Slashdot Mirror
Half the Charges Against Pirate Bay Dropped
eldavojohn writes "Half the charges have been dropped in the second day of the trial against the Pirate Bay. The charges dropped are those relating to 'assisting copyright infringement,' so the remaining charges are simply 'assisting making available.' No information on how this affects the size of the lawsuit or a settlement."
The secret is journalism.
If the Pirate Bay wrote a quick op-ed piece about every torrent they linked to, then they would be journalists and thus, protected. Next thing you know, they will be named thepiratebaytimes.org.
Libraries provide all sorts of assistance. Why, they even have a professionals devoted to "assisting making available" -- librarians. I ask them where I can find a (copyrighted) book, and they not only tell me, but they let me borrow that (copyrighted) work!!! After that, I could either be following the law or not. How do they know I don't have a photocopier or scanner set up at home to "steal" the whole thing? What's worse, governments provide all sorts of financial assistance for libraries on the premise it is a "public good" to make these (copyrighted) materials available. They're obviously complicit in any copyright infringement that occurs.
Do the math! Next up: print publishers sue librarians and government for "assisting making available" copyrighted works.
Surely the best way would be to download a torrent from The Pirate Bay in front of the Judge, leave it downloading during the trial (no intervention), and then once it was complete, show that you downloaded a copyrighted piece of material.
I suggest they go to "Porn -> Movies" for the in-trial example usage of the website.
To be honest, I would like to see how they can defend against the "assisting making available" argument, apart from the fact that this charge seems so ridiculous. They're not committing copyright infringement. They're not making the copyrighted files available. Nooo, they're just allowing people to make available themselves.
Are they the same facts, though? Suppose I'm trying to convict a burglar, I turn up in court with evidence of his burglaries, and that evidence is ruled inadequate and he is acquitted; I cannot now convict him of those burglaries, double jeopardy and all. But he's a burglar, and afterwards he carries on in that line of work. I can gather evidence on his new burglaries, and make sure it's sound this time around.
Similarly, since TPB are certainly not going to stop linking to torrents, if they are acquitted here due to technical flaws in the prosecution's evidence, then they can't be charged again over those particular torrents - but new ones are published every day, and the prosecution could try again with a different set of specific torrents, and with more complete evidence.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Strange. At the end of the article, the BBC actually presented information that made it seem as if they actually understood what The Pirate Bay does. Either the author of the article asked his IT guys to explain it to him or he knows what it does because he uses it to download copyrighted material. Either scenario is amusing I suppose.
Quite the dichotomy you've presented. But is it outside the realm of possibility that the reporter actually already knew how bit torrent worked or otherwise decided to look it up in order to compose an informed article?
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
Surely the best way would be to download a torrent from The Pirate Bay in front of the Judge, leave it downloading during the trial (no intervention), and then once it was complete, show that you downloaded a copyrighted piece of material.
I suggest they go to "Porn -> Movies" for the in-trial example usage of the website.
To be honest, I would like to see how they can defend against the "assisting making available" argument, apart from the fact that this charge seems so ridiculous. They're not committing copyright infringement. They're not making the copyrighted files available. Nooo, they're just allowing people to make available themselves.
Immediately after which the lawyer defending them would create a torrent of his own of the trial's proceedings and seed it, demonstrating where the content is coming from and where it goes.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I currently have mod points. I could've just mod you down for "stupid", or "clueless". Both options aren't available, and "overrated" is not satisfying enough.
So I figured I'd just post to point out what the above posts were trying to say is that..
(oh screw it you can't be helped)
You know, it's kind of funny. At this point they are trying to make a moral case for this: Giving people the tools to infringe copyright is wrong.
But in countries like the USA their are companies that sell guns (locally and abroad, even sold them to the evil taliban). People will stand up and shout "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well I say selling guns is more morally objectionable than providing a tool to allow copyright infringement. Torrents don't infringe, people infringe! Err, something like that.