Slashdot Mirror
Big Swedish Filesharing Server Seized
SmugJerk writes "Authorities are continuing to apply pressure on Sweden's filesharing community amid the trial of several principals of The Pirate Bay filesharing site. Today they seized a fileserver containing about 65 terabytes of files, corresponding to around 16,000 full-length movies."
The same spin doctors that run the drug war are now being employed in the Imaginary Property war.
BTW. Despite the word association games the article plays, there is no comparison between a server containing 65TB of files and Pirate Bay, as Pirate Bay doesn't contain any copyrighted information that isn't supposed to be there.
...and just assuming the summary isn't stupid, I'd say this was a good thing. 65 TB of files is... fucking huge.
THIS is what I understand when someone talks about piracy; a few individuals who move about large quantities of media content.
Now the big question would be whether they made money that way, which I assume they did. After all, how do you pay for a 65TB server with corresponding bandwidth?
Today they seized a fileserver containing about 65 terabytes of files, corresponding to around 16,000 full-length movies
65 terabytes of files? Storage space of that magnitude is unfathomable! How many full length movies would that be? 16000 you say? That is still too large for me to process. If I wrote down all the files in 1s and 0s, how many football fields would that occupy?
Every slashdot user can divide 65 TB by the size of a DVD. Unfortunately, full-length movies are NOT a standard measure of storage space. Least of all on slashdot in the context of file-sharing.
Cheers!
Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
Even if the statement is not true (and you offer no actual evidence it isn't), this exaggeration comes from Antpiratbyrån, not from the media.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
"and you offer no actual evidence it isn't"
I didn't think that's how these things were supposed to work.
This space available.
How do I mod the entire article -1: Stupid?
this exaggeration comes from Antpiratbyrån, not from the media.
Maybe, but when the article contains such gems as 'the server is part of an international pirate network called "The Scene,"', you have to conclude that the reporter isn't exactly familiar with the field he's writing about and probably barely understood a word of what was being said to him.
Note that movies are being used here as unit of measurement. The article doesn't mention what portion of that data are movies or whether or not it contains any movies at all.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Right. His level of technical knowledge is another reason why he's not exaggerating the figures himself -- he's just mindlessly regurgitating what the Swedish Anti-Piracy guy told him.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Jeez, does anyone ever check their sources? MSNBC of all things? You know what the MS stands for do you?
Other than that:
There was not ONE server with 65TB but a "ring" of servers with "suspected" 65TB overall data. Police took down exactly one single server. All the other servers were shut down by the people running them so they could not be traced further.
[ENG] http://torrentfreak.com/large-pirate-topsite-raided-in-sweden-090306/
[SWE] http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article4582094.ab
[ENG] http://www.thelocal.se/18050/20090306/
Just the fact that they dub that "the biggest raid ever" is such a hilarious demonstration of how much they don't know.
"Ponten said the server ring had collapsed as a direct result of the raid." hahahaha
Did you mean, was redirected and pulled out of your sight? And even if it "collapsed" these are Gigabit sites, backup is easy and there is, well let me understate, definitely more than one of these.
The argument that "We don't host the files so we are not at fault" is extremely weak.
Now I know it's unpopular on here to go against TPB guys here on slashdot, but they could be considered accessories.
Just as if someone was robbing a bank and you hold the door open so they can escape easier.
Now there is no crime for "opening a door" in fact that would be typically a nice gesture.
But the act of aiding and enabling those who commit a crime to do so does make them liable.
Then what about "we didn't know they were robbing the bank so we are not in fault" this doesn't work because TPB were indeed the individuals who made a door in the first place, and with that creation bares a responsibility of who goes in and who goes out. Of which they were clearly notified that some individuals were committing crimes.
I understand blah blah you can't control me blah blah big media lots of money blah blah I don't want to pay for something I enjoy... but whatever get over it.
All media should be free. Okay done.. now if all media is free than all software should be free. okay done. Now all services and products should be free okay done.
It won't work. Complete freedom is not good because we need constraints for society, civilization, and technology to progress.
A fish in a fish bowl lives a fish out of a fishbowl dies.
If we were to make all media free it would in effect kill the fish, in this case big media, and if we were to do that then there would be:
No Star Wars, No Star Trek, No Family Guy, No Indiana Jones, No DailyShow, No SNL (pick the year you like), No Office, No Office Space... you get the point...
While some champion the new use of technology I for one am disappointed that more aren't championing protecting creative works.
So, you think people should be convicted for opening a door? or maybe just installing a door?
If there wasn't a door the bank robber couldn't get away! or in for that matter.
We can't convict people for setting up a web-site or hosting torrentfiles (linking to illegal AND legal content). The persons hosting TPB are not the one committing the crime.
It would be more like convicting someone who owns the paper where an advert for the door above (which was used in the bank-robbery). Insane.
I'm not against information exchange.
Information:
1. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.
2. knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.
3. the act or fact of informing.
Keyword is knowledge. I don't ever want to limit your knowledge or understanding of the world.
Creative works are different.
This is something someone has created in hopes that others will enjoy it and at the artists discretion would like to be compensated for that enjoyment.
But the act of aiding and enabling those who commit a crime to do so does make them liable.
As far as I know, copyright infringement is not a crime yet in any country.
I think your door analog doesn't really work. It's not like the administrators of TPB go through every single torrent, "opening the door" for each of them.
It's more like they installed an automatic door opener, even though they knew some people would use that to escape the bank after robbing it. I mean, the Pirate Bay founders are nice guys I'm sure, but they aren't going to hold the door open for millions of people, it's far easier to remove human involvement from the process.
You're wrong, they are not aware the robbery is happening.
TPB are the persons making the paper where the automatic door-opener is advertised.
So, we should'nt prosecute the robber? (the individual fileshares)
or the people making the door-opener (the one making the "original" copy)
but the people pointing out "you can buy door-openers over there"
Anyway, filesharing isn't robbery and opening a door isn't the same as hosting a website otherwise your morals suck since you think it's justifed killing everyone in the town (shutting down the internet) just in case someone might hold up a door for someone else.
The argument that "We don't host the files so we are not at fault" is extremely weak.
Indeed. Kinda like the argument that gun sellers only sell the guns, the don't fire them, is extremely weak.
All media should be free. Okay done.. now if all media is free than all software should be free. okay done. Now all services and products should be free okay done.
This is what's known as a non-sequitur.
If we were to make all media free it would in effect kill the fish, in this case big media, and if we were to do that then there would be:
No, it would not.
A "torrent distribution license?"
Are you fucking kidding me?
Fuck that, I don't want the state anymore in my life then it already is.
You're basically advocating censorship with that approach; that is exactly how it would be used.
In addition to being disgusting from a pro liberty standpoint, that sort of centralized control is antithetic to the entire point of the technology.
Assuming the artist is 25 years old, and lives until they're 80, that means they will be compensated for 125 years at current copyright levels. Is that enough compensation or should they have more ?
Yeah somebody's stealing, but it ain't us from them !
Yes they are aware the robbery is happening. They always post there responses (which I think are funny btw) to letters addressing them them about these problems.
They know it is going on. It has been brought to their attention. They permit it to go on.
They are involved in the transaction to some extent.
I never said file sharing is robbery.
Taking a creative work. Ripping it or recording it and distributing it to others without the permission of the creator is.
and everyone should do what they can to protect the creative works and the artists.
Can we get beyond the "If filesharing continues media will die!" arguement? It is wrong on so many fronts.
First of all, it's done. Filesharing is here to stay. There is no better example of wack-a-mole. You get rid of Napster, Kazaa, and Suprnova, but there are still more networks than I care to type that are healthy. It is -not- going away through litigation. Period. Sorry RIAA.
Despite this fact the music industry is still alive! 10 years since Napster and I haven't seen any Atlantic executive begging for change on a street corner! The members of Metallica still own mansions! Go figure! Your apocalyptic claims are simply unfounded.
Even if by some miracle every brick and mortar record/movie store ceased to exist, art still would exist. Are you familiar with the concept of an art college? I live in a city with a major one. The running joke is "I went to smart school, not art school" because you will not make money with a degree in fine arts. Sure, you can show your stuff at a gallery, someone may buy a few paintings, but you will also work in a coffee shop or some other lousy day job. Oddly enough, it doesn't deter people! People enjoy making art! Films would still exist. I think they may actually be better without someone who's sole concern is money overseeing their production. Example: I think Ze Frank's year long show was superior to The Daily Show at it's own game of leftist political comedy. No money involved. Good thing no one told him his fish was dead.
The argument that TPB is responsible for "killing big media" is extremely weak. In fact, you just asserted it without any proof. And even assuming for a minute that it was true, so what? Is doing something that makes "big media" unhappy a crime? If a new technology comes along that makes your industry obsolete, that's sad, but you have no right to demand that those who sell the new technology should go to jail. Absurd? But that seems to be your argument. If you don't like this summary, please point out how it's wrong.
Certainly big media is not making the profits they could if they could veto any new technology that they weren't ready for. Fortunately, they don't have that power, try as they might.
Yeah, just like Google is responsible for the content of the sites in their search index.
And TPB wouldn't? How could they refuse to do so, exactly? Have they been above the law? Untouchable by the police?
You are an industry shill, aren't you? I recognize those irrelevant, braindead arguments...
Clever signature text goes here.
I don't ever want to limit your knowledge or understanding of the world.
Creative works are different.
So, what you're saying is that there is nothing in any creative work that would in any way increase my knowledge or understanding of the world.
Well, then, I suppose we shouldn't have things like libraries and museums that look to preserve creative works for future generations.
How about we start with An Inconvenient Truth as the first thing that we make sure gets as little distribution as possible, because it has no information in it, being a "creative work". Yes, that's probably flamebait, but I'm trying to make a point, here, people.
Just think, if it weren't for capitalism and intellectual property rights, there'd be no Homer, no Sophocles, no Aristotle, no Confucius, no Buddha, no Leonardo, no Jesus, ....
Oddly, it appears that humans are good at making culture without payment and property rights.
I went to art school. I have made and sold artworks. You are so ignorant of reality it isn't funny.
Art is eternal, but the means for Artists to make money is evaporating.
No it isn't. If making money is their only concern then there are many other ways to do it, including commercial artist jobs.
As you stated Art school people make less. They do have to take jobs unrelated to there passion. Why is that?
So does pretty much everyone else, why is that? Also, how come you seem to be measuring a person's achievements by how much money they make? How vile is that?
Because unfortunately there are very few ways for artists to make a decent living wage.
Bullshit. Be good at what you do. Pursue whatever work you need to to pay the bills and continue with your artistic pursuits. And here's a hint for you, there are an aweful lot of non-artists who make shittier wages than the artists, most of the artists have at least some college under their belt. Artists used to have patrons, if all they wanted to do was artwork they found one.
So why take away from the industry that helps artists make money?
The only industry that helps artists make money is the one that manufactures the supplies they use. You severely misspelled "profits like a leech off an artist's hard work with no concern or care for the creations involved"
Yes some people are still doing well, but there is a whole new generation that are still trying to figure out if it's even worth it at all to pursue.
How is this different for ANYTHING else at any time? I'm sure at some point there were people wondering if it was worth it to go into buggywhip making, or take over the family ranch, or thousands of other professions that have waned throughout history. Try finding someone who hand-carves decorative stonework sometime, there used to be hundreds of them in any city.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Please do tell us how you come to this conclusion with regard to Swedish copyright law. Nothing you described is a legal analysis, let alone a legal analysis that takes into account Swedish copyright law. Also, nothing you said accounts for another seizure that occurred before the conclusion of TPB's trial.
As for the analysis you did give, you don't account for how we would simply have different art. Even if we have "No Star Wars, No Star Trek, No Family Guy, No Indiana Jones, No DailyShow, No SNL" and so on, we would have other art to enjoy. Perhaps we'd have other things to do that can be exploited commercially. The question is whether Star Wars, Star Trek, Family Guy, and other shows are worth an increasingly oppressive copyright regime and remarkably uneven commercial benefit even for those that participate in that system.
In any forseeable future commercial art can still exist but the particular commercial exploitative systems we have today might not exist (perhaps replaced by others no more ethical than what we have now, perhaps replaced by others which are far more reasonable like Magnatune). In other words, arguing that the current art goes away is not a serious argument for the status quo.
Digital Citizen
Do you believe that they should respond to takedown notices from a legal system that they are not part of? The DMCA isn't worldwide.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
Yeah I think they are taking the right steps.
Hopefully a solution will be found that is fair for everyone. It just is hard to see people download and distribute content that they don't have permission to do so and believe it is their right to do so.
That is actually scarier than most people on here realize.
When medical records go digital who's to say our medical records aren't fair game for distribution. I mean it's just files. It's just digital copies.
I do worry about future generations also.
Aka, sure, the Nazis were bad, but logically there should be some middle ground.
You are really off base, and I'm not going to be nice about it. JRGhaddar's main point was that if people cannot be compensated for the time and resources put into producing music, software, movies, etc. then there will be a drastic decline in their production and quality.
;)
This has nothing to do with Jews being genocidally exterminated by the Nazis. When muuh-gnu (your great-great-great grandparent) brought up the subject of Nazis, it was to provide a thoughtful point against somebody who said, in general, not to mod down an idea just because you didn't agree with it. He never tried to equate copyright protections with Nazi Germany.
I doubt anybody would argue that we would have the same amazing creative projects* undertaken if everybody had to do them for almost free. That's a silly argument to make, and your parent says it is silly, too.
* This is not a chance to tell us what you think about the quality of today's music, movies, etc. Please stay on topic.
Let's say you are a gun seller, and you have so many people that want to buy guns from you that you have no time to do a background check on all of them.
Speaking as someone who had a valid federal firearms dealer license for many, many years, I can promise everyone that you have no clue what you are talking about. If you sell a gun without submitting for the background check, you lose your license, period. The gun dealer doesn't do the background check, the BATF does, along with assistance from local police. (Long guns require a quick check, 1 to 24 hours, hand guns require the waiting period and a permit) This isn't new, this passed as the Brady Bill many years ago. You can't even sell personally owned guns that you had in your posession before you were licensed to someone.
Getting the license takes many months, a lot of fees, a background check by the FBI and being fingerprinted. Most dealers are not stupid enough to risk their license because "business is good".
And if you did sell a gun to someone without a permit, then they used it in a crime, then yes, you are liable (both in criminal and civil courts) and can spend time in prison, rightfully so.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
If someone makes your medical records publically available, is your first thought going to be "Oh no, now my files are going to be spread everywhere by those dastardly file sharers because they don't respect my private files" or is it going to be "WHY THE FUCK ARE MY MEDICAL RECORDS PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE!?!?"
Maybe you see medical records as being equivalent to MP3s, since they're both files...but medical records contain private information trusted in the hands of professionals, where they should remain encrypted with strictly controlled access, while MP3s contain audio that's regularly streamed over the radio and blasted out of boomboxes, sold to even the most irresponsible kid for pocket change. Definitely not private and with practically zero access control.
Your comparison is mind-bogglingly asinine.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
As far as I know, copyright infringement is not a crime yet in any country.
Are you nuts? Small-scale non-commercial infringement is not a crime. But what do you think will happen if you set up a commercial operation manufacturing and selling thousands of unauthorized copies of DVDs? You will be arrested for the crime of copyright infringement.