The Pirate Bay Is Making a "Spectrial" of It

IDOXLR8 writes "The Harvard Law students defending accused file-swapper Joel Tenenbaum are doing their best to turn his upcoming trial into a media event. But when it comes to pure spectacle, they have nothing on The Pirate Bay. TPB is referring to the event as a 'spectrial,' a cross between a spectacle and a trial. They have set up a site where you can track their current location, complete with journal entries. The trial begins next Monday and features a live audio feed and Twitter translations."

Comments

I hope P.B. win this trial

[Maelwryth]

It might make media realise that we have separate countries for a reason, and that many of those reasons have an equal validity.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[Z00L00K]

This trial is in itself important for the net, since TPB didn't carry the content themselves, just references to it.

This means that if they are convicted it may be illegal to have links to questionable content.

If they aren't convicted it will require a different approach by authorities, the record and movie industry to figure out a way to manage their income.

This is far from over.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[Maelwryth]

"This is far from over."

Unfortunately that may be true. This looks like one of those cases where if they don't win they will try again, all the while trying to change the rules to make it impossible to lose. It is starting to look like media sharing is the cannabis of the new millennium (or at least the first part :)).

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[timmarhy]

why is there this preconception that linking to content that you know full well is illegal, is acceptable?

i'm yet to see a good defense for this. your an accessory to a crime if you knowingly aid it.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[wisty]

And if that fails, they will come back with an armada of gunships, a kraken, an undead monkey, and the accursed souls who were lost at sea. These guys just won't give up.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[timmarhy]

intent is where TPB crosses this line imho. google bot just index's everything, where these guys purposely set out to create a list of infringing downloads.

i'm sure you could muddy the waters plenty, but at the end of the day illegal downloads are what TPB is all about.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[Brian Gordon]

That's preposterous, copyright infringement is illegal but "aiding" people in copyright infringement is not. It's that simple.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[blahplusplus]

"i'm yet to see a good defense for this."

Like there's a good defense of endless copyright extension and patent trolling?

Like there's a good defense of sweatshops in the third world?

Like there's a good defense for an illegal war in IRAQ?

I could go on, but lets face it. When has anyone fought what the majority of people want and won?

Trying to act like a resource is scarce when it is not is part of the whole problem to begin with, once made, digital works are not scarce and can always fulfill supply. They are the perfect product to fit a socialist/communist economic model, why should we expect people NOT to pirate? There's no good argument considering the resource is not scarce. Physical products and digital products are not on the same level in legal and other terms and the people are voting with their behaviour.

IMHO piracy is fair reaction regardless of whether the people pirating do so for political reasons in addition to the fact that it's possible. Considering to how twisted the law and legal system has become. How the law is bought and sold by those with the most money. And the endless attempts at DRM and trying to licesense everything instead of people actually owning the stuff they buy. I consider it a counter force to the overwhelming concentration of corporate and private power at the expense of the public good and the individuals rights to own what they buy and not trying to be turned into serfs of consumption via legal corruption of the law and peoples rights.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[Renegade88]

He did not say that. Obviously the street-seller engaged actively in copyright infringement, either copying it himself or distributing physical copies.

If you cross me on the street asking about bootlegs, and I point you in the direction of the street-seller, am I guilty of aiding copyright infringement? Most reasonable people don't think so.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Like there's a good defense of endless copyright extension and patent trolling?

Hardly any of the content being traded over P2P and attracting the attention of Big Media is anywhere near running out of copyright, even on the original terms of just a few years. Patents have nothing to do with this at all.

I could go on, but lets face it. When has anyone fought what the majority of people want and won?

What few studies there have been that might realistically indicate the views of a whole population mostly don't support your implied position about what the majority of people support. Of course, if you get all your news on a controversial subject like this from heavily biased sources like Slashdot, you probably place a lot of weight on the one or two headline-grabbing stories about exceptions to this, and overlook everything else.

Even then, you're ignoring the fact that a lot of people don't really understand the issues surrounding copyright or the arguments for and against it. The important question if you're looking at the ethics is what the majority of people would want if fully informed. (I suspect the answer is for governments to penalise Big Media for price gouging; for smaller, independent artists to have better opportunities; and for legitimate sources of content that offer fair prices to be more easily identifiable.)

Trying to act like a resource is scarce when it is not is part of the whole problem to begin with, once made, digital works are not scarce and can always fulfill supply.

Sure, it's just those little words "once made" that you seem to be completely ignoring in your argument.

There's no good argument considering the resource is not scarce.

The good argument is that if you can't amortize the cost of making the work in the first place over a large number of sales, you go back to the old patronage model of yestercentury, where a lot of things only get made if one very rich patron chooses to fund them, and then that patron is the only person who gets to choose who can enjoy them.

IMHO piracy is fair reaction regardless of whether the people pirating do so for political reasons in addition to the fact that it's possible. Considering to how twisted the law and legal system has become. How the law is bought and sold by those with the most money. And the endless attempts at DRM and trying to licesense everything instead of people actually owning the stuff they buy. I consider it a counter force to the overwhelming concentration of corporate and private power at the expense of the public good and the individuals rights to own what they buy and not trying to be turned into serfs of consumption via legal corruption of the law and peoples rights.

So because some aspects of the legal system are not working as well as they could in some countries, and some suppliers are offering deliberately crippled products to the market, you think the correct solution is to revert to anarchy where anyone can do anything they like regardless of the law, rather than simply not using products from suppliers you don't like and letting market forces educate them? If that is the case, then I submit that you are completely lacking in perspective on the significance of this whole issue compared to the general principles of law in a civilised society. Not being able to listen to a bit of music without coughing up less than a dollar for it at an online download service is some way short of justifying civil disobedience — not that ripping music in the hope that you won't get caught is really civil disobedience anyway.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[Ed Avis]

1. Copyright infringement by itself is a civil wrong, not a crime. (Many jurisdictions have criminalized things like distributing pirated DVDs or bypassing access controls, but still it is not usually a crime to put a file on a server.) So you cannot be an accessory to a crime here.

2. The content of pages at a given address can change.

3. What is legal in one jurisdiction may be infringing copyright in another.

4. The site is not linking to content they 'know' is illegal. The process is fully automatic and the computer does not know what is illegal and what isn't. The people who 'know' are those who upload the links in the first place.

5. If a page linking to illegal material is itself illegal, then so is a page linking to that page, and so on. Almost the whole Web would be illegal.

6. Surely the RIAA and others send emails and make internal web pages with links to sites that infringe copyright. By your measure, this would also be illegal since it's linking.

7. Linking to a page is simply mentioning its address. If that were illegal, it would effectively be illegal to disclose the existence of certain web pages.

8. It would be an unmanageable burden for search engines, site operators and just about everybody if they had to check every link (or satisfy themselves that they do not 'know' it contains illegal material) before adding it. Better that the legal responsibility for content on a particular server is held by the owner of that server alone.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[pipatron]

1) People have been pirating computer games on a large scale since the early 80ies. If you haven't been able to make a buck before, you never will.

2) No one is forcing you to make games. Please stop doing it. There are a lot of people ready do do it for free. If you only do it for the money, and your business model requires you to get paid every time someone copies your game and demand censorship of the internet because of this idea, then I think you're crazy.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[Znork]

from heavily biased sources

Considering the owners of traditional media often has certain parts of their business model dependent on copyright it's hard to find any sources that aren't biased. Which is, of course, the problem with holding a serious discussion on the future of various intellectual property rights.

you go back to the old patronage model of yestercentury

That's a strawman argument. There are many other possible models.

For example, you could put a sales-tax on any material or revenue derived from sales or reproduction of works, with the proceeds going directly to the creators and artists. That would be somewhat similar to the radio model, but structured to include physical duplication as well as internet based replication. Further, such a model would direct much more of the customers money directly to the artists and creators, leading to a much better cost efficiency than the current system.

It would also have the huge advantage of allowing a multitude of new business models ranging from print-your-cd kiosks to libraries of all music ever made.

It would also have the advantage of saving artists and creators from the painfully subservient situation of trying to negotiate a contract while having basically no negotiating power at all; if their products generate revenue for someone, they'd get their share automatically.

lacking in perspective on the significance of this whole issue

If the question was merely one of payment, perhaps. But as it ties into everything from cultural legacy to freedom of communications to western economic competitive ability to the future evolution of society, I'd say the issue has a lot of significance. Well within the range where civil disobedience is acceptable, if not outright a moral obligation.

I mean, can you imagine what we're losing in the current system? How many artists we could pay if it was structured so more of the revenue went directly to them?

Can you even imagine having all art of humankind available at your fingertips? Cross-referenced as wikipedia, social-networked taste indexed to suggest material for you? Can you imagine the value lost to society due to the current model making this impossible?

Without a complete rewrite of copyright from an exclusive system to a monetary inventive system it's not going to happen; the owners of modern material don't want old or unmarketed material competing with the new to any greater extent than it already is.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[Haeleth]

It's called "The Pirate Bay". That is a clear expression of an intent to index material related to piracy.

Since most of the torrents on TPB have nothing to do with buccaneers, they are clearly using the word in the "copyright infringement" sense.

It is positively mind-boggling that you can take such a clear statement of intent to aid and abet copyright infringement, and somehow conclude that they had a noble goal of protecting freedom of speech or some such.

TPB is about piracy. It's nothing to do with avoiding censorship; the sole purpose of the site is to help people infringe copyright. There may well be a loophole in Swedish law that makes this activity legal there, but that's a separate question, and will shortly be answered by the court hearing this case.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[N1AK]

Considering the owners of traditional media often has certain parts of their business model dependent on copyright it's hard to find any sources that aren't biased.

Which doesn't change the fact that the view on copyright and media sharing presented on /. is massively biased, and doesn't reflect the general consensus of the wider population, which is exactly what the OP was saying.

For example, you could put a sales-tax on any material or revenue derived from sales or reproduction of works, with the proceeds going directly to the creators and artists.

Which would pay artists for cases of internet piracy where there is no sale how? Any solution that revolves around a tax on reproduction would require methods like DRM to stop reproduction that doesn't pay the tax, or are we going on the basis that people will not subvert a mandatory tax (even though they choose to ignore a mandatory cost of purchase)?

I mean, can you imagine what we're losing in the current system? How many artists we could pay if it was structured so more of the revenue went directly to them?

Why do you expect we would pay for more artists, when the reason for the majority of piracy at the moment is to either to avoid paying, to get a digital copy of something you already own or at best "to trial material that you may buy if you like it"? The % of piracy which is committed due to idealistic concerns is almost certainly statistically insignificant.


For years people have argued the reasons for breaking the current system of media distribution, and although I agree with many of the points made during this entire time the arguments are almost always founded on the basic premise that people 'want' to pay, and any argument based on such a naive foundation isn't going to cut it.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[Juippi]

why is there this preconception that linking to content that you know full well is illegal, is acceptable?

Because most people accept it.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[PopeRatzo]

really so that guy selling bootlegs on the street is legit? give me a break.

Notice how you used the word "selling"?

That's important. It makes a difference. Outside of selling t-shirts and other swag to help with their legal costs, the last time I noticed, I didn't have to give a credit card number to use TPB.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[PopeRatzo]

It's all or nothing

No where on Earth is it "all or nothing" my friend.

without effective copyright laws the effort large corporations put into content would diminish

We should only be so lucky.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[PopeRatzo]

it's called The Pirate Bay!

They also called the batting order for the 1930's New York Yankees "Murderers' Row" but as far as I know, none of them stood trial for capital crimes.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[bob.appleyard]

"I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."

-- Thomas Macaulay, House of Commons 1841, debating whether copyright should be extended to 60 years after an author's death.

How close do you think he got? I'd say pretty much on the money.

Re:I hope P.B. win this trial

[ultranova]

It's called "The Pirate Bay". That is a clear expression of an intent to index material related to piracy.

Of course, just like the Pirate Party is fighting to reduce the scope of copyright.

It is positively mind-boggling that you can take such a clear statement of intent to aid and abet copyright infringement, and somehow conclude that they had a noble goal of protecting freedom of speech or some such.

Aiding people to circumvent unjust laws is a noble goal.

TPB is about piracy. It's nothing to do with avoiding censorship; the sole purpose of the site is to help people infringe copyright.

Copyright is about censorship. The MPAA's campaign to keep the so-called "illegal integer", 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0, off the Net is a clear example of that. The whole DeCSS mess was even better.

There may well be a loophole in Swedish law that makes this activity legal there, but that's a separate question, and will shortly be answered by the court hearing this case.

Not all features of law which benefit the people rather than the corporations are loopholes. Some of them might actually exist because of the quaint notion that governments exist to serve all of their living, breathing citizens, rather than the few billionaires and their companies. I know, I know, it's unthinkably idealistic, and will undoubtedly be fixed as part of the inevitable slide towards another Dark Age and World War III we are currently experiencing, but for now, it exists.

Put some advertising

[crazybit]

on all that media coverage and use that money to pay some of the lawyers fees.

Re:If Harvard law students are defending TPB

[DeadPixels]

As far as I know, the Harvard students are helping defend an individual accused of file-sharing and have nothing to do with TPB.

If I remember correctly, a semi-famous law professor is defending the individual and his students are helping him.

What the?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Learn to read. The law students are defending Jaul Tennenbaum. NOT the piratebay. It is there in plain english. Granted that might be hard for an american to read but still.

And the law students are just assisting, in law there is an awful lot of hard work and students are the best for this provided you beat them enough. They are doing it under the guidance of their proffesor who is a qualified lawyer.

Re:If Harvard law students are defending TPB

[interkin3tic]

Then they are going to be prosecuted themselves for practicing law without a license.

Practicing law? No, you misunderstand, they're PHYSICALLY defending him from the RIAA. The RIAA decided legal proceedings weren't giving them the results they'd like (IE beheading people who are "stealing music" and putting those heads on a pike) so they started hiring ninjas.

Re:Why?

[Ieshan]

If I was in their position, I would do whatever it took to be acquitted.

Would you? Suppose you were the guy who runs the Pirate Bay: Your entire identity and celebrity rests on the fact that this website is still accessible. Do certain things and you are forever known as a sell-out, especially after the ridiculous amount of media attention you have heaped on yourself (even in the days before they started being idiots about the trial).

I think there are certain things you wouldn't sacrifice. I think there are social contracts you would choose not to violate.

Do I think these guys really believe in the freedom of information, in the freedom of speech, in the "free format" garbage that gets spewed all over this and other websites? No, of course not. But, their followers certainly do, and that's all that matters here.

I think this is just one side of the cost-benefit analysis. Risk jail time and large fines, but gain media attention and more devout fans.

I don't think these guys are any more brave or principled or high-minded than the guy who goes to jail for his gang rather than snitch on the leader. You'd think that selfish, personal greed would take over, but at some point, you can't sacrifice your identity.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

They risk at most two years in prison. That is one year in practice - at *maximum*. The investigation since the raid has been longer than that (Since summer of 2006) ! :)

And this is not one year of "pound-me-in-the-ass" american prison. This is Swedish resort-prison. In a Swedish prison you live in a nice room, you have have some normal furnitures, you can have a game console, like PS3, and access to a computer. You can study university courses, if you work you get paid, write some books or whatever for a year. Take a break from life.

Then when jailtime is over they will be famous martyrs. Heroes of the internets. Perhaps have some place in the history books no matter if copyright laws are changed or not. (and also a couple of hundred of millions of USDs in foreign accounts, according to rumors) :)

Best way to act now for them is just continue to push for what they believe in, make a "spectrial" out of it - become as famous as possible, milk it as much as they can. Then reap the rewards. All publicity is good publicity as they say! :)

And they will NEVER EVER have a hard time finding jobs or making money.

Pirates that hide cowardly and are ashamed of what they have done. They loose, because they act like loosers...

Re:Why?

[dotancohen]

If I was in their position, I would do whatever it took to be acquitted. They run the risk of pissing the court off with this show, so I don't think it can help. We only have one life after all - it's not worth fighting for pirated content!

While I think that TPB operators are wrong in linking to illegal content, I do no see this trial as a trial of their wrongdoing. I see this trial as a trial of Sweden's sovereignty. These people did nothing illegal _in_Sweden_. Why should the the Swedes sacrifice their sovereignty, to appease American businessmen?

Re:Why?

[uffe_nordholm]

Unfortunately, I agree with you: this trial is more about international politics than whether or not the guys have actually done something illegal.

Just the fact that there will _be_ a trial is slightly bizarre, since the prosecutor had, just a few months before the police raid, written an official document where he claims TPB are doing nothing wrong.

Enter then the minister of Justice, who had been on a trip to the USA, to meet his counterpart there. When the minister was back home it didn't take long for the police to raid TPB and seize everything in sight (including many servers belonging to other companies and totally unrelated to TPB).

To the general public, it looks very much like TPB got raided as a result of the minister of Justice applying pressure on the prosecutor to get something done. If this is really what happened, someone is likely to find himself in trouble, since it is against the constitution for the government to decide what the authorities should do in specific cases.