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."
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.
Any link to the torrent? ;)
The timing is priceless!I can only see this as a heads I win, tails I win for the Pirate Bay....
1) If they win, they win.
2) If they lose and have to pay $150,000 in 2 years or god forbid $14.3 Million USD, it's ok, in 2 years the USD will be as worthless as Zimbabwae dollars, so really $14.3 Million USD will be less than pocket change.
GO PIRATE BAY!
No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
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!
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.
Of course they did. They are, after all, on the right side of Swedish law. All that remains to be seen is whether we can say the same about the Swedish courts.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It doesn't exactly read correctly, but this being Slashdot, I know I wasn't the only one who read that as "The International Federation of Pornographic Industry (IFPI)."
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
... "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." Hmmm... if the producers are "fairly" rewarded, why do the headquarters of records labels and TV broadcasters drive limos and swim in a pool of dollars, while the content makers -the real artists- usually live a miserable life (I'm not talking about those very well rewarded people who make porno-pop-music for the big guys of course). I hate the way greedy people try to disguise their cruel intentions through giving false credit to the poor.
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!
Give me one good moral reason why one shouldn't respond in that way to a cease and desist letter.
If you know you're in the moral wrong, or should otherwise know.
Cease and desist letters aren't exclusively evil. They're merely tools. Just like with the Pirate Bay, it is not exclusively a pirating tool, but it can be (and in many cases is) used as such.
Of course they did. They are, after all, on the right side of Swedish law. All that remains to be seen is whether we can say the same about the Swedish courts.
I dare say that very few of us here are qualified to make that statement, probably including you, my good sir. In fact, I believe that this trial is happening because a large number of lawmakers, layers, and judges in the Sweden can't even answer that question yet. We will soon see if they are breaking the law in Sweden or not, though.
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
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.
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.
IFPI says:
"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."
This is false.
Copyright exists (from a US Constitution perspective) "to promote the progress of science and useful arts".
Individual financial compensation is not the purpose. Promoting science and art for the good of the public was the purpose.
Of course, we are now closer to the medieval Stationers publishing monopoly than we are the intent of copyright.
A 95 year publishing retirement package was not the intent of the Constitution.
Start.
They're stealing valuable ip, non-random ones and zeros, and all sorts of other stuff. Stop it, please. We only have infinity of them left :(
You just posted a link to a website that links to pirated content.
You are under arrest.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
"It is important that the swedish state has taken this step to make sure that its not OK to profit from others peoples creativity" (My translation)
The quote is from a spokesman for the swedish anti-piracy bureau, a privately funded entity ( read record labels, microsoft and the movie companies) that is a major player in the Pirate bay trial. The funny bit is that his own benefactors are doing exactly what he wants the trial to stop....
Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.
Okay, I gotta ask - exactly why do artists think they're owed a living? If you choose to make acting/singing/performing your way of life, more power to you. It's up to you to make that happen, however. Personally, I'd love to be a professional beach-bum. "Pursuit of Happiness" in the Constitution isn't "Guarantee of Happiness." I have a day job that pays the bills, and I spend whatever "extra" time I have on things I *want* to do. If I want to be a musician, why would I deserve a public subsidy? (that's basically what Copyright has turned into.) May I become a professional snowboarder by copyrighting my Amazing Shredz? May I sue other boarders for copying my Custom Faceplant Ollie? Why not?
Everyone interested in computer-age digital rights should see the Swedish Pirate Party's founder Rick Falkvinge's presentation "Copyright regime vs. civil liberties". Good stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08gfh_6sbQI
Copyrighted or patented works are not property, as they behave very differently from real property. We do not prosecute copyright infringement for the same reasons we prosecute theft. Put another way, we do not protect intellectual works for the same reason we protect property. Theft and vandalism are similar, they are harm to property. Copyright or patent infringement are not harm to property.
Why do we protect intellectual works? Is it because the creator has some moral right to the work? No. The creator of an intellectual work has NO innate rights to a monopoly on that work. In fact, in order for them to have such a monopoly which isn't an innate right, each of us must give up an innate right, that is the right or ability we all naturally have to sense our environment and reproduce what we sense.
We protect intellectual works in order to encourage their creators to share them. That is the only reason outlined in the Constitution. Intellectual works are not property, therefore they can not be stolen.
It is far easier to conflate vandalism with theft than it is to conflate piracy with theft. With vandalism, the person actually suffers a tangible loss. Yet we do not think to call vandalism theft. Why should we call piracy theft?
You can argue whether it is wrong or right without even bringing theft into the picture, so why do so? Why the campaign to relabel intellectual works as intellectual property? Propaganda, pure and simple. The *IAA and other players in the IP game don't want us to discuss the right and wrong of the actual situation. They want us to consider intellectual works as property, and infringement as theft because we are all familiar with those terms and believe theft to be wrong.
I'm not saying infringement is morally right, I'm just saying that the interested parties are trying to bend language in order to curtail any discussion of whether it is or not. You could have backed up your assertions that infringement is wrong without even using the words 'theft' or 'stealing.' Instead, your self righteous and angry blather discredits your own cause.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
is that the corporations running their fancy little money making machine got complacent and lazy after decades of profits from recorded sounds which they nearly had monopolized. I may be modded or flamebait, but honestly think - the radio stations were paid off, they purchase hundreds of thousands of copies of their own albums just to skyrocket it on the charts, the tv hosts were paid off... quite a complex machine just to convince people to buy music - sounds monopol-esque
but, as stated before my friends, they simply did not *recognize their opportunity* (ask any businessman how to be successul in what you do) and failed to adapt/correctly identify/implement any sort of plan to reach out to people via this new form of media (which was their business after all)
the riaa/mpaa have a right to be upset, at themselves. they missed the boat - the demand was there, so the internet communities generated a supply.
FURTHERMORE, I take issue with people who argue that "music is a team of people working in conjunction from the artist to promoters to managers" and blah blah blah. anyone can download a cheap and free wave editing/multitrack software editor and within one year of experimenting make music that rivals these alleged "best sellers" on the radio. People need to get over the hollow celebrity allure of these absolutely meaningless dance/club songs and realize that THEY AREN'T WORTH THAT MUCH IN THE FIRST PLACE. the industry is full of overpaid producers and overpaid promoters, all because 13 year olds go crazy over it... so can we all please just lift the veil of idiocy.
she was the daughter of a wealthy florentine pogen read em and weep was her adjustable slogan
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=the+pirate+bay
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Let me switch that around:
Free expression is an inalienable human right. Some governments have compromised that right with the privilege of restricting free expression (which, with liberty, includes copying someone else's expression as a new expression in the copy) in order to charge money for exceptions to the restriction. That is how free expression is governed as "copyright", the exception to free expression. Even the government apologies offered for copyright infringing free expression rights are typically claimed (as in the US constitution) as necessary to "promote science and the useful arts", and maintained "for limited times". Because they're infringing our rights, copyrights are permitted only because they're necessary and brief. But they're not. They might have been necessary once, but our Information Age finds them not only unnecessary for promoting science and the useful arts, but in fact more a burden than a help. They might have been necessary to make a profit, which itself was only important because it was necessary to promote science and the useful arts, but they are no longer necessary to make a profit, nor is making a profit itelf even necessary to promoting science and the useful arts. Since it's clear that copyright's entire basis is now false, the copyright business doesn't even pretend it's not corrupt, except when pressed hard. That's why copyright brevity, that used to give the author/artist a full 14 years to recoup costs before leaving the content to become folk art, public property, without restriction, now lasts a lifetime, or longer. In every way, copyright is now merely an abuse of our free expression rights, not at all justified by promoting science or the useful arts, or limited in duration.
The record corps are keeping the copyright without the justification. In the US, they're basically defying the Constitution (and it's the US record corps, and their RIAA association, that's running these shows). They are the great criminals here. Not only are they violating our rights, the most important crime, but they don't pay the artists/authors from whose copyrights they get the money. Their whole show is a sham and a fraud. If only a case like this one against Pirate Bay could be turned around, and stop these criminal enterprises once and for all.
--
make install -not war
"...then it is justifiable to use sites like Pirate Bay and other BitTorrent sites."
No, it's not. We were rather poor growing up, and yet I got a job and managed to see the movies and buy the music that was important to me. I didn't have everything my little heart desired, but that's life. You're not entitled to everything you want simply because you want it.
Besides, there's broadcast TV (now digital), there's radio, there are libraries, there's NetFlix (with a very reasonable subscription fee), there's open-source software, there's cheap shareware and $5 bins at the supermarket and... I could go on about all of the LEGITIMATE ways to see and read and hear what you want, but you're not interested. You're only interested in justifiying, no, in rationalizing why it's okay for you to do the things that you do.
People steal shit online (use your own term, I'll use mine) because they can, because they can get (they think) something for nothing, because there's little risk (today) of being caught, and yes, because it's convenient.
Well enjoy it while you can, because the free ride isn't going to last forever...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Tour. There are many many musicians who make a pretty good living just by doing the live circuit.
It's only in the last few decades that there's been a huge disconnect, and you get bands that expect to live by a few days in a recording studio..
Even with a bootleg, you just can't beat a live gig.
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.
http://xkcd.com/488/
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 shittiest lie, shittiest save-face, filthiest attempt to cover real intentions since julius caesar said he was running for consul 'for the people'.
creative artists do not get SHIT from copyrights. independent film producers dont have the funds to pursue millions of worth litigations. the only groups that are benefiting from copyright on the face of earth at this time and age are a few major music labels, movie studios and some publishing houses. which give the original creators CENTS over dozens of dollars of sales.
go shove your half assed justice tirade up your ass. there is nothing just in it.
Read radical news here
and I'm onlly posting to object to the fact that a bunch of space aliens popped in from a parallel dimension *where the GPL does not depend entirely on copyright law for its existence* and rated this, of all things, "Insightful".
Forget the word freedom, okay? Red herring. The GPL is about ensuring that those who distribute binaries also distribute unfettered source. That's a limitation on what you can do, compared to what public domain or a BSD license offers you. But in the long term it benefits everyone.
Ironically, this is more or less how copyright was supposed to work. You get yours, but I get mine. So the GPL is more of an extension of the idea of copyright than a repudiation of it. Hence the name copyleft rather than anti-copyright or something else.
I know it's a little out of the ordinary, but really, it's about the same level of difficulty as understanding that "stage left" is to the right of the audience. (For the most part you were valiant in trying to correct a flagrant troll. But I still think you were inaccurate.)