Slashdot Mirror


Pirate Bay P2P Trial Begins In Sweden

Many readers are writing to tell us that The Pirate Bay trial is now in full swing in Sweden. Looking at a possible two years in prison and $150,000 in fines (plus another $14.3 million if the record companies get their way), the battle of infringement is sure to be one of the most watched p2p trials. "The International Federation of Phonographic Industry (IFPI) which is representing the case of music and film producers, made a statement about the case on Friday. Stating, For people who make a living out of creativity or in a creative business, there is scarcely anything more important than to have your rights protected by the law. Copyright exists to ensure that everyone in the creative world from the artist to the record label, from the independent film producer to the TV program maker - can choose how their creations are distributed and get fairly rewarded for their work. The operators of The Pirate Bay have violated those rights and, as the evidence in Court will show, they did so to make substantial revenues for themselves. That kind of abuse of the rights of others cannot be allowed to continue, and that is why these criminal proceedings are so important for the health of the creative community."

27 of 723 comments (clear)

  1. A Strawman for the Symptom by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm saddened by this not because I think the Pirate Bay operators are innocent but because I feel they're an easy target to set precedence on.

    Meanwhile, the real issues at hand continue to get worse and go unaddressed. Like the fact that the EU just extended music copyright to 95 years (maybe in an effort to catch up with the United States?). Or the fact that people who collect digital music en masse couldn't possibly have bought it all in the first place. Or the important differences between illegal digital distribution and traditional theft of goods or money.

    No, unfortunately, the IFPI/RIAA isn't going to figure out a way to cope with new awe-inducing technologies. The court system isn't going to earn any respect from its citizens. Musicians aren't going to be rewarded anymore than they already are. The free market will suffer from DRM. And people who depended on seeds and traffic for legal reasons from these sites are going to be left shit outta luck.

    I feel like we're stuck with a bunch of dinosaurs concerned only with their self preservation when the fact is that they leach so much money from the system that they simply can no longer be a part of it. Songs cost $1 to download when they should cost 11 cents with ten cents going to the artist and one cent going to the host/distributor.

    This trial isn't a solution and we all know how it's going to end. Work out solutions that really plague the system and piracy will go away.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dear music/movie/TV shows corporations/companies/whatever:

      The only way to make piracy go away is to make your goods available to everyone (1), at a fair price (2) without the DRM (3) and in standard formats (4).

      1: drop the damn "only available to countries x,y and z" crap
      2: 1$ for a tune and 2$ for a single episode of a TV show is a rip-off
      3: the music industry finally understood that part, though they increased the price of new tunes by 30 cents
      4: hopefully, MP4 (AAC and H.264) are becoming the norm instead of that hack of a format that is DivX (fucking AVI container from hell).

    2. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by K.os023 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Pirate Bay is about theft, plain and simple. [...] but the propaganda is propaganda on both sides.

      It would appear that one side's propaganda is working. There is no theft in piracy. Unauthorized copying, yes, but no theft. This has been explained countless times here. I find it saddening that even here on slashdot, we hear people who bought the "theft" propagands from the *IAAs.

      --
      Ahhh, what an awful dream. Ones and zeroes everywhere... and I thought I saw a two.
    3. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Copyright were only 1 year, do you really think that people wouldn't still be pirating films by aXXo the day of DVD release?

      If copyright was only 1 year or even just the original period before extensions, AND prices actually reflected the market while DRM and similar value-robbing things were done away with, then I'd argue the Pirate Bay and the other examples of questionably-legal distribution wouldn't exist in any meaningful way.

      People are lazy. If they could buy an unencumbered product at what are perceived to be low & fair prices, they wouldn't bother to pirate and there would be no Pirate Bay or its' ilk.

      Massive piracy and disregard for copyright laws happens because consumers find it the only avenue to get the product they want, at non-extortionate prices, and in unencumbered formats that don't hinder their enjoyment and fair use. Remove these obstacles and piracy would go back to meaning something that occurs at sea.

      Cheers!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by rudeboy1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I couldn't agree more. The last 3 movies I've seen in a theater were without exception ruined by either other movie-goers, or another factor like idiotic theater staff or sticky floors. I LOVE movies, but I'm almost to the point of swearing off going to the cinema.

      I might or might not pirate movies from time to time, but if I did, the vast majority of them would be movies I've seen before, usually in the theater. While I wouldn't be paying for these hypothetical movies, it is a matter of convenient acquisition of movies, so that I can access them anytime I want and watch them at my convenience.

      I DO pay for a Netflix subscription. Which, when combined with my XBox, allows me to access a lot of movies at almost the same convenience factor of the ones sitting on my hard drive. This is an example of turning someone who might or might not have pilfered the occasional torrented movie into someone paying a fair price for a fair shake. Netflix does include a measure of DRM, essentially making it impossible (that I am aware of) to copy the streamed moves to disc- or if you can, it would equate to copying a song off the radio-post stream and all that. However, Netflix applies this DRM without making me feel like a criminal for trying to access my content in a normal manner.

      This is the ONLY example of a major media outlet actually taking advantage of new technologies to expand their offerings. But I think that has a large part to do with the fact that Netflix IS the new technology. I'm sure Blockbuster would love to claim the part of the victim of new technology of they had a foot to stand on. From what I hear, they are circling the drain these days as a direct result of Netflix' market share.

      --
      Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
    5. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by rzei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I do not think TPB is about theft.. Or at least that's not what made it so popular, here's the real deal:

      1. People, in this case, young people who know how to use the Internet got a thought they want to watch the same movies/tv-shows premiering in the USA allaround the world
      2. People search for a legal alternative, which in this case was and still is: wait. There's a chance you can in next N months:
        • Go watch the movie in theaters, if movie is a blockbuster (N < 12)
        • Go rent the movie, if movie is a blockbuster (Ntheater + [1, 6])
        • Hope that your local TV-channel airs the show (N > 12)
        • Hope that you can one day buy the show on your region DVD (N > 18), region 1 (N > 24)*

      With this new cool Internet, where news about everything travels at lightspeed, and stuff gets old faster than yesterdays newspaper, people want to see their films now, not in 12 months.

      * It's not legal to watch Region 1 DVD's where I live, as I live in Europe. Alas, not even watching DVD's under linux is legal here anymore.

      I at least, have contacted for example Fox, on how to view some of their series legally from here, but they didn't even bother. That sends a clear message to me that it's ok to download 24 from bittorrent, hell they do not even want my money, I doubt they are going to sue me if they do not want to make a deal in the first place.

    6. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People pirate movies because they want to watch movies without paying for them. If you're one of the unique snowflakes that pirates movies because you bought every DVD on earth and just want a nicer and non-DRM format, that's cute. But you are not the majority. The majority are thieves.

      Absolutely. That's the reason why the iTunes store failed all those years back. Same thing happened with Steam.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    7. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by Hordeking · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't forget, it's the only way to get a lot of foreign films, or out of print stuff that the studios simply aren't releasing. Want to watch The Phantom Hourglass or the new Outer Limits programs? Good luck finding them on DVD. You have to resort to p2p for TV/VHS rips.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    8. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by anagama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't matter what you spent on the calculator -- you are merely a calculator user, so its copying does not affect you. For the calculator manufacturer however, selling calculators is the whole point and as a result, it is harmed by unauthorized duplication because it can't recoup its expenses let alone make a profit.

      As a user, you simply are not in the same shoes as the creator with respect to duplication. Look at it this way: duplication has no adverse effect on the user because the user still has the original. For the manufacturer who sells originals, duplication reduces the potential market and increases the likelihood of financial failure. Your original analogy fails because you put yourself in the position of a creator, when you are only a user. You and the creator have different interests in the creation.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    9. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you invested your life savings as stock in a company, and the CEO did stupids that resulted in a rapid shrinkage of your life savings, you'd want to lynch him, wouldn't you?

      If you wrote software that you intended to sell to a client, and somebody else stole the source by cracking your computer and selling it to your client at a greatly reduced cost, you'd want blood, wouldn't you?

      If you bought a shiny new car, and six months later, a dirty congress-critter conspired with the evil car company CEOs to make gasoline illegal in favor of diesel, you'd be damned pissed, wouldn't you?

      In all these cases, things of value to you were devalued by acts of others. In all these cases, you still hold the "thing" in question containing the value that was stolen from you. You still have the stock from the company, you still have the source code on your computer, and you still have a (worthless) car. And yet, you've still been robbed.

      As a copyright holder, copyright infringement is analogous to all of these acts. You still have your original, but the value of that original has been taken from you. Whether you call it "theft" or "piracy" or "copyright infringement" doesn't change the underlying fact. You are still the loser.

      I still agree: the RIAA are behaving like a bunch of drunk, stoned, brain-damaged monkeys. They are fighting for their existence while opportunities to profit out the ass are all around them. It's just idiocy, and they don't have the leadership to face the paradisaical, insanely profitable world around them.

      But that doesn't mean that "copyright infringement" is ok, it's not. The marketplace works on supply/demand, and bootlegging music destroys the demand side of the marketplace, and it's to the interest of the marketplace (including its consumers) to see that the demand side of the equation is preserved so that the engine of the free market can still operate.

      Copyright infringement is still theft.

      Want to fix the problem? Fight to have sane copyright laws re-introduced. Having 100+ years to own a copyright (with unlimited future extension) is stupid. In the United States, it's unconstitutional to pass an "ex post-facto" law - how is it that the terms of copyright are being retroactively renegotiated? How is it reasonable to benefit from a copyright from somebody who's been dead for decades? This is Disney, et al. and Congress colluding to rape, pillage, and "lock down" our social culture for profit. They are trying to own who we are, and sell our own culture back to us rather than innovate said culture.

      Copyrights should last 20 years, just as the original designers intended. That's reasonable. Copyright holders have a chance to profit from their works, driving the supply/demand marketplace engine, while older works become what they should be: part of our culture itself.

      That's what we should fight about. Any time we spend trying to justify piracy/theft/copyright-infringement is time we spend digging a deeper hole for ourselves, with the end result that this trial's outcome IS pretty much a given.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    10. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the other side's propaganda is quite healthy, too, apparently.

      Luckily, it also happens to be the truth.

      How far do you really think technicalities are going to get you? "Theft", "unauthorized copying", "infringing", etc, etc.

      They are very different offences that have vastly differing punishments. They less the same than stealing a CD and bank robbery.

      You honestly think the entire court system hinges on dotting every i and crossing every t and that's a foolproof way to get away with anything?

      That is how the court system is supposed to work. You get charged with a crime and its their job to decide if you are guilty. The legal system decides what crimes you committed if any. According to the courts, copying a piece of music is copyright infringement however much you might wish it was something different.

      Get one lawyer in there to form a feasible link between "theft" and "unauthorized copying", and a precedent is set.

      You'd think with all the resources of the RIAA/IFPI/MPAA that they'd be able to find one good lawyer. Maybe they're unable to find a feasible link because there isn't one. They must have at least one competent lawyer working for them whos tried. All they seem to do is use illegal searches, lies and misdirection to attempt to get any kind of favourable result. Thats not the way most lawyers conduct a trial unless they have nothing else to work with.

    11. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by relguj9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whatever happened to the days when musicians made money by PERFORMING LIVE. Not by EXTORTING MILLIONS for themselves and the recording industry through recordings?

      It's not the musicians just trying to get by that really care about piracy anyways. It's the filthy rich ones and the recording industry grasping for branches on their way off the cliff.

      Sorry, the recording industry as we knew it back when the only way to distribute music recordings was through records or CD's made by big corporations extorting both the artists and the customers is DYING.

      I, for one, will be grateful for its demise and musicians making the majority of their incoming through LIVE performances or through the countless distributions readily available on the internet. Recording industries will still have a place in promotion, but it won't be nearly as profitable.

      Until then... LONG LIVE THE PIRATES!

    12. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except if it is Digg stylesheets or other bits geeks care about, like GPL violation (the whole notion of GPL rests on copyright law btw.)

      Nope. Free software people don't give a rats ass about copyright law. The GPL is actually a hack to circumvent copyright law. Think about it.

    13. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by EvilNTUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The marketplace works on supply/demand, and bootlegging music destroys the demand side of the marketplace, and it's to the interest of the marketplace (including its consumers) to see that the demand side of the equation is preserved so that the engine of the free market can still operate.

      You're right, but I don't agree with your conclusion. Demand destruction is a valid goal. There is no way we'll get the average consumer to grow a spine and vote for saner laws anytime soon. If the businesses are unable to continue, the other side will lose much of its lobbying power.

      In addition, and perhaps more importantly, buying their goods encourages their activities due to the same principle. If you think you're being both moral and practical by paying for and then hacking content that has DRM, think again. What you're doing is actually immoral, because it creates more demand for DRM. If you buy video cards that specifically don't support Linux and waste thousands of hacker-hours breaking them, you're shooting yourself in the foot. If you buy an iPhone and jailbreak it, you're encouraging the manufacture of completely closed platforms.

      If you simply have to have some music that only comes with restrictions, for God's sake PIRATE IT. It's better than the alternative.

      --
      My Sig: SEGV
    14. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by neuromanc3r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's "stolen" is B's sole right to produce copies.

      Yeah, if you use the word "theft" (or "stolen") to mean something completely different, then you can say the copyright infringement is theft. But using this method you can also claim that piracy is "robbery", "treason", "rape" and "murder". So how is "theft" different?

    15. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me ask you then, is any case where someone loses value theft? Is fraud theft? Is vandalism theft? How about slander and libel? If I take your life, is that theft? Are all crimes theft?

      Why then do we have different names for them all?

      Taking a different angle, what if I buy a different brand of calculator? I have denied the first company revenues just as if I had copied their calculator. Am I now a thief? Perhaps I discover that my phone works as a calculator, now I don't even need one. And I didn't even pay for it! Again, I have denied the calculator company any profits and yet here I am, calculating away. Obviously, either I or the phone's manufacturer are stealing from them. Right? What's worse, there is a completely free calculator available in my head. By doing math in my head, I am denying that poor, poor company the revenues they would have received if I didn't know how. Obviously, we need to outlaw math!

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    16. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by dave562 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      2: 1$ for a tune and 2$ for a single episode of a TV show is a rip-off

      I realize I'm in the wrong crowd to be making comments like I'm about to make, but come on now, seriously?! $1 for a song that you can listen to over and over again is too much? Last I checked, a king sized candy bar costs more than that, and you can only eat the thing once. A can of soda costs almost that much, and you can't drink it more than once. A lot of things that people consume regularly, things that they consume ONCE, cost more than a song that can be replayed for years.

    17. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a copyright holder, copyright infringement is analogous to all of these acts. You still have your original, but the value of that original has been taken from you. Whether you call it "theft" or "piracy" or "copyright infringement" doesn't change the underlying fact. You are still the loser.

      Hold on a second. Are you really arguing that if my actions cause the value of your property to decrease, that is equivalent to theft? That is obviously nonsense. If you control the world's only known naturally occurring source of unobtanium, and I invent a process that produces artificial unobtanium your property has been devalued. If you buy a meal, and I'm sitting next to you with noisy and annoying friends, your purchase has been devalued. If you buy a HumVee and I write a book about how awful HumVees are, you might find it harder to sell your SUV.

      In each of these cases your property has been devalued by my actions. But this is not theft.

      The marketplace works on supply/demand, and bootlegging music destroys the demand side of the marketplace, and it's to the interest of the marketplace (including its consumers) to see that the demand side of the equation is preserved so that the engine of the free market can still operate.

      As a consumer, I will decide what is in my best interest Thank You Very Much. If my unwillingness to purchase certain media leads to the failure of that market, I'm quite ok with that. Of course, if you need hired thugs to convince people to buy your product, "market" doesn't really apply. "Racket" is the word you're looking for.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    18. Re:A Strawman for the Symptom by number11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cowards often hide behind semantics.

      Funny thing for an AC to say, isn't it?

      If you download a song without paying for it, and it isn't being given away for free by the author, then you are stealing money that the artist would otherwise use

      Do you have any evidence that the author (as opposed to the label and middlemen) receives any significant part of that money? For each dollar spent, how many cents does the author receive? Or is the money mostly "stolen" from them by those other parties?

      Do you have any evidence that any significant number of people who will download for free, actually want the file badly enough to pay for it?

      And of those who would pay for it, do you have any evidence that some of them don't (later) buy a copy?

      95% of professional musicians live check to check

      Like most everybody else. The key thing is, those checks mostly aren't royalty checks. Of the professional musicians I know, 95% of them get most of their income from playing gigs, teaching, working a day job, or some other source.

  2. Free Lunch by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For people who make a living out of creativity or in a creative business, there is scarcely anything more important than to have your rights protected by the law.

    Absolutely! I mean it's either that or, horror of horrors, finding salaried employment.

    I'm a mathematician. Many Slashdotters are programmers, engineers, etc. Isn't our work creative? How come we don;t get a lifetime +90 years gravy train? Is what we do simply not worth as much to society as movies about comic book superheroes and books about high school for witches and wizards? We don't seem to need protection, so why should artists?

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Free Lunch by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You obviously haven't applied for a patent recently. Copyright vests automatically with any creative work you produce. To get a patent on the other hand requires lawyers (money), applications (money), review (money), sometimes contestation (money), probation (no money actually), and, if you want a useful term or global scope for it, extension (lots and lots of money). The two are vastly different protections; the barrier to entry for copyright is so low that even this post qualifies for protection (even says so at the bottom of this webpage). I've invented a few valuable things in my time as a research engineer, but the cost of getting protection is so prohibitive that unless I invent the Philosopher's Stone it's not worth it.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
  3. Hoping their go-to mantra holds out by rudeboy1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As I understand it, TPB has long held that the website does not contain any copyrighted material, and that they don't distribute any copyrighted material. I guess what I'm getting is that the prosecution is trying to prove that pointing out the location of copyrighted material is a crime.

    Given that corporate greed is a constant, (as evidenced by the US banks, who hoarde bailout money and spend it on sports stadium naming rights in the face of imminent economic collapse) I see this snowballing to the point where companies that manufacture software, like BitTorrent and Azureus will soon come under fire. They tried this with the gun industry, and have had mixed results for years. I think it's rediculous that you should be held accountable for someone potentially doing something illegal with the software you designed in good faith, and under the allowance of current law. It's an erosion of rights thorugh corporate lobbying that leads to this sort of behavior. As others have stated, artists won't see any extra income if bittorrent traffic in its entirety (not at stake in this trial, I know) comes to a halt. In fact,there is a good chance, I think, that the media companies pushing this witch hunt will find that even if they were somehow successful in completely ceasing all P2P trading of their content, they would not see any increase in revenue. To the contrary, the large population of people that hear about an artist via the medium will no longer have access to this method, and the proliferation of new music will slow down considerably, fueled only by expensive promoting methods. If the media companies want their 1970's revenues back, so be it. But I think they're also looking at 1970's revenue minus the adjustment for inflation.

    --
    Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
  4. Re:Not a surprise. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    responding to IP holders requests, not telling them to fuck off as TPB did.

    Give me one good moral reason why one shouldn't respond in that way to a cease and desist letter.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  5. This should never be a crime by macemoneta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Pirate Bay does nothing more than a phone book does. That is, it provides a reference or index entry to an actual object.

    If what the Pirate Bay does is illegal, then phone book publishers should be prosecuted for listing felons and scams. After all, by this flawed thinking, the listing of the contact information facilitates the felonies and scams of the individuals represented by the entry.

    This is obviously nonsensical. Why do people lose their critical reasoning ability so easily?

    --

    Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

    1. Re:This should never be a crime by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Pirate Bay does nothing more than a phone book does. That is, it provides a reference or index entry to an actual object.

      What kind of phone book? A white pages? I can't search for plumbers, drug dealers or assassins in a phone book. If I know the specfic name of a person who offerse that service sure I can look him up, but there is no evidence that I can get assassin services from a given listing in the white pages.

      Now the yellow pages, sure that's neatly organized into categories. And I can search for plumbers in one. However drug dealers and assassin's aren't listed. What if they were? Would the yellow pages be charged in connection to contributing to drug dealing or murder for hire, but selling the service of linking you to those people? I suspect they would be.

      Would they be convicted? Hard to say... especially if it were completely automated online and all listings were self published by end users, and the phone book really exercised zero control over what was listed...

  6. Re:Sorry, they do deserve to be prosecuted... by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Pirate Bay hurts creators of many different kinds of works, from music to film, from books to TV.

    Actually, I *am* a musician in a band, and I've put our original recordings up on TPB. Recordings have become a promotional tool, not a main means of income. It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion regarding it is, it's the reality that computers, digital technology, and the internet has brought into existence. Unless governments all over the world decide simultaneously to unplug all the networks, confiscate all the PCs, and remove all rights and all privacy for normal citizens, this will continue to be the case.

    Attempting to use legal means to change this is akin to passing laws against gravity, and both will enjoy equal success.

    Cheers!

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  7. Re:Again, Strawman for the Symptom by Mybrid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you look at most great literature the writing was not done to make piles of money.

    In fact, I think it is interesting to note that while music and video are subject to much pirating, books have remained relatively pirate proof.

    How many artists historically are not "discovered" until long after they are dead? History is full with artists who died paupers only to be discovered later.

    I'd actually make the counter argument. I believe copyright is tyranny. It encourages owners of the copyrighted material to wring every last cent out of existing owned property and ignore new and emerging artist. Bands such as the Beatles would never happen today because the record companies only want to pay a solo artist, such as Britney Spears. Lastly and sadly, proof that copyright is tyranny is evident in the top grossing touring bands each year over the last 30 years. Rarely is it a new band, most generally top grossing touring bands are from the 1960s, 70s and 80s. That's because the record companies make piles of money promoting artists who have deep catalogs replete with greatest hits albums. Copyright law as it exists today in the US is tyranny of the worst kind, handicapping the youth. I have a brother who records. He can't even get a local radio station to talk with him because they are locked into only playing copyrighted material pre-approved by the big media conglomerates.

    We are not free because of copyright laws today, we are imprisoned.