Pirate Bay Trial Ends In Jail Sentences

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pirate Bay Trial Ends In Jail Sentences

Posted by timothy on Thursday April 16, 2009 @11:10PM from the even-non-commercial-use dept.

myvirtualid writes "The Globe and Mail reports that the Pirate Bay defendants were each sentenced Friday to one year in jail. According to the article, 'Judge Tomas Norstrom told reporters that the court took into account that the site was "commercially driven" when it made the ruling. The defendants have denied any commercial motives behind the site.' The defendants said before the verdict that they would appeal if they were found guilty. 'Stay calm — Nothing will happen to TPB, us personally or file sharing whatsoever. This is just a theater for the media,' Mr. Sunde said Friday in a posting on social networking site Twitter." Update: 04/17 12:16 GMT by T : Several updates, below. Thanks to all the readers who have sent in various other links related to this news, including the dozens who noted the BBC's version of the story. Reader a_n_d_e_r_s submits a link to the verdict itself (large PDF, in Swedish), and writes "The sentencing is not unexpected (max verdict is 2 years in prison) and the damages is about 1/3 of what the companies that has requested damages had requested. Notice that no punitive damages is applicable." Reader yendor writes, "More details are coming and The Pirate Bay will be holding a press conference at 15.00 CET.

HakanRoswallGoatse points out that besides the jail term imposed (and barring the results of planned appeals), "the four men will have to pay $3,6 million in compensation for lost sales to 17 media companies. Among them are: Warner Bros. Entertainment, MGM Pictures, Columbia Pictures Industries, Twentieth Century Fox Film, Sony BMG, Universal, EMI, Blizzard Entertainment, Sierra Entertainment, and Activision."

46 of 1,870 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Let me be the first one to say it ... by itsme1234 · 2009-04-16 23:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

... it sucks.
1. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by Rou7_beh · 2009-04-16 23:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well it was pretty predictable. This is what judicial systems are made for! Putting people the state does not like in jail.
2. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by crosbie · 2009-04-16 23:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  One could imagine a trial in New York, 90 years ago that would probably find a similar crew guilty of directing tourists to speakeasy clubs, i.e. assisting in the sale of liquor.
  Prohibition was abolished 14 years later.
  Not long now...
3. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by PopeRatzo · 2009-04-16 23:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is what judicial systems are made for! Putting people the state does not like in jail.
  Almost. It's really for the state putting the people corporations don't like in jail.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
4. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by AlterRNow · 2009-04-16 23:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You said it yourself:
  "I wanted to find and beat the crap out of the guy who made it available."
  The guy who made it available != TPB
  
  --
  The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
5. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by crosbie · 2009-04-17 00:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I was trying to come up with a similar situation in which those who abet crimes by the public are found guilty of those crimes, whilst the public continue to commit them in ever larger numbers and find nothing reprehensible in their behaviour.
  Slavery, segregation, prohibition and copyright are all laws that derogate from people's natural right to liberty, whether in the interests of commerce, racism, or religion.
  Copyright of 1790 was as unconstitutional then as it is now. It's just that it's only when its privileging of publishers to constrain culture actually starts affecting people directly that they realise something's gone terribly wrong. A reproduction monopoly for the owners of printing presses may be tolerated by printers and the authors that seek their patronage, but woe betide them if they seek to enforce it against the population at large.
  Today we are all printers. The market for copies has ended.
6. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by rjhubs · 2009-04-17 00:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm going to go out on a limb here and say racism is a bit bigger of a cause than the 'right' to make copies of things you own...
7. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by umeboshi · 2009-04-17 00:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I certainly feel free in redistributing many of the files that I have obtained from others who felt like sharing them in the first place. Fortunately, I haven't yet experienced any limitations to that freedom, at least from any government. I've been taught how to copy records, tapes, and software from a very early age, and have grown up in an environment where this was encouraged. It saddens me to hear about people who are jailed for such activity, as it goes against the values that I was raised on.
  Perhaps drinking coffee isn't worth going to jail for. It's not like fighting for freedom or anything. What happens if it's outlawed tomorrow? Does that make it worth going to jail for. Is the fact that it's likely that it won't be outlawed due to the fact that a large number of people drink it? Maybe instead of using coffee as an example, I could try using tea from dandelion leaves. What if it was outlawed tomorrow? Outlawing that would be a lot less likely to cause the same sort of disruption. Would that be worth going to jail over? It's not like drinking it is like fighting for freedom or anything.
  How many insignificant freedoms have to be whittled away until they break the skin and strike a nerve?
8. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by Hurricane78 · 2009-04-17 00:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This has nothing to do with the state. States are irrelevant nowadays. It is for enforcing power to those who have and invest the most money in it. The problem is:
  - The good side acts too fair.
  - The bad side tries every trick in the book, every trick not in the book, every half-legal trick, every illegal trick, and then some.
  Of course the bad side is going to win. They just are more ballsy/gutsy. (Dunno the correct English word for "dreist" in German.)
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
9. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by QuantumG · 2009-04-17 00:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sigh.
  It wasn't that she was too tired. It wasn't even happenstance. She got on the bus with the intention of sitting in the "whites only" part of it and getting arrested. It was the fact that she didn't back down and appealed to a higher court that made it civil disobedience. Unfortunately the whole message of civil rights never moved beyond the racism issue. Civil rights isn't just about racism.
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
10. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by ScentCone · 2009-04-17 00:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The only reason why I don't have the right is because there's a law that takes it away.
  
  No, you have that backwards. It's not your "right" to reproduce someone else's work that's "taken away," it's the rights of the creator of that work to have a say in how and when its reproduced that are being preserved. If you don't like the fact that an artist or other creator wants to be in charge of their own work, then just walk away. You obviously don't like that artist anyway, since you don't respect the decisions they've made about how and when they wish to publish what they've created. There are plenty of artists that do grant you the license to do whatever you want with their work. Why not simply support them, instead of ripping off someone else?
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
11. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by kripkenstein · 2009-04-17 00:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  I'm looking for a well written and researched piece that can tell me why TPB and other such sites are good for society, not some crap "I just want stuff for free" argument.
  Will, IMHO the arguments are pretty straightforward:
  
  TPB is just linking to material. They don't host it. Yes, they 'make it easier to infringe', but the line between what TPB is doing and what e.g. the roads are doing (helping bank robbers get away, the horror!) is one of degree, and more importantly, it isn't clear where the line is - or if one can be drawn. Yet the court drew the line, and the consequences will be felt in many other areas, to society's detriment.
  Many support TPB because they are against 'intellectual property'. You say you make money from that, so obviously you are going to believe it is a worthwhile concept. Yet, it is a very troubling and damaging one. This is particularly evident with patents, but is also present with copyright law.
  
  Perhaps the simplest way to make this clear is to consider that existing copyright law is hopelessly outdated and irrelevant to the digital age. Notice that we don't 'copyright' jokes. Why not? Well, people retell jokes, have been doing so for millenia, and nobody has even thought to 'tax' each retelling of a joke - it would be futile and silly. And yet the exact same thing has happened to digital media - people can share files very easily and are naturally motivated to do so. Preventing this - through DRM or the law - is tantamount to trying to change the natural order of things, like a comedian trying to charge people whenever they tell his joke. It's laughable. And yet we have just seen people sentenced to jail in a parallel situation.
  Another reason Slashdot is in favor of TPB is that they are basically the onle group proudly standing up - in a showy way, even - against the madness of the RIAA et al., by which I mean suing their customers, attempting to maintain a hopeless business model, etc. In that sense, TPB is certainly 'good for society', regardless of whether you consider their actions detrimental in other respects.
  
  Yes, TPB are also childish in how they do this, but at least they do it. So even older Slashdotters like myself have some fondness for TPB, even while at the same time we are somewhat embarrassed by their antics.
12. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by Dunkirk · 2009-04-17 00:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Copyright is what makes the GPL work, so please do NOT "end copyright now." Eliminate software patents, repeal the DMCA, shorten the LIFETIME of copyrights, but don't END them.
  If there are no copyrights whatsoever, then people will have a much harder time getting the things that are BEING copied right now, as without the financial incentive, there will be much less interest in making things people WANT to copy.
  If ABC can't control the merchandising of the show Lost -- like, if they were to produce it, and someone downloaded it and started selling DVD's of it at Target -- ABC wouldn't produce TV shows, and I happen to like Lost, thank you very much.
  I hate DRM and the various media industries' attempt to limit our time and format shifting as much as the next guy, but ethos like "information wants to be free, man" just cheapens the argument for all of us.
  
  --
  Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
13. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by Mr2001 · 2009-04-17 00:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm actually more interested in the ethical side of things. Why is making it easy for people to steal ethical?
  Because copying isn't stealing: no one is deprived by it.
  The reason stealing is unethical in the first place is that it takes property away from its rightful owner. Someone steals your car; you can't drive to work the next day, because you have no car.
  If new technology allowed car thieves to copy cars (at zero cost) instead of stealing them, just about everyone would win. Car manufacturers would lose out, since we'd no longer need massive factories to build cars, but car designers would still earn a living as long as the public was still hungry for new car designs.
  It's the same with software. P2P has made the distribution channels obsolete, but we still need programmers to write new software, so they can still earn a living as long as the public is hungry for new programs. They just have to think of their "product" as a service -- their labor, which they perform all at once -- rather than a disc or a download that they sell over and over.
  
  --
  Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
14. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by Shrike82 · 2009-04-17 00:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  By copying and distributing the work of others you reduce the income they get in reward for their work. Take it to the extreme: if everyone in the world got hold of movies, music or software for free, why would artists and developers continue producing original works if they're receiving no reward for it? A warm fuzzy feeling that people like your creation doesn't put a roof over your head, nor does it put food on the table.
  
  --
  You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
15. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by QuantumG · 2009-04-17 00:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Copyright law is preserving the right of the artist to attempt to profit from their work without the active interference of others.
  And what exactly do you base this naive belief on?
  Please, thrill us with your legal history skills.
  Cause the rest of us are over here clinging to beliefs like copyright is supposed to exist to encourage people to create works that they otherwise would not..
  
  --
  How we know is more important than what we know.
16. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by xaxa · 2009-04-17 00:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Giving money to charity, or volunteer work, doesn't put a roof over my head, or put food on the table. People do all kinds of things for the warm fuzzy feeling.
  Without software copyright, people will still write software. It does useful stuff.
  Without art copyright, people will still create art, to show their skill and for pleasure. What is produced would probably be different.
  In any case, there's no need to take things to this extreme. 12 years has been suggested as a reasonable term for copyright.
17. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by berend+botje · 2009-04-17 01:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't want stuff for free. I don't need to get it for free.
  
  There is a lot of material that isn't even in print anymore. Nobody can be arsed to print it, even when there is still demand for it.
  
  You might argue that the publisher has the right to withhold the material from the public. I don't think that is ethical.
  
  It is not about the money. It's about culture. If you can't see that, you have a very shallow mind. Or you're an industry shill, perhaps.
18. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by DrgnDancer · 2009-04-17 01:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Second, an artist is driven to create, regardless of whether or not he is compensated with money.
  I am SOOOO tired of this argument. Artists may be driven to create, regardless of financial compensation, BUT they are generally able to create more and do so more competently when they receive such compensation. Musicians of the exact same level of talent sound completely different when recored in the garage with a few mics and edited with Garage Band than they do when recorded in a professional studio with engineers and professional sound editors. Guys who don't have to work 8 hours a day as a waiter have more time to practice.
  Don't even begin to talk about the cost of producing a even an inexpensive movie. Guys that produce little independent movies on their credit cards? For one thing they are rare, for another they do it with the hopeful expectation that they'll make the money back after release, and for a third they almost universally say the movies could have been better if they'd had more money to spend on it. What kind of movies do you like? Were you a big fan of LOTR? Hundreds of millions to make. Did you like Batman? Same. Even if you like classics like Spartacus or even the Maltese Falcon you're talking millions of dollars. "Low budget" movies like "The Blair Witch Project" cost in the hundred of thousands of dollars to make. Most stuff on You-tube was made for cheap though. Go see what you get for entertainment out of "artist[s]... driven to create" without a budget.
  Even assuming that you're somehow right. That artists will somehow continue to create great stuff without budgets or equipment, is it fair? I get paid for my skills, why shouldn't they? Why are technical skills or construction skills more privileged than artistic skills? Because YOU want to consume everything you can without worrying to much about what some guy had to do to become that great on the guitar or film that awesome fight scene?
  I'll again make it clear that the way current content companies are going about it is probably both wrong and ineffective. There needs to be someway to make money off of content that the vast majority of users will accept, while at the same time adequately compensating the artists, but guys like you aren't helping the process either. "I'm doing whatever I want, I refuse to consider that any of this has real value even though I want it, and anyway famine is good for the artistic soul" is not a solution, it's a large part of the reason that no solutions are forthcoming. The industry is so afraid of people like you that they are largely paralyzed, and won't move forward.
  
  --
  I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
19. Re:Let me be the first one to say it ... by tinkerghost · 2009-04-17 04:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If I had spent 2-3 years creating a novel, I certainly don't want somebody taking my labor without pay... it can go into the public domain after I'm dead, but not before.
  Why is a creative writing more important than actual inventions? Do you really think that your "Great American Novel" is more important than the Heart/Lung Machine or a cure for AIDS?
  As an inventor, I can get a max of 20 years out of a patent, and it costs me close to 40K to do that. Copyright is currently set at your lifetime plus 70 years, for free. Why should an artists work be valued so much higher than an inventors? Let's not forget that as a scientist, I can't get any form of protection for my work - raw science is neither patentable nor copywriteable.
  So, why exactly is your story or painting so important to the world that you can demand payment for it for the rest of your life - and the life of your children most likely - with no added effort or cost while scientists aren't allowed to demand any payment and inventors are limited to 20 years for which they have to pay substantial sums of money?
  I have never heard a good answer to that one. If you can't answer it, then you might want to reconsider your position. If copyright was structured like patents you would see 90% of the material going to public domain within 10 years because it's not profitable to pay to keep the copyright viable. Because it's free as in beer, people hang on to the copyright because it might make them a nickel some day down the line.
  I don't download music, but it annoys the fuck out of me when people like you prattle on about some mystical god given right to profit forever for writing some drivel while people that actually make significant contributions to society are either denied any protection or are forced to pay repeatedly for the right that usually ends just as the demand for it peaks.
Theatre? by MosesJones · 2009-04-16 23:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Are they getting a bit delusional? Calling it theatre after being sent to prison for a year doesn't sound like theatre it sounds like hard time and the $2.4m fine doesn't look too much like theatre.
Whether you agree or not with the judgement its very hard to describe imprisonment and multi-million dollar fines as theatre for the media. I worry that they've drunk a little too much of the Kool-Aid.

--
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Disgraceful by Crookdotter · 2009-04-16 23:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

but expected. A good question is - will this stop anyone from filesharing at all?
1. Re:Disgraceful by umeboshi · 2009-04-16 23:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, I expect that ISP's placing caps on the volume of transfers will do more to limit filesharing than the legal system is able to accomplish.
Re:Good tactic ? by silentace · 2009-04-16 23:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you take the site down then your admitting you did something wrong. I don't know much about the case, but thats how i see it.
Google does the SAME thing, but no one cares. by VShael · 2009-04-16 23:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Search in google "filetype:torrent Wolverine" and see what it gets you.
From the article, the guys don't seem worried. Appeals are forthcoming.
So, basically... it's the end of the web by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-16 23:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

So, let's say I run a website on which users could provide a link to copyrighted material, and then a user goes ahead and copies that material in a way that violates that copyright. Furthermore, I make it easy for users to search for those links or associated information describing them, and I make some money from the site by having advertisements on it. At that point I could be charged and face potential jail time?
Wow. Will there be any websites hosted in Sweden after this?
What are jail-worthy crimes? by bigberk · 2009-04-16 23:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah so we've known for some time that running a file sharing site for illegally redistributed content is bad news from a legal liability standpoint ... but I am still surprised by what kinds of activities in our modern age get you jail time.
Is the fundamental issue "loss of money"? Well, the executives of the big banks in the world -- men like Charles Prince (Citigroup), Angelo Mozilo (Countrywide - collapsed), Alan Schwartz (Bear Stearns - collapsed) -- have lost far more money. They have lost money for investors, customers, and more recently taxpayers and even your children and your children's children. The damage caused by the systems they were responsible for is far greater han any of these file sharing misdemeanors. This is like comparing an out of control leaf fire in someone's backyard to the carpet bombing of a city.
But what happens to investment bank executives who lost ridiculous sums (we're talking trillions) and ruined the lives of many? Probably nothing... hell, the previous Goldman Sachs CEO was put in charge of the US Treasury Department (Paulson) where he proceeded to redistribute public money to colleagues. Some may argue that men like Paulson, Greenspan, and Bernanke are committing acts of treason by taking money out of the national treasury and diverting it into the hands of the wealthiest elite, the top 1% of society.
But don't expect to see any of these men in jail any time soon. Because in this world, the people who commit the grandest acts of financial theft and destruction are rewarded with lavish salaries and pensions, while the jails are filled with pot smokers, shoplifters, and guys who run file sharing web sites.
1. Re:What are jail-worthy crimes? by fabs64 · 2009-04-17 00:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Steal $100, go to jail. Steal $1m, go to the Bahamas.
  I think we can all learn an important lesson here.
Re:The questions that come to mind by oneirophrenos · 2009-04-16 23:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

2- Where can we donate to help pay the fine?
You really want to subsidize the recording and movie industries with your money?
Let me be the first one to ask it ... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-16 23:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

So, what are all the users of TPB considering doing to support
the folks behind TPB, who have supported them, in some way, in
past?
I don't think it's enough to celebrate the continuation of TPB
while forgetting the hassle, that its makers & operators have
to go through, now that they've been taken to task for TBP.
What? Consider them just happy martyrs, as you go on using the
legacy they've left you (as if they were dead)?
Well...? :-/
1. Re:Let me be the first one to ask it ... by erroneus · 2009-04-17 00:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  TPB has ads? I'll be damned... you're right. I run adblock plus and never noticed the ads until I disabled it.
  If they run ads, then their denial of commercial interest to the judge may be misplaced. If I were judge, I might presume the same thing: Advertisements = commercial revenue. Does anyone have any theories as to how it might be viewed any other way?
2. Re:Let me be the first one to ask it ... by castironpigeon · 2009-04-17 00:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So, what are all the users of TPB considering doing to support the folks behind TPB, who have supported them, in some way, in past?
  I'm sure they'll consider doing many things. They might consider sending a donation to pay for the fines. They might consider boycotting *AA titles. They might consider getting on the /. soapbox and adding a comment to this thread. They might consider some sort of public demonstration.
  
  They probably won't do anything. I for one will continue reading my morning /. and then find some way to occupy myself for the next 7 hours.
  
  There's no such thing as public outrage anymore. I saw a group of old folks standing near a busy intersection the other day holding up signs to bring home US troops. Is that the 21st century version of public outrage? That's a handful of old folks holding up signs on a street corner. Hardly the second American revolution.
  
  The individuals in charge of society know that the general public is an impotent, flabby creature. The public provides them with sustenance and makes feeble noises when chunks are torn from it, but it won't defend itself from attack. It knows better than to try.
  
  When individuals take action, those in charge strike back. They know to strike early and hard. This trial is a perfect example. Does anyone seriously think these guys will become martyrs? Martyrdom implies that others will be inspired by their sacrifice to pick up the fight where they fell. Another tracker might pop up. Hooray? If it gets big enough, it'll get cut down again.
  
  Meanwhile the folks in charge tighten their control over this little issue because they see it's growing out of hand. ISPs will get in on it. Content distributors will get in on it. The government has always been in on it by virtue of its existence as the legitimating force of those in power. This little issue of file sharing will be brought under control. Not stopped, mind you, because there are maybe 2% of the file sharing population who actually would take a stand if pressed to it. There will be devices (IRC, Usenet) allowed to continue existing to act as pressure valves to pacify that active minority. Everyone else will go on with their happy, cattle-like existence and more or less forget that this happened because there are, after all, more important things to worry about. Speaking of which, my hour's almost up and I still have /. to read.
  
  --
  mmmm...forbidden donut
3. Re:Let me be the first one to ask it ... by DAldredge · 2009-04-17 01:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What gives you the right to take/use that which isn't yours?
4. Re:Let me be the first one to ask it ... by snaggen · 2009-04-17 02:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You are part of the problem with this kind of debate... you think it is illegal to use TPB. It is not! I download non copyrighted material from TPB and I commit no crime. There are quite a lot of non-copyrighted material on TPB.
  TPB is not doing anthing that google doesn't! Except they have the word "pirate" in the name, which indicate that they might know that people may use it to download copyrighted material. But it isn't illegal to provide infrastructure even if you suspect people may use it to commit crimes... Just look att all the roads that are wide and strait... you may suspect that someone will drive to fast on them, but they are still legal to make.
  This verdict is a political one... so sweden have gotten 4 political prisoners. Wonder if Amnesty International will take action now?
5. Re:Let me be the first one to ask it ... by superbus1929 · 2009-04-17 03:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm going public with my support, and I don't even use the Pirate Bay.
  
  My feeling is that Sweden only went after them because they faced international isolation at the hands of the United States. Therefore, international policy is being designed by LOBBYISTS FOR AN ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY. An industry that already makes obscene profits.
  
  I don't support piracy... but this is a sad, sad day, because I can see the next steps for this forming in my head, and I don't like them. This just emboldened an industry that's already shown it will do whatever it will restrict and attack the rights of it's customers to maintain their profits, and that has way too much influence in Washington, especially considering it's function.
  
  --
  Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
6. Re:Let me be the first one to ask it ... by spiralpath · 2009-04-17 06:10 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's not wanting "shit for free." It's about artificially limiting supply on something that is virtually limitless. We the people now have the means of production, and incorporated entities seek to remove our ability to use those means.
  That is backward thinking. It is unfortunate that people who were accustomed to making a lot of money must now seek a new business model, but it will not stop the tide. Real artists will always make art and music regardless of fame or money. People will always pay for the experience of the live act, and eventually the temporary ability to sell a recording (which didn't exist before recordings, and will cease to exist because of the digital revolution) will be a distant memory.
  Eventually, there may come a day when we are able to "digitize" food or medicine, and use technology to replicate it at virtually no cost, just like music. Many, many people will seek to artifically limit supply to continue the old models of business. These efforts will fail as well, because as soon as the people have the means to produce what they want and need for free, they will recognize that it is their right to do so.
  You are seeing this in action. It is time for you and everyone else to begin accepting it.
Re:The questions that come to mind by Spazztastic · 2009-04-16 23:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

2- Where can we donate to help pay the fine?
You really want to subsidize the recording and movie industries with your money?
No, we want to help these guys get the fine paid off. You do realize that not paying for "damages" is terms for being put back into prison, right? The property they "stole" was imaginary, but the money they have to pay has to be real.

--
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
Re:Stop with the legitimate business line by ledow · 2009-04-16 23:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

You miss the point.
It was a generally held belief (and may well still turn out to be so) that what Pirate Bay did was NOT illegal in their country. It's yet to be (convincingly) proved otherwise, because the "evidence" was sparse and technically-incorrect at best. It was that unsure that it took a court to decide it, even after police raids that couldn't find anything "illegal". And it has yet to be appealed against.
What you name a place has NOTHING to do with the law behind it. You can't be convicted based on what you called something, unless the name itself is somehow illegal.
And as for "hitting the supply chain", maybe the best analogy then would be to stop camera-recording and/or screener leaks rather than chase down people who downloaded it? In actual fact if you want to eliminate something then you have to take out ALL forms of contact with it - drug dealers, drug pushers, drug takers, etc. This is the equivalent of suing not just the site owners, but the people who leaked your DVD and the people downloading it. By extension of the intentions of this case, that would also imply suing anyone who ever links to those torrents, anywhere, and anyone who carries the links to those torrents (e.g. Google) - it's like arresting people because they had a discussion about drugs, or told someone not to go to a particularly drug-ridden part of town late at night - you're trying to convict people who had only incidental connection with the crime but have performed no criminal act.
Remember - it's still not established law that what the Pirate Bay did was illegal. That's not true until all Swedish court appeals are finished and no more are allowed to be brought (and even after that, there's the possibility of an EU appeal/intervention).
Re:sigh by berend+botje · 2009-04-16 23:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

No the real bummer is that so many people like you think that they are not criminals. Last time I checked, its illegal to take something that is not yours and you didn't pay for.
You make a copy. You don't take something.

And it has been that way for thousands of years.
No, it isn't. You could copy the Mona Lisa until you're green in the face, no problem.

You fully well know what they are trying to accomplish with their site. Don't pretend like its something its not.
They are providing torrent files. Plain text files. On which no copyright lies, or at least nobody minds that they copy those.

It is for encouraging piracy plain and simple.
Piracy happens in the coastal waters of Somalia. What you mean is called "copyright infringement".
Re:The questions that come to mind by PopeRatzo · 2009-04-16 23:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Can't we all help do their jail time, by not downloading any torrents for an hour?
No, but we can help them by not buying any music or movies for a couple of months.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Is there possibly anything we can do? by Xest · 2009-04-17 00:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Bullshit.
There is nothing Swedish about the companies pushing this case both through money and political pressure. This is very much a decision that has been forced upon the defendants through foreign commercial influence and as soon as foreign commercial influence has pushed it's influence we are equally within our rights to push our views too.
By showing our distaste and by acting against those foreign companies in boycotting their products in our own countries, by pressuring our governments to also stop catering to these companies there is still a lot we can do.
The court may be Swedish, the defendants may be Swedish, the site may even be Swedish, but the companies and groups pushing the prosecution as well as the result of the prosecution most certainly are not purely Swedish and it is against these that we can act.
Re:The questions that come to mind by jools33 · 2009-04-17 00:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

If a pledge / donation system was setup - and they reached the target quickly - then that would also send a strong message to the RIAA and their ilk that their "potential" customer base don't agree with the verdict.
Swedish jails are more like holiday camps anyway - so I think the founders will survive more than intact.
Re:The questions that come to mind by BiggerIsBetter · 2009-04-17 01:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

All it would do is show MPAA that the consumer base has cash, and that they can "monetize" TPB via the courts... Does this sound familiar? RIAA pulled this stunt with Napster back in the day. I'm curious why they feel prison is appropriate however, when a shutdown was an acceptable result with Napster...

--
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Copyright exists to benefit the people by Nerdposeur · 2009-04-17 01:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's the effect, but that's not why we should keep copyright going. It's very simple: a person has the right to profit from their work if they choose.
Even as a recording musician, I must disagree. Promoting the creation of works for the public good is EXACTLY the intent of intellectual property law.
From the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8
:

The Congress shall have power to... promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
So the logic is: we, the public, want people to create lots of stuff for us to enjoy. Therefore, we will give them an incentive. We will temporarily prevent others from profiting from their work.
The goal of the law is to promote the good of the public, not of the creator. All intellectual property law should be considered by this standard - "how will granting this protection benefit the public?" - not in terms of the "rights" of the creator.
For example, how long should copyright last? The term has been extended several times already. If that temporary monopoly becomes permanent, then the public's resources (for example, the courts) are no longer being used for public good, but for the good of private individuals and corporations.
I am not in favor of piracy. And I believe if you enjoy movies or music or art or literature, you should want to support their creation financially. But we should remember that copyright and patents exist to benefit the people, not the owners of those properties. Which is exactly why they should become public domain after a reasonable time - so the public can fully enjoy the work we have protected and nurtured via our taxpayer-funded legal system.
1. Re:Copyright exists to benefit the people by ultranova · 2009-04-17 08:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'd agree with your post, but the movies and art that most people are stealing (that's right, I said stealing)
  
  Oooo. You have balls of steel, truly.
  
  are not works that should theoretically have already been released into the public domain. Even under really old statutes, before all of the extensions.
  
  Unjust laws serve to bring all law into contempt. That's human nature and something the copyright industry should have considered before starting their shenigans.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:appeal? by dyefade · 2009-04-17 02:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Doesn't work that way. Even if they didn't appeal, the Swedish prisons are full -- you actually have to queue to serve your sentence, and violent criminals always skip ahead of the queue.
Could you provide a source for this? I had a quick Google, but I'm not sure I'm even searching for the right thing. Thanks!