitly doesn't mean people pirating it won't also pay for it. If someone gets hooked on some site's material, and can't get everything they want illicitly (not everything is available, and it's frequently hard to find), they may very well turn to paying the $20/month or whatever for a subscription, because it's a lot easier than trying to track it down on all the sites and places where people trade illicit copies. It might not be a majority of pirates, but it's still enough for a nice profit.

    29. Re:News in english about the trial: by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod parent up. The adult industry (or at least the vast majority of it), seems to understand that people will buy some stuff and pirate others. If anything is heavily torrented on the net, it's porn. Tons of it. I certainly download tons of it. And from that, I start to notice certain girls that I'm interested in. Faye Valentine, Scarlett Pain, Jenna Haze, Eve Lawrence, etc, etc. The list goes on for a long time, and it's a list that I've formed primarily from seeing these girls in pirated content. That said, once I notice a girl that I like I'll had on over to IAFD.com and look up what movies she's been in, and in particular, if she's done any scenes with another girl that I particularly like. Due to the sheer volume of porn produced, a lot of the videos that I lookup like this simply aren't going to be on a torrent site. Sure it has a lot of porn, but it doesn't have THAT video. So, I head on over to a Neflix-like subscription service that I pay for, and put the movie in question down in my queue. Once it comes in I rip it, and send it back. I also subscribe to a pay website that posts random DVD's each day (5 per day specifically, split by scenes), and will download stuff off of there just fine.

      Now, here's the thing: I'm not paying for every little piece of content I obtain. It doesn't work that way. What I AM doing though, is putting, along with many other people, plenty enough money into this industry for it to survive, and make a healthy profit while doing so. Porn companies make up for this with relatively low production costs, but honestly, their pay is much closer to reality. Most of the female talent makes a few thousand tops for a movie. Virtually nobody is going to pull more than $25k-30k, but then again: why should they? Why should Tom Cruise make $15+ million for working on a movie for 4-5 months? Sure, it's because "he brings in that much in revenue", but that's only true because of the artificial nature in which copyright law has propped up that whole industry. Allowed to run a natural course, an actor's salary would actually start to look sane again. Now, a lot of the big name blockbuster's like Titanic wouldn't be possible without such strict copyright laws, but honestly, why should we legislate people's freedom's so strictly just so that we can get heavy special effects? People put on plays, and did it well, for centuries before the video camera was invented. They certainly can continue to do so with a video camera rolling, and still product plenty of content.

      The music industry is even worse. There, music quality is simply a measure of the talent of the artists. You don't need particularly expensive budgets simply to lay a good track down - you simply need good talent. Again though, a talented musician shouldn't magically make 300x what a talented carpenter makes simply because the carpenter has to deal with the unchangable laws of nature while the musician gets carefully crafted laws to make sure he (and only he) can keep copying his now infinite resource.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  2. End Copyright by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When a law does more harm than good it needs to be abolished.

    Similarly, please end drug prohibition laws.

    ktnxbye.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:End Copyright by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're charged with being accessories to a crime. The hilarious part of that is there are no criminal copyright infringement laws in Sweden.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:End Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah but other governments (US/UK) are probably lobbying and influencing Swedish lawmakers significantly enough to crack down on Pirates that aren't breaking any nation laws.

      The majority of the movies pirated are US and UK films...who is really holding this trial?

    3. Re:End Copyright by Danse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Neither of these do more harm than good. If you had content (a song for example) that was a method for you to put food on the table, you would be thinking differently about copyright laws. Similarly, if you had really been affected by drug abuse whether personally or by those close to you, you wouldn't be spouting such jibberish about ending it.

      Right. If you've been affected by drug abuse, then you should realize exactly how useless and counter-productive drug prohibition is.
      As for copyright, there's a huge gap between what serves artists and the ridiculous laws we have today. I believe there's a place for copyright law, but that it needs to be made sensible again before anyone will respect it.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    4. Re:End Copyright by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you had content (a song for example) that was a method for you to put food on the table...

      The RIAA and MPAA are obsolete organizations which exist for existence's own sake, much like cancer. They pull food out of the mouths of those they represent just to feed themselves.

      Similarly, if you had really been affected by drug abuse whether personally or by those close to you, you wouldn't be spouting such jibberish about ending it

      Because Americans want to pay thousands of their tax dollars to incarcerate one nonviolent person for possession of marijuana. And there's nothing like a bitter, violent, now-won't-get-a-job-on-the-outside-no-second-chances prison experience to help meth and coke addicts break the behavior which serves nobody but the salaries of the prison industrial complex. Idiot.

    5. Re:End Copyright by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      They're charged with being accessories to a crime. The hilarious part of that is there are no criminal copyright infringement laws in Sweden.

      Well, they charged DVD-Jon (not Sweden, Norway) under "hacking" laws for hacking access to his own DVDs. They spent three years trying to build a case that didn't fly, lost in two lowest courts and didn't even appeal to the Supreme Court, but it was also before the EUCD aka Euro-DMCA so now it's probably illegal here too. Unfortunatly I think the same will happen here, win or lose there'll probably be new laws to shut them down. You can only imagine the "a free haven for pirates, terrorists and kiddie porn" media campaign the RIAA/MPAA and friends will start against them. If they weren't part of the EU you'd probably hear saber rattling about trade sanctions from the US already.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:End Copyright by Ash-Fox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Copyright in well... all cases is more trouble then worth it. An artist should just get off it's lazy ass and tour the world, make money of it's live shows and not give a shit about cd's...

      I am a programmer and I rely on copyright laws. I don't have the option to tour the world and make money off live shows of programming.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    7. Re:End Copyright by femto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Abolishing Hollywood accounting is much more urgent to the needs of starving artists than imposing draconian copyright laws.

  3. Freudian slip? by underworld · · Score: 5, Funny

    From TFA: "Premises connected to The Pirate Bay were first raided in 2006. The complexity of the case led to delays in charges being filed and the case being bought to court."

  4. Re:And now... by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would like to call Pirate #4 to the witness stand Your Honor...

    Pirate 4: Yaaarrrr?

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  5. Re:Torrents are just tools. by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yet they keep trying. (Just like the anti-gun nuts) I'm certainly getting sick and tired of it all, myself. You can find some nice out-of-print things on torrents, and with no DRM at the iTunes Store and Amazon MP3 store anymore, there's little incentive to get most music via torrents.

    But, whatever your view on torrents and filesharing in general, it will happen even with draconian witch-hunts and overzealous (and in the US Unconstitutional) legislation and police action. And yes, I'm going to say it... the world has more pressing matters than to persecute filesharers. When you (collective government and media cartels) have solved ALL OTHER PROBLEMS in the world, maybe we'll let you finish off the whole copyright witch hunt. (I said MAYBE, asswads.) But until then, stop it. :)

    If there's something someone wants (think China, South America, etc) and it's overpriced even for the US, it's going to be bootlegged and sold on the streets. China's not doing anything (in spite of the good show they put on last year) to combat this sort of thing because they don't give two ape-shits about American and European "copyrights". But they persist, like the war on Drugs, trying to eradicate something that will never go away. It's like putting toothpaste back in the tube, but they insist on wasting money. Hey, if it were all their money, I'd probably not be so irritated... but the money belongs to the creators, yet it's going to this political bullshit (like the "traffic monitoring" provisions snuck into the stimulus bill here in the States). I guess the 4th Amendment is really dead now. "Because it's for the children."

    --
    It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  6. Re:Torrents are just tools. by Vectronic · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ok

    [it] is pointless, like suing the gun companies if a murderer killed some one [in a car] with one of their guns.

  7. Pirate translators needed by Mystery00 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some Swedish translators should add subtitles and put it up on The Pirate Bay.

    --
    "we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
  8. Re:No translations? Ohh PHEEEW by Faylone · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just five easy payments of...

    $0.00! http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3419901

  9. The scary thing by Newer+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The scary thing is that because most judges and courts don't have a clue about what a tracker is or does they might well find them guilty of something they aren't actually doing. What's next? Google and Yahoo being sued for copyright infringement?

    1. Re:The scary thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The scary thing is that because most judges and courts don't have a clue about what a tracker is or does they might well find them guilty of something they aren't actually doing. What's next?

      This should've been included in that 'You Are Not A Laywer' thing the other day, about legal fallacies 'techies' make.
      Understanding how bittorrent and bittorrent trackers work is quite easy. Heck, there are explanations in the newspaper all the time.
      Given an explanation your average person can easily understand it. Judges and lawyers tend to be a bit smarter than your average person. Add to that that it's their job to understand new situations all the time.

      I think that if you go read actual rulings in these cases, you might be surprised at the depth of understanding you can find.
      For one, you could well go check out the Norwegian DeCSS case ruling, which the prosecution lost. The judge had no problems understanding how CSS worked, or what the consequences were for issues like competition and fair-use rights.

  10. Political trial by castrox · · Score: 5, Informative

    This trial is guaranteed to be unfair even from the start. The EU has released the so called Medina report, already judging the defendants as guilty. The report was issued several weeks ago. This way the judges already know how to judge these individuals, so things are kept simple!

    I guess this trial will mean that linking to copyright infringing material will be illegal. Possibly they will make it so it will be illegal if there's an intent which of course will be all the battle.

    It's time to vote for the Pirate Party.

    More info:
    http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/MedinaOrtega_INI-report-Copyright_JURI-consolidated
    http://www.laquadrature.net/en/copyright-dogmatism-ridiculously-strikes-european-parliament

    Greetings from a sad Swede

    --
    Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/
  11. Heros by CranberryKing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    to the true spirit of freedom. This is the actual front for liberty today. What guts. Lots of talk, but not many are willing to take a stand like these guys.

  12. Re:Good than by Ash-Fox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fair enough, but isn't it possible the owners of a site called "The Pirate Bay" might be aware of what they are facilitating for their users?

    I can't find any rape or pillaging! :(

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  13. Translation of the "crime description" by NacMacFeegle · · Score: 4, Informative

    I translated the "application for summons" a while ago. It charges the four defendants with two different crimes. (It may have been adjusted by the prosecutor since it was released, but this is the last version I've seen.)

    The accusatory part (or "crime description") of the application reads (unofficial translation):

    1) Complicity to copyright infringement

    "The Pirate Bay is one of the worlds largest Internet filesharing services. The service utilizes the BitTorrent-protocol to achieve an efficient use of the available bandwidth. The Pirate Bay consists of three components, an index portal in the form of a web page with a search function, a database with a catalogue of torrent-files and a tracker function. Through the tracker function, a peer-to-peer network is created by the users interested in sharing the same file. All components are necessary to enable the users to share files between them. The greater part of the files which are made available for file sharing through The Pirate Bay contain copyrighted works.

    The operations of The Pirate Bay are financed by advertising. Hereby, there is a commercial use of copyrighted works.

    [The defendants] have together and in mutual understanding with each other and together with one other individual during 1 July 2005 - 31 May 2006 [at locations] been responsible for the organisation, administration, systematisation, programming, financing and operations of the file sharing service The Pirate Bay. In connection with these activities they have aided other persons' copyright infringements as follows:

    The defendants have wilfully [during time period] [at locations] aided others in the transferring of a file over the Internet containing [name of copyrighted work], thereby making a copyrighted work available to the public and also aided other persons in manufacturing copies of the work. [Explanation why this is a copyright infringement.]

    [This is repeated in a list of 21 phonograms (i.e. records/CDs), 9 films and 4 computer games shared and downloaded.]

    and

    2) Preparation for copyright infringement

    [The defendants] have together and in mutual understanding with each other and together with one other individual during 1 July 2005 - 31 May 2006 [at locations] been responsible for the organisation, administration, systematisation, programming, financing and operations of the file sharing service The Pirate Bay.

    In connection with these activities they have, by the functionality of the file sharing service, in a purpose build database with ancillary catalogue, received and stored the torrentfiles referred to [in the above list of copyrighted works]. The torrent files have been especially adapted to be used as means of assistance in the violation of the [Swedish Copyright Act]."

  14. Re:And now... by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would like to call Pirate #4 to the witness stand Your Honor...

    Pirate 4: Yaaarrrr?

    Swedish judge: bork bork bork!

  15. Win-win for Pirate Bay by Spunken · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Swedish newspapers are saying either PB wins the trial and are free, or they lose and become martyrs.

    After the raid on the PB servers (which led to this trial) memberships of the Pirate Party trippled.

    A conviction (especially a prison sentence) will lead to an outrage that would completely erase the precious little good will the music and movie industry have with young people today. At least in Sweden.

  16. Re:Geez... by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Informative
    There isn't piracy because there's DRM, there's DRM because there's piracy.

    HOW TO GET FALLOUT 3: OPERATION ANCHORAGE LEGALLY

    1: Go to a website called XBox Live to download software for your PC. Spend some time trying to find it in among all the information about how wonderful the XBox 360 is.
    2: Install this software.
    3: Install updates for Fallout 3.
    4: Install updates for Windows XP.
    5: Reboot.
    6: Create Windows Live gamer ID.
    7: Enter your card details to buy Microsoft points (the download costs 800 of these, so naturally they're sold in blocks of 1000).
    8: Fill in most of your address and find that it thinks you're in the USA for no apparent reason and you can't change that. (Was it because my Hotmail account had 'USA' as my region because I've never bothered to fill that stuff in since I created it eleven years ago?)
    9: Give the fuck up (presumably there would have been (9) Buy points, (10) Agree to bloodthirsty EULA, (11) Download expansion, (12) Play, to go after that, but I never got that far.)

    HOW TO GET FALLOUT 3: OPERATION ANCHORAGE ILLEGALLY

    1: Type 'operation anchorage megaupload' into Google and pick the first result
    2: Download it
    3: Copy files into Fallout /data/ directory
    4: Play and realise that the expansion pack actually takes less time to finish than you've just spent fucking around with Microsoft's bullshit.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  17. Yep by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's one of the reasons I don't have such a problem with copyright infringement is that copyright has become so stupid.

    Remember that in the US copyright was originally 14 years or rather 7 + 7 (7 when you registered, extensible by another 7). Now this was seen as good enough back when the world was large. By that I mean it took a long time for information to move. If one wrote and published a book in New York, it could be a long time, years perhaps, before someone on the west coast got to buy it.

    Now the world is very small. Information moves instantly across the globe. It is trivial to release something to the whole world at the same time. IT is easy to reach all your potential audience very quickly.

    Well if anything, you'd think this would mean shorter copyrights. However it hasn't. Copyright is now life plus 50 years. Apparently just being able to sell your work for your entire life isn't good enough, you need to be able to keep collecting money after you are dead.

    Now that's retarded especially since the Constitution doesn't grant unlimited right for copyright. Congress is allowed to create copy right law to "To promote the progress of science and useful arts." The whole reason they are allowed to do it is because we want to promote science and art. So that means you give someone exclusive rights for a time so they can make money, and thus have an economic incentive to create. However it does not mean they should have rights for an unlimited time for three reasons:

    1) If someone can release one thing and use that as a gravy train for life, what is the economic incentive to keep creating? In other fields, people must keep working to keep making money, why should art be different?

    2) It stands in the way of progress. Part of the progress of the arts (and science) is building off of that which came before you. Disney is a great example, some of their most beloved movies are based off of old fables. Well if people can't do that, it stands in the way of progress.

    3) It runs contrary to the Constitution which says "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" Note the "limited times" part. It doesn't say forever. The idea here is you get to have exclusive rights for a little bit, then everyone gets it, like with patents.

    So given the absurd state of copyright law, I have trouble thinking that those that break it are all that bad. Copyright law has reached a totally bullshit state, and a bad law really shouldn't be a law at all. If copyright was more reasonable, well then maybe I'd be more willing to condemn those that break it. However as far as I'm concerned current copyright law is downright unconstitutional and thus should be struck down.