Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Bay Day 3 — Defense Requests Dismissal
Hodejo1 writes "Yesterday was a big day for the Pirate Bay when half of the charges against them were dropped leaving only the lesser charges of assisting making copyrighted material available in place. TorrentFreak is following the English twitter feed of the trial in the wee hours of the night, documenting more missteps by the prosecution. 'The Pirate Bay trial is moving forward rapidly and again the day in court has ended early. On the third day the prosecution presented the amended charges. The defendants all called for acquittal while Carl Lundström's lawyer scored points with the already legendary "King Kong" defense.'"
.... think again. while i don't think these guys are innocents by a long shot, asking for jail time was always bullcrap.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
It sounds to me like they pretty much arbitrarily choose the cost of damages in these bootlegging charges, and give bogus reasons for them. Considering that there exist pretty much no grounds for exacting justice legally, what happens if they are found guilty? What are the potential ramifications?
Tell me about the King Kong defence. Please compare and contrast it to the Chewbacca defence, to provide an adequate frame of reference.
- There is no point, it's like a sphere -
Don't read too much into half the charges being dropped, its common practice
The nitty-gritty begins about now.
While I think the "Pirate Bay" guys are legally in the clear, it doesn't really matter.
In the current economic/political climate, and with the United States pushing HARD on copyright issues worldwide (and with President Obama even *more* firmly in the pocket of the big media companies than Bush was), the "Pirate Bay" is almost surely going to lose this case.
Hope for a miracle, is my advice.
If only OJ hadn't wasted his money on Shapiro and Cochran... King Kong ENSURES reasonable doubt! Smart fucking pirates.
Would have been nice to see a link to the King Kong defense. Short version - the person uploading the files could be named King Kong for all they knew...
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Am I the only one whose mind is boggling at how the prosecution thinks that phrase works? Is there a law that says you can't post complaints against you or respond to them in a way that might make the complainer look like an ass? I understand things like libel and slander, but does "loss of goodwill" prohibit me from pointing out that Sony's inclusion of rootkits in their products might be considered a negative?* If Sony wants to prevent "loss of goodwill," they should be suing themselves.
*instead of the wonderful feature that it is, of course.
I must admit, I'm quite shocked as to how this trial is going - I would of though The Pirate Bay owners would be holding onto life rafts at this point, rather having 1/2 the charges dropped and making a bold request for the remaining ones to be dismissed.
I really thought that the Pirate Bay's argument is just a "dictionary" or "search engine" like Google and Yahoo would just fall apart in the courts. Unlike Google or Yahoo, the Pirate Bay cannot claim that it serves a larger legitimate and legal forum for free content - The name of the site alone implies it's true purpose. Likewise, they refuse to remove content that is knowingly infringing (and taunt the owners when they are asked to remove it) seems to contradict their defense that they do not aid in contributing to illegal content.
If I were to open "FindAHitman.com" where 'clients' and 'plumbers' can meet to discuss person arrangements, I think I would have a hard time justifying myself as just 'a site that connects individuals, not providing any illegal services'.
Whatever - So goes the European court system.
Of course, the only people who use copyright are giant corporations and media conglomerates.
I've been hanging around Slashdot for over ten years, and "legendary 'King Kong' defense" has to be the most link-worthy phrase I've ever seen.
Because I'm not new here, I'm not at all surprised it isn't linked in the summary.
-Peter
Hahahahaha... I dont get it.
It's our right as human beings to rip off artists and not pay them, and it's totally awesome for Pirate Bay to run a torrent tracker that connects users so that they can distribute file chunks to each other.
Well, awesomeness is what the courts are ruling on, isn't it? Ever since Brown v. Board of Education was settled with a crocodile-punching contest, there's been a precedent.
I don't think anyone thinks it is anyone's right to deny the artists dues when it comes to works of music or movies. Most of the file sharing folk I know regularly buy music and visit the movie theaters. Your sarcasm is in poor taste and I think far removed from the type of people that should have any say in what happens. You honestly don't seem to find the gray area that exists.
Yes! It's only a matter of time until Slashdot's heroes, the Pirate Bay operators, get away with this. It's our right as human beings to rip off artists and not pay them, and it's totally awesome for Pirate Bay to run a torrent tracker that connects users so that they can distribute file chunks to each other.
FUCK artists, and FUCK their rights. They are our slaves. We don't owe them a dime for their work. Long live, Pirate Bay, and enjoy the victory, guys!
So if H&K or Smith&Wesson were ever to be charged with making the guns used to kill people, and were acquited... logically you would say:
Yes! Its only a matter of time until Slashdot's heroes the, the manufacturers of guns, get away with this. It's our right as human beings to shoot people in the face, and its totally awesome for gun manufacturers to run a production chain that connects users to guns so they can buy weapons for eachother.
Fuck people I want to shoot in the face, and fuck their rights. They are our slaves. We don't owe them not shooting them in the face. Long live gun manufacturers, and enjoy the victory guys!
See what I did there? Copyright infringement may not be legal (murder sure isn't), but simply being peripherally involved in the crime, by providing, say, the very instruments used to commit it provided you aren't directly participating in anything criminal,... well shucks... that isn't actually illegal.
If you want to stop copyright infringement, convince the people actually downloading copies that what they are doing is wrong. Senselessly prosecuting gun manufacturers and torrent indexes for what end users do with them really isn't ever going to be very effective, because the murderers and infringers aren't even the ones affected.
If the lawyers for the plantiff developed a statistical model about the net impact of PB downloads on sales, their case would be more palatable to the public. Of course, that could show a net gain in sales due to the free publicity PB downloads provide.
If they make too many cars, those cars are going to get cheaper.
The huge glut of entertainment that has developed means that 99% of artists won't get a dime for their work.
Huge corporations that have the backing of the government will.
But even they are seeing enormous drops in revenue (and not because of piracy-- but because the middle class has no money left (the rich have it all) and after you spend your $300 to $1200 a year on entertainment, you are done- even IF the government kills people who infringe- no one except the wealthy can legally fill even a small IPOD).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Legendary King-Kong defense? And yet, the only reference to it is a wiki that is only the actual TPB lawyer quote that this article is referring to. Unless... that's the legendary part? Those sly Swedes!
I watch the ABC show LOST fanatically on TV. I Had a psychology night class that ran late until 10:30 pm. Got home. Downloaded the latest episode of LOST from TPB. Watching it now. God I hope they win.
From TFA:
For the song "Let it Be" by The Beatles, IFPI is asking for 10 times the damages, since the band's music isn't officially available online. Interesting logic here - perhaps if The Beatles music was made officially available, people wouldn't even need to pirate it.
Since I only buy music online, now (yes, I really do pay for music), and only if it works in Linux (yes, I really do use Linux to play music I pay for), it seems that if the owner of the Beatles song "Let it Be" doesn't offer it online and playable in Linux, then they don't count me in as part of their potential market. So if I download that song, there is no loss of sale, since there wouldn't be a sale were I to not download it, because there can't be a sale if they won't sell to the tiny fractional minority market I'm in (people who only buy music online for playing in Linux).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Lars? Is that you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIuR5TNyL8Y/
"There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
They don't trade anything illegal, just say that someone maybe does it and provide some means for contacting him.
But there are cases and cases. The phone directory (or yellow pages) gives the phone (and the address) of people that could do something illegal. Could be blamed for it? What if someone publish a list of drug sellers phone numbers in your area? Or hitmen?
Also could be seen like if you provide means to commit a crime, you are responsible. If you have a newspaper, publish that someone won the lotto, and then someone else kill him, you will be responsible? What about weapon makers?
With or without excessive copyright, artists will lose. With copyright, they don't own their work and just feed off the crap their publisher feeds them. Without it, they can't own their work, and get money primarily though donations and events that don't rely on intellectual property being owned.
i guess people are taking this to a new level to show the pictures of people who pirate http://filesharer.org/
Uh dude the artists have been fucked all this time. That's not out of the norm. Big business is all about making people do hard work, not paying them their worth and reaping the profits. The internets actually give power to the artists. Allowing to sell their product directly. For example if I were a band and I put my record out on the nets for pay. If I charged only a dollar for the whole album I would probably make more money than if I were signed to a record label. And not risk potentially having to pay the label because CD sales less the cost of advertisement ended up being negative!
Balderdash!
Your comparison would be more apt if H&K or Smith&Wesson made guns that were predominantly used to kill people, as the torrents indexed on TPB are predominantly for pirated material. Damn it, see what you've done? Now it looks like I'm defending gun manufacturers and opposing TBP in the same sentence!
no one except the wealthy can legally fill even a small IPOD).
Me and my microphone (and video camera, and $BIGNUMBER megapixel DSLR) disagree. Not that I or anybody else I know wants to listen to me talk or sing that long.
Perhaps someone should point out that making his own books freely available over the internet drastically increased their sales.
Don't you hate it when you are insightful, but you get modded +Funny?
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
I find it sickening that the record labels charge 20 dollars for a cd. How much of that money gets to the composer/artist? In reality more people would pay for music if the price came down considerably. The fact of the matter is that if you buy a song for a dollar off ITunes it doesn't seem like your getting your dollars worth of entertainment. One of two things should happen: Songs could get longer so you have "more entertainment" in the song. Probably not a good idea. The price comes down. Look at pirating video games. Even though video games are expensive the number of pirated copies are a lot lower* than for music. This is because when you buy a game the entertainment lasts for more than 4 minutes at a time. The entertainment is cheap when you figure in how long you play the game for.
So if pirate bay loses does that mean I can no longer do my torrenting from google anymore? For example, I wanted to pirate mario kart (its been sold out for almost 3 weeks everywhere in my town), so I went to google and typed "mario kart filetype:torrent" with 346 results at here. Wonder what this means for services like google? I don't see how the logic used to filter .torrent files can be any different than filtering HTML content of "harmful or illegal" information. TPB should really consider creating a legal honeypot by hosting non torrent files and being a "regular" search engine.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
Project Gutenberg, with thousands of works, a project which toady would be illegal,
if the copyright mafia had existed 100 years ago in its current incarnation:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4305494/11_000__Project_Gutenberg_ebooks_for_Sony_Reader_(.lrf)
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3467147/Project_Gutenberg_DVD_ISO
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3502346/Project_Gutenberg_Jul._06_DVD_-_17500_Ebooks.iso
Linux: .....
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4728577/Debian_GNU_Linux_5.0_%5Bx86-64%5D
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4726079/Damn_Small_Linux_-PhilCam-
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4717761/Mandriva-Linux-Free-Mini-2006-CD.i586
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4702548/Mandriva_Linux_One_2008_Spring_KDE_Int_CDROM_i586
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4677799/64_bit_Linux_Ultimate_Edition
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4669172/linux_for_aspire_one
BSDs:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4697784/fRee_BSD_disc_2_
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4697784/fRee_BSD_disc_1_
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4296193/PC-BSD_1.5.1
Haiku:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4244595/Haiku
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4451598/Haiku-OS_for_VMware
Here's folding at home:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3775577/Folding_home
Lots of abandonware that would not be available otherwise.
Lots and lots of medical, cultural content that should be patrimony
of humany but that is currently held hostage by a few privileged
who would like to live off it parasitically ad infinitum.
Uh, what else do you think guns are for?
I agree, but I have to point out a small flaw in your analogy. The vast majority of guns are used for lawful purposes, while the vast majority of torrents are used for unlawful purposes.
Still, in both cases there are many important lawful uses, and the people who misuse them should be the ones punished for bad acts, not those who merely provide the tools.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
...then so are lawyers, cops, prosecutors, judges, prison guards, everyone who profits from fastfood sales, authors of shitty romances novels, the purveyors of most primetime (and otherwise) television, all mainstream recording industry employeeys, everyone in Hollywood, your mom, all commercial airlines, most elected government officials, and everyone who has ever downloaded a torrent, even if said downloader could not/would not have purchased the content in question had the torrent not been available. That's a lot of immorality. Any crimes here? Not many, and none of any seriousness worth concerning yourself with. Go watch more cable coverage of Caley and Haleigh, the pedophile religious leader of the moment, or debate the merits of OJ's cases, and quit confusing legality with morality.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
You're not going to get any traction here. I understand your feelings, but you've chosen your own hardship and it's my hope I can help you choose something else. We're going to talk about the love, the hate, and the life. Then we'll have the talk.
The love:
I really don't think the majority of /.ers have a problem with compensating artists. I sure don't. My kids got iPod Touch for Christmas, and they're allowed (and subsidised) to buy all the music they want. We're over $500 already, and in some places that's a lot of money. Those iPods hold a lot of money. Maybe that's why people are so eager to steal them. My family has only one rule: they're not allowed to buy a track with DRM, ever, for any reason. My family buys several thousand dollars worth of content a year*, and we're not a unique American family. We are perhaps odd in that we require that when we buy content, we get to own our local copy and use it however we like within reason.
The hate:
The RIAA, their international partners, their lobbyists and the lawmakers in their employ are harming us (everybody) in numerous and tangible ways. They are buying representation and buying law in ways that offend even the most passive citizen. They've bought the President of the United States for FSM's sake. The scope of their effort far exceeds the importance of their goods. Because they're solely focused on maximizing their profits, they're unaware of and uncaring of the harm their efforts are doing to our civil liberties, our political system and our longevity as a union. It is not in any American's best interest to fund this effort. Where possible I counter my family's contributions to their funds with small countering offsetting contributions and of course with our votes. That wasn't possible in the last election cycle because there were far more pressing issues, but we haven't forgotten this issue. The friends of the prosecution in this case are not the artists' friend. They exploit the vast majority of artists and give them a pittance. They're in the court to enforce their system of enslaving artists, and that's a bad thing.
The life:
There's no way the pirate bay is going to be convicted of anything here. The whole trial is a show to let the government of Sweden show the US they're trying to comply with the ridiculous demands of their lobbies. It's a theatre of the absurd not only because of the cultural dissonance between the RIAA and Sweden, but because the claims have no support in fact or law.
The talk:
More to the point: The RIAA and the MPAA are harming us. The harm is real. It's tangible. If you choose them as your hero, you'll find no friends anywhere except in the camp of your artist friends who have for now also bought into the idea that your exploiters are your representatives and that's a losing proposition. Their problem is that there's a lot of turnover in that group, for obvious reasons.
There's a middle ground here. You can choose different representation. If your art is marketable you can sell it to someone less offensive - someone who exploits artists less and aims to harm the rest of us less. You can do that. Do it and we'll prefer your art -- if it's good. The choice is yours. We can't force you to choose that, but we can make fun of you when you scream "Waaaaaaah! I'm retarded! Give money to somebody that isn't going to give it to me!" After all - that's fair.
* - Somebody's going to hate on me for this - starving children in Somalia and all that. Yeah, we give too - in amounts appropriate for our income both locally and globally, in both organized and personal ways, in amounts that meet the demands of our conscience, and encourage others to do the same. This isn't about that, so burn your torch somewhere else, ok? We're talking about something else.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
This is in Sweden, not the USA. The US constitution does not apply.
Not a sentence!
Well then the "countless news agencies" are safe then.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
The ads on TPB are very annoying. First, there are the porn ads. Second, there are the talking ads. Finally, there are the deceptive ads, designed to trick people into clicking.
What would be useful, and poetic justice, would be for someone to set up a site that crawls TPB, and republishes all its torrents without all the sleazy ads.
> See what I did there? Copyright infringement may
> not be legal (murder sure isn't), but simply
> being peripherally involved in the crime, by
> providing, say, the very instruments used to
> commit it provided you aren't directly
> participating in anything criminal,... well
> shucks... that isn't actually illegal.
>
To be fair, if Smith&Wesson was instead named "Murder Tools For YOU!" and involved with the political "Murder NOW!" party, that would make a bit of a difference from the situation now, making the comparison not entirely accurate.
H&K predominantly makes guns used to kill people, or threaten to do so. They sell mostly to military and law enforcement, not hunters.
Not a sentence!
Don't be so sure... I hear y'all have some terrorists and dictators over there.
I disagree. Every single WOW user uses torrents - that is 11.5 million users, probably about as many as people who know what torrents are. There are many other applications that use torrents for distribution as well.
Am I the only who's bothered by the ridiculous lopsidedness of the reporting? Torrentfreaks makes no bones about hiding its prejudices. However, they're not judge, nor jury, nor executioner, no matter how enthusiastically they pretend they were. For instance, in Exhibit A, the fact that half the charges were dropped seems to be a perfectly normal part of the process in Sweden, i.e. a step forward but hardly a victory, to hear it from other /.ers. Continuing, in Exhibit B, who cares if the "so-called computer expert" couldn't get his powerpoint presentation working? That doesn't mean squat; we've all had recalcitrant computers and projectors but that hardly means we're incompetent.
Does anyone remember the Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, who swore that Iraq were winning victory after victory, and that the Americans were absolutely not in Bagdhad? All this at the very moment the American army was already in the city and closing in on them? To tanks, no intruders, only liars.
Feel free to replace "tanks" with "laws", "intruders" with "guilty defendants", and "liars" with "RIAA.
That being said, I fully support the Pirate Bay, the Pyratbyran, and their arguments. I hope that Sweden *does* have the courage to tell American businesses that just because they pass bankrupt laws on the backs of their own citizens doesn't mean they get to go overseas, like a certain rampaging giant gorilla of renown, and attack more sensible nations. I just want to feel that they're honestly winning the fight, instead of getting carried away by the fanboy'ing at Torrentfreaks.
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
Yes! It's only a matter of time until Slashdot's heroes, the Pirate Bay operators, get away with this. It's our right as human beings to rip off artists and not pay them, and it's totally awesome for Pirate Bay to run a torrent tracker that connects users so that they can distribute file chunks to each other.
FUCK artists, and FUCK their rights. They are our slaves. We don't owe them a dime for their work. Long live, Pirate Bay, and enjoy the victory, guys!
Yes of course - art only came into existence when copyright was invented in the 1700's and it will instantly disappear once copyright is gone. People like you act as if copyright is some divine right that was handed down from the hand of God himself.
Your view of the situation is extremely simplistic. The main problem is that current copyright laws mostly protect the profits of big corporations, they don't benefit artists and they discourage rather than encourage innovation.
The current laws are outdated and they don't work, but there are many companies willing to spend millions to maintain the status quo. Copyright laws must be completely rewritten so that they accomplish what they were intended to do in the first place: help society as a whole by encouraging innovation by ensuring that artists get their due.
siener's youtube channel
no one except the wealthy can legally fill even a small IPOD
True. But I have 5,000 songs legally on my Zune and it only costs me $15 a month.
Art in the 1700s was only accessible to the wealthy patrons who had personal artists. The working class was not invited to enjoy the arts. Art was also a status symbol. So Artists were payed a great deal of money by their patron monarch or affluent businessman as an ornamental prize.
Phonographs and CDs and all the other evil implements of copyright and profit from reproduction is indeed a recent shift... one which has largely democratized art and brought it to the masses while simultaneously increasing exponentially the amount of art supported and created.
I would say copyright law and democratized playback devices has allowed art to flourish.
Big budget feature films often are huge drivers of innovation. The wealth in the film industry has driven huge leaps in technology.
Video games have been huge drivers in technological innovation on the home computer front.
This is the USA and the US constitution does not apply. :/
no, even if the torrents used on tpb were predominantly used for pirated material (by which i assume you mean material whereby the owner does not have the right to distribute copies), it would be as if smith&wesson didn't make any guns but instead made a newspaper in which you could see adverts for guns.
Carl LunstrÃm is not really the kind of person that most people want to be associated with. He is well known for his connections to extreme right-wing groups. Apparently he donated money to Nationaldemokraterna, an extreme right-wing organization with connection to the Nazi movement. Several of there leaders have been convicted for various crimes. He was also a member of the racist organization Bevara Sverige Svenskt, BBS (Keep Sweden Swedish). There is more. Oh, and according to the prosecution he owns 40% of TPB.
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
I fail to see any difference between asking someone to tape a program for me and for me to get that same program via TPB and BitTorrent.
Indeed, Miro is essentially my DVR for more than a few programs here in the US and from Europe. Sorry, Big Media Conglomerates! I'll watch your offerings when I want to, how I want to, via whatever device I want to, not when/where/what & how YOU want me to watch them. And I'll watch them without commercials, too.
Cue the "Then you're stealing programming by not watching the commercials that PAY for the program!" Big Media Conglomerates retard apologists in 3... 2... 1...
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
It puzzles me a lot more when I make a funny comment and it's being modded insightful...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I also expect them to win as the law is firmly on their side.
The only logical response will be for Sweden's government to make torrent files linking to copyrighted material, illegal. That way, torrents will still be useful but copyright infringers will have to think a little more deeply about their abuses.
Fair enough. I hadn't actually heard of H&K (I'm an Aussie) but should have done my research.
Get away with what, exactly? Indexing files? Google should be worried if they don't.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not that I or anybody else I know wants to listen to me talk or sing that long.
Could you impart that wisdom with a LOT of people on YouTube and various blogging sites?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Your right, that is what I meant by pirated material.
Your analogy is more fitting but I wanted to keep the context based on the real world, as the parent tried to do.
On a side note, although IANASL, I don't think tpb have done anything legally wrong. Technological advances require industry to adapt or perish, and it's easy enough to see which is happening to the RIAA/MPAA.
You'd be better off if you'd said it more like if H&K or S&W made no effort to ensure that their guns were sold legally, or if they took advantage of the desire of criminals to have guns and deliberately sold to them.
Oddly, there was a Law and Order episode about this, with a gun company being taken to court for manufacturing a gun that could be quite easily modified to fire automatically.
Hmmm Ok. So if you're saying that PirateBay should be liable, then how about car companies? If I get a speeding ticket in my Nissan, should Nissan get busted too? They sold it to me! They gave me the means to speed. How about if someone got in an accident and, god forbid, passed away? Does Nissan and the dealer who sold the car get charged too? How about the guy who delivered it to the dealer? The guy who put on your tires? So how far down the line does the blame game go? Users should be held responsible for their actions. Since these companies know that they'll never be successful in prosecuting the users they are just trying to cheat and prosecute the website. It's bogus. Do your job and get the right people.
You start publishing a newspaper advertising illegal gun sales, I guarantee an ATF agent will be having some nice long conversations with you.
You'll actually find most car manufacturers don't sell cars that give you the means to drive at extremely excess speeds.
What about open Markets?
If a Company, Person or Council rents out a pieces of land for a Car Boot Sale or some other kind of market and someone comes along, sets up a stall and flogs dodgy goods, who's culpable? The market owner, or the dodgy dealer?
The question arises is what does the market owner have to do to keep these neer-do-wells out?
The end of this trial won't see Jail time for TPB, nor damages awarded, it will see them being ordered to put blocks and checks on all torrents, essentially turning them into a Torrent version of fileplanet or cnet downloads. Either that or they close down completly. Either way it's the end of TPB as we know it.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
I have never ever downloaded copyrighted material that is distributed without the permission of the copyright holder, but have used the Pirate Bay to locate legitimate content authorized by the copyright holder to be distributed freely.
The police should go for the people infringing copyright, they go for the torrent trackers because they are an easy target, but I hope that at least in Sweden the authorities will find that you have to do immensely better if you want to probe that somebody is committing a crime by refering to torrent trackers...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Yes. There are many reasons for that, not just for safety. Keep in mind it doesn't prevent you from speeding. Many speed limits are far below the top speed of a car. :D
I guess what I'm getting at is that it is possible to do poorly with a product no matter what. If you buy someone's car and use it as your getaway car or to commit some other crime then the car company should not be liable.
It'd be a different story if the car was built with the intent to be used as a means of criminal use. This is what would have to be argued against TPB in my mind, although it's impossible to prove the intent. There are many legal uses of torrents as well. Linux community probably knows that well.
The calculations that the RIAA and its accomplices come up with are pulled out of thin air.
They have no base in logic, common sense or even an attempt to be fair.
How can you put value to something that you yourself make unsaleable? You can't, unless you are a RIAA lawyer, in which case you can throw any numbers you dreamed off.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So if you state that TPB are innocent entirely because the downloaders are guilty, then TPB should be ordered to hand over IP addresses of everyone connecting to download the stuff right?
because that's just TPB adhering to the law. They can keep their site running forever, and the music companies can systematically prosecute every single downloader.
happy?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
By the way, they are not guilty according to Swedish law. And what about USA law? Is it legal to create service like TPB in USA?
What makes you think that the constitution applies in the US? Congress and Obama seem to be doing an admirable job of skirting around nearly every rule. We're still far away from blatant infractions of the constitution, but the slippery slope has already seen us slide down a significant section.
And yes, I concede that much of that falling from grace (the grace of the Rule of Law, as opposed to Ruling Over Law) did take place during the Bush administration. I see nothing, however, in the Obama administration to indicate that my hope for the future will be rewarded. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, eh?
Consider yourself spoken to.
OK, let's raise a few points (full of simplifications, but I hope you get the gist of it):
Art is as old as humanity itself and the creation of art has been something that most people would engage in. Much later the idea of a professional artist came about. Over time the trend has been more and more to have to classes of people - the artists who produce art and the common folk who consume it.
Rich patrons paid for the creation of art by professional artists, but they were not the only consumers. Common folk could go to theatres or live music performances.
Art was democratised by technology, not by copyright laws. Copyright was created to place limits on what could be done to make sure that artists will benefit (for a limited period) from the work they created before it became part of the public domain.
For the largest part of the 20th century the technology was as such a stage that you needed large amount of resources to mass produce copies of art. This gave large corporations the same kind of monopoly on the creation of art that rich patrons had in an earlier era. They profited hugely from the state of technology and from copyright laws that were originally intended to foster innovation, protect individual artists and benefit society as a whole.
There are many problems with the way big corporations abuse copyright, but one of the worst is the way that they keep on pushing for copyright extension. They want to take from society and give nothing back. Take Disney for example. If you go through their products you will find hundreds examples of them profiting from the public domain (Snow White, Cinderella, the Three Little Pigs, Treasure Island .. you can fill pages with this). Yet they will do everything in their power to make copyrights perpetual. Mickey Mouse is now more than a hundred years old and yet they still retain exclusive rights. It does not benefit the original artists and it stifles innovation - the exact opposite of what copyright law was intended to do. If you have a child in kindergarten, they can't put up a play with Disney characters in them without infringing on their copyright.
In the mean time technology has progressed to a point where the stranglehold that large media conglomerates have on art are no longer the natural state of affairs, but they will fight tooth and claw to keep their racket going.
Technology has moved on, but our laws are still largely from the 18th century except that they have over time been skewed in favour of corporation and against the rights of artists and society as a whole.
Laws need to catch up.
siener's youtube channel
How many times do YOU have to be told that the American DMCA laws do NOT apply in Sweden ?
Well that depends what you call "extremely excess," now doesn't it? Let's define it as 100 MPH, since a lot of places in the U.S. have extra punishments (above and beyond mere speeding) for it. You'd be hard pressed to find a car manufacturer that didn't sell a car capable of going faster than that; even my Hyundai econobox (cheapest new car sold in the U.S. at the time) can do it!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
On the contrary, the working class had plenty of access to art! They call it "folk art" for a reason, you know!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
huh.... have you seen how many people our governments have us shoot lately?
yeah....
murder is perfectly legal under the name 'war'.
Google is located in the United States, the only jurisdiction in which the DMCA is valid. The Pirate Bay is not. How many times do you have to be told this, dumbass?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I accidentally a whole giant banana.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H L Mencken
I am not sure that meanes we shouldn't hope he wins :/
Is it legal to create service like TPB in USA?
From what I've read, on the other side of the Atlantic pond, their laws *DO* make that illegal :
What I understand in the DMCA, is that mere fact of pointing to illegal DRM-breaking countermeasures is it self illegal.
So not only would various versions of software packaged with their crack be illegal,
but the torrent tracker and torrent file itself, even if none of them hold the actual data, would be deemed illegal as together they point to place where the illegal data is (i.e.: other users in the P2P network).
This is a little bit weird as this could be interpreted in a way which makes Google illegal : even if Google doesn't host much data (except for cached pages* and picture thumbnails), one can type "crack" + {name of the soft to be cracked} and Google will bring up links pointing to websites which host the anti-DRM countermeasures.
Thankfully, here in Europe we have saner laws. Pointing itself isn't a crime. And anyway several jurisdictions even tolerate DRM-breaking softwares (Switzerland's law even explicitly tells that DRM-circumvention softwares aren't illegal when used in ways authorized by the copyright law).
*: There's bound to be some source code of some anti-DRM algorithm (like DeCSS) documented on some web page and saved somewhere in the Google cache. So in fact Google *is* holding illegal code, but that's not my current demonstration.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
This is the USA and the US constitution does not apply. :/
and what exactly do you mean by that, sir?
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Universal Pictures is filing for trademark infringement for continuous reference to the word "King Kong"
Art in the 1700s was only accessible to the wealthy patrons who had personal artists.
So you're saying the poor people didn't sing and dance ? They didn't play music ? They didn't perform silly plays to keep each other entertained, or to make money ?
The working class was not invited to enjoy the arts. Art was also a status symbol.
Oh, *that* kind of "Art". Well, I have news for you - the "working class" are _still_ not invited to "enjoy the Arts" and "Art" is still very much a status symbol.
It had a definition of 'wittertainment' for a while as well before the wikipedia censors removed it - this is sure to get removed as well.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I'm fairly sure TBP would respond to relevant takedown requests. So far, none of those issed to them were relevant under Swedish law .
(Yes. I know. Redundant. But appearantly it's necessary to be said over and over 'til some people understand. This is not America. And as much as some people might believe, or want to believe, US law means jack to me unless I am in the US or a US citizen, and neither of them applies to me currently. And, unless something changes a lot in the forseeable future, won't apply to me either).
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Copyright was originally instituted to prevent *commercial* reproduction of anothers work. This made sense in an era when written text was the only "media". For one thing, private copying was a very laborious task, and also - and I think this is key - the media WAS the content. By that I mean, to read someones work you bought the book, and that's all you had to buy. The content came with its own reader.
This went along fine for centuries, until sometime in the 1930's we started to get recording agents springing up. They took the original work and placed it on a medium that required a completely separate device in order to access the content. That was the beginning of the end for recorded works.
Fast forward to the modern day, and we find that because you need a separate device to access the content, you can copy said content easily to another medium. This cannot be sensibly protected using copyright because you HAVE to copy it to access it at all !
The solution to this is obvious to all except those who are striving to wring the last drops of blood from an ancient concept.
Don't distribute the content unless it it comes with, and is intrinsically part of its own reader. Then there is no need for any copying to take place to access the content. But that is too hard/expensive for the recording moguls to accept, so they are requiring the (antiquated) law to protect them instead.
The future holds two possibilities if the media moguls wish to stay in business.
1)Stop releasing recordings on media that requires copying in order to function.
2)Criminalise general purpose computers.
I fully support the piratebay, but I understand that what they are (unintentionally) doing is hastening the end of easily accessed commercial recorded media. There will come a time when there are no CDs or DVDs or memory sticks with prerecorded content, simply because you can not prevent copying. So you will either get a biodegradable OLED screen with a hard coded movie embedded in it for promotional purposes, available at the movie theatre after you've paid to see the film or there will be no private copies available at all. Music will be live or not at all. Entertainers will have to entertain, not spend years on end sat on their asses reaping the rewards of a few days "work".
And the recording giants will disappear like the dinosaurs they really are.
And yes I fully realise that in that sense the piratebay is killing the music / movie industry. But the industry has become unsustainable anyway, mostly because it has become all about controlling distribution and not creating content. They are asking the law to require the equivalent of a man with a red flag walking in front of your car. Wise up suckers. If you don't want it on piratebay, don't release it on DVD/CD/BD. Charge $100 in the theatre or stadium instead. Oh, but recording distributors don't figure there do they.
Anybody bleating about the poor artists is being quite selective in their view. The artist does not have to sign with a distribution company. The distribution company does not create anything, it exists only to restrict access. Art and artists will still exist after the distribution companies have faded from memory. If the artists are any good, they will make a good living, and if they choose to save their earnings, sure they can pass it on to their kids. But please don't ask me to pay their kids from my pocket through force of law, after the artist has been dead 20 years !
Wrong, fuck the media companies that rob the artists. You really think pirates want to see the artists stop producing? I dont think you understand the point of pirating.
In most legal systems, you can't argue on appeal that a case should have been dismissed unless you made a motion for dismissal in the original trial... thus in pretty much every trial the defense asks for a dismissal. It's a formality.
(Then again I'm describing US law)
...are you saying what I think you're saying?
Per the law, the copyright holder MAY NOT refuse to license his or her work, as long as the user is willing to pay the statutory rate.
So ... if I set up a digital distribution service, and charge users to access music, and pay the statutory rate (got a link?) to the copyright holder, I can sell any darned music I want via any medium I want to whomever I want? Selling DRM-free MP3s (or, if someone really wants to be a stickler in this broadband era, .ISOs of CDs) from a universal music catalog (Beatles included) is perfectly legal, so long as my accountant keeps it all straight? (I'm not asking if it will be competetively priced, just whether it will be legal.)
As usual with any high-profile legal issue, methinks most everyone (me included) is completely missing the legal point.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
>So if you state that TPB are innocent entirely
>because the downloaders are guilty, then TPB
>should be ordered to hand over IP addresses
>of everyone connecting to download the stuff right?
At least for the moment there is nothing requiering them to keep such logs though.
What about GNU/Linux/BSD Torrents? And Jamendo torrents?
>no one except the wealthy can legally fill even a small IPOD.
Relatively easy. Copy songs from friends and family. Reocrd songs from radio. And so on, probably many other legal ways as well.
But we are the world police, and this "BitTorrent" technology of yours will go the ways of cannibis.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
Good point.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Hey, Lundström! Is that an umlaut over your name, or are those your tiny balls?
This post is LAW where prohibited by VOID. Prosecutors will be violated.
Would you like to go line by line and look at the bill of rights and list out how each has been abridged, misstated or outright ignored? They have all been f-with on some level...except perhaps the Third Amendment. But then again who doesn't quarter troops in there house these days?
I feel dumber for having to say this....YES the last sentence (and only the last) is a joke...
"...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
Oh nothing Mr. Van Winkle. Everything's fine, go back to sleep.
Oh, substantial non-infringing uses of Bitttorent exist. I certainly use and appreciate Bittorrent for legal puproses. My point is just that they're the minority in practice -- however my point may actually be wrong when you consider under-the-covers uses like World of Warcraft's use of Bitttorrent to distribute patches.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
This is the USA and the US constitution does not apply. :/
I wrote an article about this back in 2005. It details exactly how each amendment in the the US Bill of Rights has been rendered meaningless.
Free Martian Whores!
Target shooting.
Hunting.
Seeing if you can hit that tree stump at 150 yds.
Making loud noises and putting bullets downrange because you enjoy it.
And killing people, when they need to be killed.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
You may be right, but in the end the technology is rendering it all irrelevant. Simply put, the business model used by media companies overha the last century are untenable. It isn't the first time in history that new technology has rendered traditional methods obsolete, and it won't be the last. The most that can be won at this point is a brief a brief stay of execution.
<voice speaker='Foghorn Leghorn'>I say. I say. You use big words, but you don't seem to know how to use the little ones.</voice>
What's the world coming to when a perfectly good low-Slashdot-ID pissing match gets downmodded?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
You know you are right. There is no justice. The Pirate Bay is throwing lots of defenses out there to see what sticks, but among the defenses listed in TFA, one stood out as probably their best:
There you go. The hash exists prior to any making available. However, they still might get them since the hash might be considered a derivative work. However I don't know how much patience a judge would have with adjusting the claims again to be that they distributed derivative works illegally.
...
You never heard of the GPL?
Free Martian Whores!
"Senselessly prosecuting gun manufacturers and torrent indexes for what end users do with them really isn't ever going to be very effective, because the murderers and infringers aren't even the ones affected."
Actually it was quite effective, though not in the way intended by those bringing the suits.
When the gun manufacturers were sued and under intense legal and political pressure, they hung together. That is, until Smith & Wesson reached a settlement and agreed to the plaintiff's terms.
The effect was immediate. Smith & Wesson's sales plummeted, because the legal gun owning and buying population boycotted them. They went bankrupt within months. Their assets were liquidated, bought by an individual, who reconstituted the company and immediately repudiated the previous agreement.
This showed 2 things: first, the vast majority of revenue from firearms sales are to lawful buyers, thereby wiping out the assertion that these companies were making windfall profits from illegal sales; and second, it galvanized many gun owners, and the entire industry, in a way not seen before. People finally recognized that gun control needn't be implemented via statute, but could be implemented via an expansion of tort law. Gun owners saw that the weapons they already owned may not be under threat, but the ability to purchase one in the future was being attacked.
So yes, I'd say the lawsuits were very effective.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
AC wrote:
"This is the USA and the US constitution does not apply."
perryizgr8 responded:
and what exactly do you mean by that, sir?
------
While I can't claim to know what the AC was thinking, my best documented example relating to his statement would be the original and fairly central U.S. Constitutional function of trial by Jury. (see below)
The Constitutional Relationship Between the People and the Law
IMO: While our original constitutional republic was not very democratic, except for a few gains such as the extension of the franchise, the people have lost much of the power, defensive or otherwise, that they originally had.
true. but you still could not fill up even a small ipod
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
This is America and the USA constitution does not apply ./
However much M$, Disney, RIAA, MPAA would like your to believe otherwise, the fact is that copying copyrighted material is perfectly legal in all Berne Convention countries, unless the copyright owner says otherwise. Even perfectly then it may be allowed but with restrictions.
The GPL, ISC, and CC licenses come to mind as overwhelmingly common examples. Act on the empirical facts not opinions, half-baked or otherwise.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I thought this was SPARTAAAAAAAAAA!?
Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
.... think again. while i don't think these guys are innocents by a long shot, asking for jail time was always bullcrap.
They ARE innocent, thats the point. What they are doing is not ...
...is not relevant.
They are innocent and remain that way unless PROVEN guilty in a court of law. Even in places like Sweden where every city square has a green, pigeon-covered bronze statue of Bill Gates with a shiny, bronze-colored ass polished to a shine daily by countless lips and noses.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
we call it Limewire
Five words describe me on a normal day. two words describe me the rest of the time. can you guess?
Badass poses, turning off tvs, what /can't/ you do with guns?
It's the attitude that most /. users exhibit. I use TPB as a hub to commit a crime. We all do. Denying it is as stupid as thinking you can stop it. Fact of the matter is, we are perpetuating a sense of entitlement that does not exist.
You are criminals and it doesn't matter if you try to cover it up as some form of communication, that 'may or may not be illegal'. The bigger picture here is that there is a perfectly good defense, in court, to avoid being prosecuted. Just like OJ... He had a defense that allowed him to dodge a murder rap. It doesn't make the murder itself any less illegal.
You, all of you, claim to be so intelligent. Yet the only intelligent stance in all of this would be the 'I am breaking the law, and I can beat any charges regarding it, in court' stance.
Lol.
Hate to break it to you man but "Copy songs from friends and family" is infringing and not legal.
However-- the record songs from the radio is legal (done it myself). Hard to get a good copy with the DJ's talking. My XM radio is locked down-- no way to record from it.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
This is in Sweden, not the USA. The US constitution does not apply.
But we do have all the content in First Amendment to the United States Constitution in our own constitution: semi-official translation of The Swedish Constitution (another easier to navigate translation), including a Freedom of The Press Act. It was not just the French Revolution you inspired in the 18th century, there was a lot of European countries that started to evolve their own parliamentarism(*).
These kind of texts are pretty impossible to translate perfectly from Swedish to English, unfortunatly it get even more tedious in the translation, but you get the general idea.
(*) We actually never had it as bad as the French, we have never ever had feudalism (the closest thing we had was the thrall system, it was graduatelly outlawed until 1335 and was never as bad as the continental feudal system). With the exception of a few short lived (literally) despots we had an almost-democracy with elected kings and queens (it was kind of like the US Presidency, but they usually had less power, was not elected for a specific period, had to have their own private army (or be buddies with people who had one) and only landowners could vote) until Christian the Tyrant 1520-21. A weaker kind of parliamentarism continued to exist even under the new era of hereditary monarcy (that was actually instituted by the man who defeatad Christian the Tyrant, Gustav Vasa). Oh, and every free man had the right to say whatever he wanted (freedom of speak), at least at the Ting (Tingsfrid), he could get killed afterwards though.
Your article, although entertaining, has a lot of falsehoods. For example you claim that you cannot refuse a search of a car. In fact, you can and I have. Cops still need either a search warrant or a probable cause (screams coming from trunk) to search a private vehicle, and if they have neither than they may not force a search upon you.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Not at all. If you are being detained, the cop may perform a search of the interior of the car (pretty much anywhere you can reach) "for his safety". Also, if you are arrested and they tow your car, they can perform an "inventory search" of the interior. /the more you know...
Has anyone considered that they want to lose this case?
It would be great fodder for instilling fear into US lawmakers and motivate them to legislate specific laws to make linking content illegal. After all, they'd have to do it if it's the only way to protect our sacred copyright laws.
While you certainly have the legal right to refuse a search of your car, I have to question the value of this right when your practical right to refuse doesn't actually exist. Let me explain. I have been in a friend's car when we were pulled over. This was a smallish town, my friend definitely had a record of petty trouble, I assume the cop recognized him or the plates came back with a note or something. Anyway, cop asked if he could search the car, my friend says "No." Cop reaches into his pocket, pulls out a pack of cigarette rolling papers, says "Sir, seeing this in your glove compartment gives me probable cause to search. Please step out of the car." Of course my friend complains, but in the end, we obey the man with the gun. He searches, finds a relatively small amount of pot, arrests my friend (this was back before they would just write a ticket for small amounts). I was clean, so the cop let me drive my friend's car home (didn't hurt that I had a good reputation in the town, I'm sure).
And yes, my friend was tried and convicted of minor possession. I wasn't at the trial, but I assume my friend at least told his lawyer what actually happened. And either the lawyer decided it was useless to present in court, or the court ignored it when he did. Not to mention the fact that apparently, the court found possessing a completely legal substance that can be used in illegal acts to be probable cause.
I realize that one example of a corrupt officer doesn't invalidate our entire justice system, but it does illustrate a justified reason people might not have any faith in that system. Legal protections are no better (nor worse) than the people that enforce them. If you can not practically refuse a search, it doesn't really matter what the law says.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Was this a bad attorney? I imagine the pot shouldn't have been admitted into evidence (meaning he would almost have to be acquitted) since it was found in an unconstitutional search and seizure (violation of the 4th Amendment). You could have testified to this. Of course, it would have been your word and your friend's against that of the police officer.
Search engines offer links to multiple torrent sites as results to searches related to both movies and music. Is it then conceivable that the next step in this process would be to go after them for pointing the way?
The world is changing due to mass communication on an ever expanding network of networks. The only impeding factor in it's ability to grow to its full potential is that too many fail to accept it; and instead try to deter it.
sudo apt-get lost
Opening the bard door is easy. Rounding up all the horses, getting them
back in the barn, and closing that barn door is remarkably more difficult...
It's a shame there isn't some well known cultural artifact I could draw...
[cue the obvious cultural artifact]
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
That's fine in theory, but in practice you're screwed. The link is to a slashdot journal about two times my 4th amendment rights were violated and there wasn't a damned thing I could do about it either time.
I had no right of refusal in the car search; where I was parked gave them "probable cause". They "looked around" in my garage before I even knew they were there. Were I a multimillionaire I could possibly have launched a civil rights lawsuit, but for the average working man that's out of the question.
Free Martian Whores!
I know quite a few people who roll their own tobacco cigarettes. Hand rolled cigarettes are now called "rollups".
Free Martian Whores!
Google responds to take down requests, sometimes reluctantly if the take down is clearly unfair but nonetheless legal (as with the Scientologists), but they do do it. Google also isn't trying to make it easy for freeloaders to download copyrighted material without authorization.
Google (download software) download.com, Tucows, bothersoft, download3k, filehippo, Grants.gov, ZDNet, softpedia, Cisco, and oh look ThePirateBay.Org at bottom of first page of hits.
So Google, makes it easy for me to download copyrighted material without authorization, by searching websites (and caching), and directing me where to go. They give me a link, to a link to a file that gives me a link to download a packet that is part of a larger file, which can be combined with larger files.
I CAN create the worlds greatest and last O/S that it will ever need that works on ANYTHING, and give it away for free crushing the MS & Apple Empires.
or
I CAN create a unstoppable virus that sends its self out to any IP that machine has ever talked to for 24hrs and then melts the machine down.
or
I CAN download a copy of a movie that I am not allowed to buy (Region), can not afford to buy (My Welfare Check isn't in yet) , and is broadcasting freely over the airwaves. (HD TV / RADIO)
Not to mention there is a ton of stuff the poor staving exec's who have done nothing and create nothing, they resell someone elses work. Refuse to produce (Old Movies, Games, Programs)
That cant be gotten anywhere else. I still have ton of old NES games. I am the legal owner of those games, but because the hardware failed I can not able to play. And I still have a ton of old games & programs on floppy disk and CD which state I can copy all I want as long as only 1 copy is running at the same time.
Oh Yes I almost forgot for the past couple decades, the big selling point of VCR's and Cassette Players have always been things such as Dual Decks, Synchro Start, and High Speed Dubbing.
U.S. Laws ends at its borders, so if I'm not from the United States I have no reason to follow them, And the same can be said for the laws of the U.K. which means that a group of people used their morality at that point in time and said this or that is not right. What Group A says is Cool in the year 2000, Group B thinks is Evil in the year 1900, Law is subjective, self-serving, and at this point in time, bloated crap! Laws get added or added to all the time, but almost never get taken off. Everyone by now has seen some of the stupid laws, like no spitting on the sidewalk on Tuesdays. Or its illegal to sleep with your wife on a Monday before 8pm, Their both real laws, in someones dinky little circle, and I'm sure at the time they might have made some kind of sense, granted sick and twisted but sense to them at that time.
Morality can not be legislated... Pirating has always been around and will always be around in some way same or form. Hell people like Gates have even built massive empires upon it. (Dos was not even his when he first sold it)And Much like the Computer, The Gun, The Car, and The Club its a freaking tool much like those in power. It can be used for Good (Depending on how you define Good)or it can be used for evil (Depending on how you define Evil) /.end rant
Very possibly was a bad attorney - no one ever brought up the idea of me testifying. Of course, I was 15 or 16, my friend slightly older. And my friend already had a record for minor mischief, I think even a previous possession charge (I'm not sure about that, though). As you say, our word against the cop's? Unlikely to be persuasive.
And of course, the whole "bad attorney" thing is something else that casts doubt on the fairness of our judicial system. Poor? Get the overworked, unlikely to be top of his class public defender. Rich? Get the well-connected, well bona-fide attorney. When economic status plays an undeniable role in conviction probability, something smells a little funny.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
I eagerly raced over to Wikipedia wondering how in the world somebody had managed to make a legal metaphor so evocative that it conjured images of giant apes hurling barrels at Italians. A metaphor which called upon my geek childhood video game roots and was perfect for a court case dealing with software piracy. Even before reading the word-logic, it was already jumping off the page!
Such a metaphor is far beyond my writing abilities, so I was practically wetting myself in the anticipation of seeing a true master at work.
And then everything got lame and the color vanished from my world.
sigh.
-FL
No speakers + microphone?
Your memories are rusty. You're thinking of Donkey Kong. That's a whole other Kong.
-Peter
This is in Sweden, not the USA. The US constitution does not apply.
But we do have all the content in First Amendment to the United States Constitution in our own constitution: semi-official translation of The Swedish Constitution (another easier to navigate translation), including a Freedom of The Press Act. It was not just the French Revolution you inspired in the 18th century, there was a lot of European countries that started to evolve their own parliamentarism(*).
These kind of texts are pretty impossible to translate perfectly from Swedish to English, unfortunatly it get even more tedious in the translation, but you get the general idea.
(*) We actually never had it as bad as the French, we have never ever had feudalism (the closest thing we had was the thrall system, it was graduatelly outlawed until 1335 and was never as bad as the continental feudal system). With the exception of a few short lived (literally) despots we had an almost-democracy with elected kings and queens (it was kind of like the US Presidency, but they usually had less power, was not elected for a specific period, had to have their own private army (or be buddies with people who had one) and only landowners could vote) until Christian the Tyrant 1520-21. A weaker kind of parliamentarism continued to exist even under the new era of hereditary monarcy (that was actually instituted by the man who defeatad Christian the Tyrant, Gustav Vasa). Oh, and every free man had the right to say whatever he wanted (freedom of speak), at least at the Ting (Tingsfrid), he could get killed afterwards though.
Quoted in entirety because it is informative, insightful, and the reason "countless news agencies" don't have anything to worry from profiting from the work they do. Be they Swedish or USA.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
You're thinking of Donkey Kong.
Ha ha! I am indeed.
The Empire State Building-climbing beast and the Miyamoto video game creation exist as part of the same mythology in my head. What I forgot was that the world beyond my skull has a less squishy filing system. --It's probably why I get such a kick out of metaphoric language.
-FL
Ha Ha! Brilliant. Point to you!
It puzzles me way more when I make a troll comment and it's modded funny.
100 MPH while dangerous in many environments is not completely beyond drivable. The bar is a little higher than you expect.
But it's there.
>Hate to break it to you man but "Copy songs
>from friends and family" is infringing and not legal.
What are you talking about? It is completely legal! At least were I live which happens to be in Sweden which is also were the trial of the Pirate Bay is going on. The relevant section of the copyright law is 12.
That's cool. So then with a sufficient social network, there really isn't a need for the pirate bay.
It is tighter here. Sweden must focus more on large scale infringement.
Kinda bizarre tho-- you could make a couple hundred copies of a song this way in a week socially.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
>So then with a sufficient social network, there
>really isn't a need for the pirate bay.
To a certain extent, true.
>Kinda bizarre tho-- you could make a couple
>hundred copies of a song this way in a week socially.
Well, a person is just allowed to make one or a few copies for private use. So one can't make a copy to each of ones friend. However, you can make a copy for your friend who in turn make a copy for another friend and so on.
Yes, because they are a part of "the press". "The press" is given the privilege of free speech because it carries ads and distributes propaganda, so it can serve their glorious overlords. The rest of the public does not provide such service and therefore should not be allowed to speak, only to assemble and pray under the guidance of religious leaders.
Bill or Rights is written in such a clear, unambiguous language...
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
In Soviet Sparta
king overthrows you.
(gb2/b/)
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
(gb2/b/)
You can still tell the difference?
Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers