Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Bay Founder Begs For Hacker Ceasefire
Barence writes "Pirate Bay's co-founder has pleaded for hackers to stop attacking the sites of those organizations lined up against him. Peter Sunde is on trial with Pirate Bay's three other founders for allegedly distributing copyrighted material. The trial is about to enter its fourth day, and in a gesture of support for the four men hackers have begun assaulting plaintiff websites, beginning with that of the The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. The campaign has caused concern in the Pirate Bay camp, prompting Sunde to write a post titled 'We're winning, stop hacking, please' on his blog."
I can see how this can affect the general opinion against them but it shouldn't affect the case as such should it?
Law is law and different opinions or not agreeing with someone else is a totally different thing.
Understandable how he wants to play nice though.
Especially RIAA, IFPI, MPAA, et al. Aside from unnecessary negative publicity, taking down these static zero-hit sites accomplishes nothing. Immanuel Kant said it best, "If a site is hacked and no one visits the defaced page, can it be truly considered a hack?"
One should be open to the possibility of IFPI "hacking" themselves to gain popular support. It is, after all, instant sympathy. It wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
The unfortunate reality is that, depending on what happens, this could conceivably be construed as either (a) evidence of bad faith (which courts really don't like) or (b) an attempt to intimidate plaintiffs or plaintiff witnesses, which would be a MAJOR problem for the defense (who would then be under the gun to prove total noninvolvement).
Remember: all it takes is one trumped-up charge to slip past the court/jury to make things go down the shitter.
The copyright holders I keep hearing about continue to believe shit that has been struck down again and again. Apparently this case opened with a speech by the prosecution saying that the purpose of copyright was to ensure artists get paid and can control the use of their work. This has never been true and has been made abundantly clear by every court in the world that this is *not* the purpose of copyright. It exists solely to benefit the public in ways that a lack of copyright supposedly would not. As soon as the prosecution got up saying that shit the judge should have found him in contempt and thrown out the case. He's misleading the court and that shit should not be tolerated.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The way I see it, the plaintiff saw half the charges being dropped on the first day, panicked, and then defaced their own site to drum up some sympathy, knowing that it would put TPB in a bad light.
Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
a lynching is not very creative...
now if they had said, 'chop off thier balls and ram them down thier throats, then fileshare a recording of thier last moments as they die in pain, being sure to utilise dynamic range compression to make the sounds of them thrashing about in thier final moments before the lack of oxygen and blood loss kill them sound annoyingly louder than whatever was played immediately before it'
That would have been a start...
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
And this is why you are not a lawyer.
Merely raising the accusation colors perceptions of the defendants. That's why (whenever possible) the defense tries to get their client dressed up in a nice suit and tie, rather than his dailywear, and tries to get him in with a shave/trim to the beard and hair rather than having it look wild and crazy.
All it takes is one lawyer standing up in front of the jury and saying "and we believe Mr. X's co-conspirators are responsible for attacking our business website..." and it doesn't matter what comes after. People tend to remember the first thing they are told and assign it higher value than any counterargument, as shown by many, many psychological studies. That biases the jury and judge and makes the case harder to win.
Way back when I was in law school, my criminal law prof used this example to demonstrate the power of accusation (this in the "innocent until proven guilty" category of things):
... I wonder why that innocent person is in the backseat of a police car?" How many of you think "I wonder what he did?"
How many of you, when you see a cop car go by with someone in the backseat, think "hmmm
Most of me wishes TPB will wipe the floor with the vile scum that are the plaintiffs. But really, I know that if TPB win, things will just get worse as the plaintiffs will seek to defend their revolting monopolies in ever more extreme ways elsewhere. They'll be like Agent Smith: just bringing in more and more lawyers.
If TPB lose, then things will get even worse as file sharing is forced further into the darknet and whole cultures start to grow up effectively rejecting completely any moral regard for copyright in any form. The RIAA and the others have not a clue about how far things can go here, nor how damaging they will become in trying to prop up their failing business models.
And just in case anyone is tempted to say that I'm going over the top about being able to share my Pixies albums with strangers, let me assure them that they've missed the point by a mile.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"