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.'"

19 of 685 comments (clear)

  1. if you think it's over... by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .... 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....
    1. Re:if you think it's over... by JorDan+Clock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whoa there, skipper. Their primary (and sole) income is adspace. They don't sell the copyrighted content. That's the big issue here, so I wouldn't be so quick to right it off as simple legal or illegal.

    2. Re:if you think it's over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      .... 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 against any law in their jurisdiction. Some people with a lot of money WANTS it to be illegal.

      This may be a fine line but its an important one, there is NO copyrighted material on TBP, they don't even link to it, they index links. And indexing services (like search engines) are specifically exempt from legal action based on automated indexing.

      I'll even go so far as to admit that there are more .torrents up on TBP that are pointing to files being distributed without authorization than there is the alternative. But thats still not their problem. In fact if they try to enforce rules based on content they actually will become liable.

      As far as their reputation for ridiculing people serving them legal notices... why shouldn't they?

      If a $200 dollar an hour lawyer can't spot the problem in quoting US law at people who are based out of Sweden he deserves to be ridiculed!

    3. Re:if you think it's over... by Wescotte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does that mean the MPAA could sue any company who runs ads on the website?

    4. Re:if you think it's over... by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're heading towards a nanny state when it's the law's responsibility to prevent crime rather than find and prosecute those who commit crimes.

      Be careful who you say that to, as a lot of people actually want exactly that. We don't want to give them more fuel to aid their crusade.

    5. Re:if you think it's over... by rdnetto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but by profiting the alleged millions from other people's work, frankly they are just scum.

      They don't profit from other's people work (at least not the content owners), they profit by providing a communications channel. You might as well argue that an ISP which sells a connection with an extremely large cap (or none at all) is profiting from copyright infringement, since that's what the majority of users will use it for.

      N.B. I live in Australia, so 'extremely large cap' means 100+ GB.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    6. Re:if you think it's over... by Toonol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google profits from porn, Craig's list profits from stolen items and prostitution, network news profits from abducted young women.

    7. Re:if you think it's over... by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Although I have a different viewpoint, your last point is simply erroneous.

      "Because those responses are evidence against them. They show an attitude of not caring about whether the rights-holders' copyright is infringed. Those responses could be bad for them in front of a jury."

      They are not "evidence" at all. They are expressions of opinion, which is an entirely different thing. You don't have to agree with a law to abide by it. You don't have to even be polite about that law outside of court. In the absolute extreme, it could be viewed as potential for displaying their intentions absent other evidence but you're still on boggy ground because they can just claim it's satire etc.

      Additionally, if you genuinely believe that you have broken no law, then it doesn't matter at all. Most (if not ALL) of those letters referred to US law, which DOES NOT APPLY in Sweden - and the majority of rebuttals from TPB (although immature) say this quite plainly - they don't believe they have broken any *Swedish* law, and they are on *Swedish* soil. That *is* cause to be mocking. Even a lawyer writing a reply to such a request would be mocking, although they would probably be more articulate.

      Just because someone is rude, obnoxious or beligerent, doesn't mean they aren't perfectly correct and within their legal rights to be so. If they behaved like that IN COURT, then you have another matter entirely - the one of contempt - which would be stamped out and prejudice their case heavily. By the looks of it, they have MUCH more sense than that. I'm not sure I'd go for the publicity shenanigans leading up to the court case - I'd want the judge to see that I was taking the whole thing very seriously - but the letters mean absolutely nothing, legally speaking. I'll be very surprised if the court entertains any claims on the basis of what's in the letters without a TON of other, real evidence too.

      Imagine a nutter writes to you claiming you stole his magic bear's porridge. He is forceful, quotes US law at you (even though you live in a country not subject to it), threatens to sue, etc. You decide to post it online and write a mocking letter in reply. Now, if that nutter happens to be very rich and takes you to court, do you really think that the court would take your reply seriously and hold it as evidence that you did in fact steal his magic bear's porridge? You could even SAY SO in the letter ("Yes, it was me that stole your magic bear's porridge, and tasty it was too!"). It wouldn't matter. The courts recognise that not everyone is mature when they are outside the courtroom and that the reply is not serious, because the claim was ridiculous. TPB case is a similar thing. The replies to UNENFORCEABLE legal requests which were obviously fabricated and incorrect don't really matter, until someone brings it before a Swedish court. That's when the game stops and you have to watch what you say.

    8. Re:if you think it's over... by daveime · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Try searching Google for "[latest movie] torrent".

      So we will sue Google next yes for "facilitating in copyright infringement" ?

    9. Re:if you think it's over... by Xiaran · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why live with it. What the bottom line on all of this has nothing to do with what we should or should not do to prevent "piracy" or who is and isnt accountable for allowing it to happen. The bottom line is simply this : The tradional way in which audio, video and textual content is distributed is over. Its finished. Its the automobile replacing the horse and carriage and there is nothing that anybody can do about it. History shows us time and again how this old story plays out. Weather it be the horse whip and buggy manufaturer claiming that cars are dangerous and should not be able to travel faster than a horse, or Luddites smashing cotton spinning machines to protected the cotttage industries they upsurped. The bottom line is that the world has changed again and we learn to live with it.

    10. Re:if you think it's over... by Upphew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So The Pirate Bay is like a gun.

  2. Re:I hate to say it... by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. Loss of goodwill? by overzero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. legendary 'King Kong' defense by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  5. Re:FUCK ARTISTS by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:I hate to say it... by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  7. No market, no sale by Skapare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  8. Re:I hate to say it... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:if you think the 1st amendment is over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the USA and the US constitution does not apply. :/