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....
Don't read too much into half the charges being dropped, its common practice
The nitty-gritty begins about now.
The bosses of the entertainment industry(no, not that "liberal media" bullcrap) are to the democrats as the oil industry is the republicans. Same shit different name.
What?
I'm sorry you can't make a coherent argument, cause without one there's nothing to discuss.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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'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
They appeal. They will win in the higher courts, because there isn't a case according to any sane interpretation of Swedish law.
But the laws can be changed, swiftly and easily, in a country that doesn't have a constitutional court or supreme court. Especially when said country is member of a union that can, more or less, dictate laws to it's member states.
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.
Yeah the entertainment industry. Who wants that?
Seriously people. The media companies may have gotten out of hand. But let's be honest, the pirate bay IS assisting in copyright infringement. They may be legally in the clear. But it's really a technicality. I use bittorrent. I want fair copyright reform. I want rational penalties for breaking the law to fit the crime. Like the $20 parking ticket I get for failing to pay at a meter. But I also want the media companies to be protected.
Piracy may be grossly exagerated, but also is a real problem. The media companies may be stupid and behind the times but their concern is valid. Their product is becoming worthless before their eyes. The position of the government SHOULD BE to protect the property of its citizens. Without strong copyright law the GPL would be meaningless. What if someone contracted you to write code for them on a GPL project and then decides not to pay? How is that any different from taking code and using it without permission? Would you expect the government to protect your property?
Everyone says musicians should be making their money from concerts. Ok. Well what if people jump the gate and sneak into concerts? It's 'free' to the artists your presence isn't taking anything from them. Should the government not be on the side of the artist in that case?
The media companies have screwed up HUGE. They've violated laws. They've abused their influence to futily attempt to stop the inevitable tide of free but they're also attempting to defend something which SHOULD be defended.
They've gained too many rights. They've overstepped what they should be allowed. But that doesn't mean their rights should be thrown out either.
The media industry is one of our largest exports. It's an industry that does employ a great number of people whose work does deserve to be protected. The punishment no longer fits the crime but let's not raise piracy onto some elevated pedestal of justice.
"Ohhh but pirate bay can provide legal software as well." Yes. It can... but does it? I've never gone there to aquire somethign legally. It's called the PIRATE bay. They aren't about 'freedom' or 'justice'. They're about profiting through ad sales from providing copyrighted works. They aren't guilty of any crime but that doesn't make their service any more upstanding or deserving of respect.
They're just as low as the media companies sueing them in my opinion. I hardly think that the US protecting one of its largest exports is a bad position for the US government to take.
While I agree with you that here in the US with Obama appointing people to the peak of law enforcement we're in a bad way, this trial isn't in the US. It's in Sweden. Different strokes for different folks.
The Pirate party is actually a political force in Sweden. In particular the salient points of their platform were adopted by several political parties in the last election due to a groundswell of support. We could learn from them. They're in no danger.
Now I've posted enough on-topic stuff. Let's have an excerpt from TFA:
Sony complained in court that The Pirate Bay never remove torrents on copyright holders request, but that they have the ability to do so since they remove torrents that are named in a way that doesn't reflect the material they link to. They note that The Pirate Bay has a bad attitude to complaints and ridicules the complainer.
Aw... the pirate bay makes fun of takedown requests and that makes Sony sad. I think there's something in my eye.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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
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.
Entertainment existed prior to copyrights and vast media conglomerates, and it will be here after they're all gone. Maybe the day of huge record companies and a few entertainers literally having money poured on them is over.
Governments are not doing these companies and their shareholders any favors by putting off the inevitable. The Japanese banned firearms in attempt to protect the traditional medieval model, and simply ended up having to import foreign experts a couple of centuries later to get the industry going again.
Whether this is all moral or immoral is absolutely meaningless. To be sure cannons are more destructive and impersonal than swords and longbows, but cannons won in the end.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Piracy may be grossly exaggerated, but also is a real problem.
I have yet to see any evidence of this. In fact, every serious study I've seen of the issue indicates that it's not only not a problem, but beneficial.
Without strong copyright law the GPL would be meaningless.
Apples and oranges. The GPL does not depend on the ability to get insanely high damages applied to broad classes of people, or to get ISPs to block network access, or any of the other crap the record labels have been trying to do.
What if someone contracted you to write code for them on a GPL project and then decides not to pay?
Not content with apples and oranges, now you decide to throw in a tire iron? That example doesn't even have anything to do with copyright; it would be a contract dispute.
They've gained too many rights. They've overstepped what they should be allowed. But that doesn't mean their rights should be thrown out either.
Doesn't it? In the first place, I question whether or not companies ought to have copyright ownership at all. Particularly in the case of music, I think the copyright should rest with the artist.
Second, I think the media industry is losing this battle so badly precisely BECAUSE they overstepped so far. They've extended copyright terms to such ridiculous limits that the average person has no idea that copyrights expire. This completely undermines the social contract that justifies copyright, and removes all moral force from the law.
People are generally honest, and generally willing to pay for good value. If copyright scope and terms were reduced to a reasonable level (which should, BTW, be shorter than the original 14 + 14 years, based on the theory underlying copyright law), then people would be able to see and understand the social contract, and there would be a much stronger moral imperative not to infringe.
In other words, if piracy actually does begin to hurt the media industry (a point upon which I remain skeptical; consider the example of Baen books, which publishes DRM-free and encourages copying -- and significantly boosts their sales by doing so), then it will be a simple case of reaping what they sowed.
I have no sympathy.
I do have sympathy for musicians, artists, authors, filmmakers, etc., you know, the people who actually create the entertainment we love. And I appreciate that they need to eat and that some forms of entertainment production are hugely expensive. But I'd rather focus on approaches that allow us to pay them. And I really have no doubt that such exist. As long as people want entertainment, and have money to spend on it, the people who create it will have a way to get paid.
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.
Copyright and patents, in all its current forms, is a barrier to free trade. It claims that your hardware and physical stuff somehow has claim on it by someone else. hey also serve to segregate "Inside Country" from outside the country, as non-USA countries do not abide by US patent law.
---Why pirate stuff when you can support the artist by paying them for their work?
They already did the work. Why should be indebted to them after the fact? I dont pay the electrician for every time I turn on the lights. I dont pay the carpenters who made the framing in this house whenever I go inside. I dont pay the car companies whenever I drive to and fro. So, why should I pay for a download with a cost that approaches 0?
---What? You don't consider it to be good enough to pay for? Why are you wanting it then?
The cost is not reasonable to many people. If instead, the cost was $.10 per song, much more purchases would be made. DRM also makes these crippled music files very undesirable. Also, many songs are not online with a legal service, so convenience wise, Piratebay is the only option.
Copyright is one of the biggest monopoly abuses in this country, considering how it has been extended and perverted. It deserves to be ignored. The number of torrenters (on 'illegal torrents') have a mandate by sheer numbers.
This is the USA and the US constitution does not apply. :/