Slashdot Mirror
The Circus Widens In Aftermath of Pirate Bay Verdict
MaulerOfEmotards sends along an in-depth followup, from the Swedish press, of our discussion the other day about the biased trial judge in the Pirate Bay case. "The turmoil concerns Tomas Norström, the presiding judge of The Pirate Bay trial, who is suspected of bias after reports surfaced of affiliation with copyright protection organizations. For this he has been reported to the appeals court (in Swedish; translation here). The circus around the judge is currently focused on three points. First, his personal affiliation with at least four copyright protection organizations, a state the potential bias of which he himself fails to see and refuses to admit. Secondly, Swedish trials use a system of several lay assessors to supervise the presiding judge. One of these, a member of an artists' interest organization, was forced by Mr. Norström to resign from the trial for potential bias. The judge's failure to see the obvious contradiction in this (translation) casts doubts on his suitability and competence. Thirdly, according to professor of judicial sociology Håkan Hydén (translation), the judge has inappropriately 'duped and influenced the lay assessors' during the trial: 'a judge that has decided that "this is something we can't allow" has little problem
finding legal arguments that are difficult for assisting lay assessors to counter.'" Click the link below to read further on Professor Hydén's enumeration of "at least three strange things in a strange trial." On a related note, reader Siker adds the factoid that membership in the Pirate Party exploded 150% in the week following the verdict. The Pirate Party now surpasses in size four smaller parties in Sweden, and is closing in on a fifth. Political fallout could ensue as soon as June, when an election for EU parliament will be held.
Professor Hydén continues with enumerating "at least three strange things in a strange trial" (translation): First, that someone can be sentenced for being accessory to a crime for which there is no main culprit: "This assumes someone else having committed the crime, and no such individual exists here... the system cannot charge the real culprits or it would collapse in its entirety." It is unprecedented in Swedish judicial history to sentence only an accessory. Second, that the accessories should pay the fine for a crime committed by the main culprits, "which causes the law to contradict itself." And third, that accessories cannot be sentenced to harsher than the main culprit, which means that every downloader must be sentenced to a year's confinement. Prof. Hydén sums up by saying that to allow this kind of judgement the Swedish Parliament must first pass a bill making this kind of services illegal, which it has not done.
Professor Hydén continues with enumerating "at least three strange things in a strange trial" (translation): First, that someone can be sentenced for being accessory to a crime for which there is no main culprit: "This assumes someone else having committed the crime, and no such individual exists here... the system cannot charge the real culprits or it would collapse in its entirety." It is unprecedented in Swedish judicial history to sentence only an accessory. Second, that the accessories should pay the fine for a crime committed by the main culprits, "which causes the law to contradict itself." And third, that accessories cannot be sentenced to harsher than the main culprit, which means that every downloader must be sentenced to a year's confinement. Prof. Hydén sums up by saying that to allow this kind of judgement the Swedish Parliament must first pass a bill making this kind of services illegal, which it has not done.
Arghh!!!
Send your spendthrift head of state this
Cause political chaos by throwing sudden, and massive support behind a new political party. Wish Americans were capable of picking some other party aside from Republicans or Democrats.
I think this is somewhat of an exaggeration. Probably Mr. Norström discussed it with him and he hade his own decision to resign.
Had the judge been an active member of the Swedish Pirate Party, worked closely with the defendants in the past, not disclosed it and handed a not guilty verdict, you can be sure the *AAs would of been all over it like flies on a pile. Mistrial, end of story.
If the Pirate Party really has that many people, and every downloader must be sentenced to at least a year's confinement, then everybody should turn themselves in and overcrowd the jails.
In some countries, their right to inspect a customer's system may be on par with the "right" of the public to make copies of DVD (here it is explicitly allowed unless the disk is protected, which is of course in almost all cases. :-)).
Ezekiel 23:20
Time to make this judge walk the plank!
so like... slashdotting the jail eh? :)
with a little act of solidarity with the Pirate Bay (assisting in the dissemination of copyright infringing material) whilst simultaneously making a wry comment on the dastardly Copyright Cartels and all their nefarious shennanigans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvP0uwl3Q6A
(perhaps their new theme tune?)
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
RTFA. The judge is a member (actually a director in at least one case) of organisations that are lobbying to change the law, to make what Pirate Bay did illegal.
Pirate Bay's lawyer's argue that what they did was not illegal. Is the judge, who is committed to making sure it is illegal, the best person to apply the law impartially?
The specific issue is that (as I understand it) being an accessory to copyright infringement isn't, or wasn't, a crime in Sweden like it is in most other countries (I don't know if that's changed recently or not).
You may not agree with it, but judges can't (or shouldn't) go around making up laws.
I do agree with some of what you say, although as I've said before I can't really bring myself to show too much concern for the music and film industries. I don't download infringing content myself, and I would agree that all but a very small minority who do are in it simply for free stuff, but that doesn't stop me remembering all the greedy, harmful, anti-competitive and sometimes plain illegal activities of large media companies.
Copyright is not, however, a single universally agreed upon subject. Personally I think a standard 15 to 20 year term from creation of a work is reasonable. Some people want to see it abolished completely. Others want to see it extended in perpetuity. If the judge openly takes a view in any one of those directions I would question his ability to remain impartial when considering the opinions of those diametrically opposed to him.
Why do you consider Napster any different to Bit Torrent?
The way RIAA, MPAA, and their international sister organizations throws money and lawyers around, there cannot exist too many who have no affiliation with them...
To translate this out further to understandable terms, basically the judge had worked with several organizations that are the Swedish equivalents to the RIAA, MPAA, etc.
I'm not 'pro-piracy', although to say I'm 'anti-big media' would probably be fair. That said, copyright is not a single ideal and there are plenty of opinions on it's implementation. The groups that the judge is a member of take a view that the law should be changed to make copyright stricter - surely that presents a conflict of interests when dealing with a case that tests the limits of copyright law in the opposite direction?
Another Lawyer who needs to be shot out of a cannon. It seems most Lawyers are a pox on humanity. They are the Mandarins of contemporary western civilization with a lock or death grip on every important facet of existence. We need about ten percent of the number we have now and must break their guild apart.
As mentioned in other stories this past week, the judge was a member of some groups that have agendas, and is in a leadership position for two of them I believe. I think at least one group is, like you say, simply a means of staying on top of current issues and being aware of the law, but that is not the case for all the groups he belongs to. I'm not pro-piracy, but I'd rather the pirates win than have these big companies keep extending control over our governments.
My webcomic
It is an obvious conflict of interest when you are presiding over a case and are a member of an organization that sides strongly with one of the parties in the case.
It is generally okay to be biased toward one side due to internal beliefs. Most people do tend toward one side in contentious issues, but to openly run around and say it or promote one side (via membership in pro- organizations) is inappropriate.
Civil disobedience isn't near as effective as political lobbying.
Keeping works from the public domain by means of effectively infinite copyright terms is more disgusting. It's also "stealing" in the literal sense of the word, without having to twist its meaning to jive with a political agenda like the pro-copyright lobby likes to do, and is a violation of the social contract that is the sole reason copyright exists in the first place.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Exactly. This judge is essentially speeding in order to change the speed limit. Instead of judging by the current laws and waiting for the legislature to change the laws which he can enforce, he is taking matters into his own hands and changing the law himself by stretching the law to cover the situation in the way he feels it should.
The question is: is this or isn't this simply what judges do they administer verdicts? Isn't just always inherently interpretive? Is judgment a referential or creative act?
seems reasonable in the remedies department, rather than outrageous BSA fines like microshaft adobe insists that you pay for what you were pirating.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
"The Pirate Party now surpasses in size four smaller parties in Sweden" In other news, reseachers find that bigger mugs can hold more coffee..."
So now the street corner that the hooker stands on is illegal. Better let all the local governments know about the potential consequences of not cleaning up their streets.
Prof. Hydén sums up by saying that to allow this kind of judgement the Swedish Parliament must first pass a bill making this kind of services illegal, which it has not done.
But this is exactly what the verdict claims, and the verdict does back it up with references to law, which, when read by a layman like me, seems to support the judge. In particular, the law on electronic commerce states quite clearly that a service provider is responsible for illegal data (like torrent files) stored on their system.
I am awaiting for the appeal to present some arguments against the verdict itself, and not just "the judge is biased because we lost".
Everyone claiming that the judge is biased, that the verdict is wrong - can anyone please present some arguments against the verdict itself?
For example: Why is the court wrong in finding that torrent files are accessories of a crime (copyright infringement)? Why is the court wrong in finding that paragraph 18 (services that store information - like torrent files - on behalf of clients and serve it) of the law on e-commerce applies to TPB.
While the comments on the size of Pirate Party are correct, it can also be formulated slightly different: PP is, in the moment of writing, the fourth largest party in sweden (with respect to the number of party members). (source )
By the rate of new members, PP should pass 'Centern' in the coming week or something like that, and thus become the third largest party.
PP's youth organisation is (perhaps unsurprisingly) the largest by far (actually has more members than the second and third combined).
It should however be noted that party membership in Sweden is not widespread, thus the actual voting result in an election will not necessarily reflect the membership records.
If you would like to contribute to the cause (for nothing else than just to spite the big media companies), you can make a donation here.
While I'm not sure they deliver merchandise abroad, they have a small shop where you can buy the obligatory t-shirt. Yes, the revolution accepts Visa.
Damn Swedish legal system - it's always bork, bork, bork!
the judge has inappropriately 'duped and influenced the lay assessors' during the trial: 'a judge that has decided that "this is something we can't allow" has little problem finding legal arguments that are difficult for assisting lay assessors to counter.'"
I thought that's what defense attorneys were for.
You know, countering the accusations.
On the one side: Copyright infringers.
On the other side: Those who want to lock down personal computers and the internet, spy on same, lock down anything else which can reproduce sound or video, implement a pay-per-use system for everything, shut down DVD rental services, eliminate fair use, use lawyers to bully people (whether culpable or not), increase copyright terms to infinity less one day, etc.
Which side would you expect slashdotters to be on? You can argue there's a middle ground, but for various reasons I think there really isn't, and in any case is it really surprising getting binary thinking from a computer geek site?
Nobody cares about the "Pirate Party." It's just a bunch of morons who signed up online out of spite and probably will never be heard from again.
Uh, considering your whole post was as bad as this, I'm just surprised it didn't stay modded down.
Perhaps if you at least left out all the name-calling?
The judge is a member of copyright organizations. So? Isn't copyright the law? Knowing copyright law is probably why he's on the case.
But that is exactly the point! Copyright is law. He should have judged the case based off that law.
If he knew his own countries copyright law, the trial would clearly have turned out different.
Judges don't MAKE laws, the interpret existing laws.
He decided on his own that the law needs changed to reflect the desires of the organizations he is a director of, and instead of going the legal route to get laws changed to make what was done illegal, so he could easily interpret what the pirate bay did was illegal, instead all he did was claim it was illegal when the fact still remains it is not.
It is perfectly OK to want change in the law. It is not OK for a judge to single handedly ignore the current law and just throw out a sentence that matches what he THINKS or WANTS the law to be, which is exactly what happened.
Technically speaking what the judge did would still be illegal even if he wasn't a member of any copyright organizations. It would just be effectively impossible to prove what he did was illegal then.
I bet no one sings happy birthday to you do they, you'd have them arrested.
It's that kind of incredibly stupid copyright law which ensures there is very little respect for copyrights. That you can watch or record a TV program on your DVR if it goes to plan but getting a copy of the very same program from TPB thats illegal.
TPB is always going to be a popular cause for bringing a little light relief into many lives. To be honest the real profiteering from pirated content comes from the companies sending out the broadband bills each month. without the wide availability of pirated content do you think they would make even half the money they rake in each month.
Actually suppose pirated content did go away, then the only thing the ISP's could do is raise the broadband bills and thats going to cost you.
Did you ever consider that the pirates may well be subsidizing your broadband connection?
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
That extents EVEN to having no opinion on the law itself. He shouldn't be for or against a law, just rule on it. A judge ruling on a suicide should NOT be a member of the good samaritan help line. Bias.
Judges do more after all then just enforce the law, they judge the law itself. Plenty of laws made by politicians constantly get overturned by judges who not having any agenda but upkeeping the law rule that certain laws just cannot be.
One set of laws that has come under question is copyright law. How is a judge supposed to be able to listen unbiased to the for and againsts of a case if he already made clear what side he is on?
Remember that if this judge had rules the other way, new precedent would have been set, just as this ruling has set new precedent. To have that power, requires a judge not to go into the court with his mind made up. It is becoming clear that in this case, the accused were considered by the judge to be guilty before the trial had started.
if you don't see anything wrong with that, then my god man, you just don't deserve to live in a democracy.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Too bad that approach won't work in the US, I hear they've hardened their servers
But torrent files are *NOT* illegal (yet).
Copyright law says nothing about tracker-like pointers to the locations of copyrighted materials, and it's extremely clear that the torrent files themselves are not subject to the copyright that covers the things that they point to.
But the judge held that the torrent files are accessories to the main crime of copyright infringement, since a person committing the crime would in this case create a torrent file and upload it to TPB in order to further the crime. That makes them tainted and illegal. Since TPB hosted the file and served it, they became parties to the crime when they refused to block access to the file.
The issue of whether the a link to an infringing copy is in and of itself illegal was never part of the verdict. Only the fact that the torrent files were created to further a crime, TPB knew it, and TPB refused to block access to them.
What a load of crap.
Having the judge be a member of copyright protection organizations isn't bias. Copyright is the law, and he's a judge...how is this a story? Hell, he might have been put on this case specifically because he knows copyright law very well. You guys need to accept this--Pirate Bay wasn't just a search engine like Google. It was also hosting the torrent tracker server that tracks the file chunks users were trading with each other. They offer the torrents, and they offer the server connecting the users, and they call themselves PirateBay...and you're defending it? You're surprised they were found guilty in court?
Nobody cares about the "Pirate Party." It's just a bunch of morons who signed up online out of spite and probably will never be heard from again.
Pirates will do whatever it takes to get their free ride back. They do as much as possible to avoid admitting guilt. You're ripping people off. You're the bad guy. You'll talk about the RIAA/MPAA until you're out of breath, you'll invent stupid justifications like piracy is "free advertising" or it's a "new business model," but it's all just a psychological justification to avoid admitting that you're guilty of doing something inethical. You never think about the people you're ripping off--the musicians, software developers, screenwriters, and so on.
The fact that Slashdot has become so militantly pro-piracy in the last decade is really disgusting. It was one thing to defend Napster, but now it's just bleedingly obvious that Slashdot is visited by a ton of selfish leeches who want to spend all day and night running Bittorrent apps, never even dreaming of paying somebody for their work. How would you like it if you were a software developer, and your boss didn't give you a paycheck one month because "information wants to be free," or "you can't 'steal' code," or some other stupid reason that pirates always give?
It's like you guys want to dig for oil forever and expect it to never run out. The piracy issue is finally coming to a head. You know it's illegal and wrong. There's no other reason you do it but that you're selfish like all humans and want something for free without paying money to its creator.
I have seen Slashdot posts of people who have not read TFA. I have also seen very long and articulated Slashdot posts of people who HAVE read TFA.
But I have never before seen such long Slashdot posts by people who have not even bothered to read TFA even passingly.
A new low in /.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I believe someone from Sweden posted in a previous story that their jails were already full up, even without people turning themselves in. Apparently, there's a waiting line for when you do your time, with the exception that violent criminals skip to the front.
It was also hosting the torrent tracker server that tracks the file chunks users were trading with each other. They offer the torrents, and they offer the server connecting the users
Neither of which are illegal under Swedish law. Under Swedish law, the ONLY people breaking the law are those downloading and uploading the pirated content. Citizens of Sweden are free to index and publish sources of illegal items (in this case, illegally shared files). Law enforcement is just as free to prosecute the provider of the illegal items (or files), but absolutely not the messenger.
To reiterate: under current Swedish law, the way to enforce copyright law is to prosecute users who are downloading/uploading copyrighted content, and NOT the operator of the tracker, who has not trafficked in any copyrighted content at all. Unless you can copyright an SHA1 hash, now (Maybe you could consider it a derivative work? That would be a frightening world).
This may be different in your country; I know it is different in mine. However, the guilty verdict this judge gave represented a drastic change in the way the Swedish judiciary interprets the existing law, one which runs counter to all prior decisions.
As an aside, a technical correction to your statement. A bittorrent tracker does not track file chunks. It does not monitor or arrange file transfers in any meaningful way. All it does is provide a list of IP addresses and ports of bittorrent clients who are trading in a particular torrent. Arranging transfers and piece swaps is entirely between the clients. Often a bittorrent client only checks in with the tracker a few times an hour, to get an updated list of IPs.
Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.
> The piracy issue is finally coming to a head. You know it's illegal and wrong.
Typical 20th century brainwashing. Illegal != Immoral. Tomorrow (21st century) it will be legal, and there is not a dam thing you can do to stop the masses from trading music, video, etc.
> How would you like it if you were a software developer, and your boss didn't give you a paycheck one month because "information wants to be free," or "you can't 'steal' code," or some other stupid reason that pirates always give?
Doesn't stop me one bit from writing software in my free time.
> There's no other reason you do it but that you're selfish like all humans and want something for free without paying money to its creator.
So how did all that art get created BEFORE copyright even existed in the 17th century??
It seems pretty obvious to me you are being modded down not because people disagree with you but because you don't understand what is going on.
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan
If you read past the headlines, Oobama didnt abolish torture, the US will still use it as much as before but they only changed WERE they were going to torture.
But many intelligent people are going around claiming that torture was ended with Obama.
Which is were his great power lies; he does something and people want to believe so much that they dont read the fine print.
The fact remains that .torrent files are not illegal in Sweden, and neither are trackers.
Doesn't excuse the fact that the judge in question legislated from the bench, which -IS- against the law in Sweden. Should the judge now turn himself in as a criminal?
What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
The same holds in Sweden. The appearance of impropriety part exists in order to uphold the public belief in the court system.
The judge has just failed in that exercise.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
No, accessory does exist, but an accessory cannot be sentenced to more than the main culprit and in order to be sentenced by being an accessory, there must be a main crime; the verdict does discuss those points, but the points it makes in those parts are very vague and does not feel very solid.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Aren't torrent files directly produced using the data itself?
And if so, does that not make torrent files DERIVED WORKS of what they track?
The question is: is this or isn't this simply what judges do they administer verdicts? Isn't just always inherently interpretive? Is judgment a referential or creative act?
Courts should become less referential and more creative as you go up the chain of appeals. Since this was the initial district court case, the judge overstepped his authority.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It was also hosting the torrent tracker server that tracks the file chunks users were trading with each other. They offer the torrents, and they offer the server connecting the users
Neither of which are illegal under Swedish law. Under Swedish law, the ONLY people breaking the law are those downloading and uploading the pirated content.
...and those assisting them - "främjar en gärning med råd eller dåd" (for our English readers "furthers an act with advice or deed").
Which is what TPB got done for.
Maybe, but probably not. The court never held that. So if you create a SHA-1 of a copyrighted work and publish it, you'll be in the clear.
But if you create a SHA-1 and use it as a tool to commit copyright infringement, the SHA-1 sum counts as an accessory to the crime.
It's all about how it is used.
It's like a screwdriver. If I buy a screwdriver on your behalf, I'm fine. If I buy a screwdriver on your behalf, knowing that you're going to use it to kill someone, I'm guilty of assisting a crime.
"A problem worthy of attack proves its worth by hitting back".
(From a little block puzzle created/inspired by Piet Hein)
Nothing whatever to do with TPB.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
the majority of internet users are pirates. e.g. 40% of the netherlands (there was an article)
meaning that piracy is not inethical, society gives norms :P.
if it becomes common sense, the industry HAS to find a way around it, but all they are doing is trying to break through this wall.
taking something by force is NOT a good option, as the people are forced.
if everyone is a pirate, then business will break down is just a simple lie, as it is that the pirate bay is not fighting activly against copyright and without force.
or in other words: control is out, influence is in. that is what the media industry has not found.
a rather poor approach from both side. violence will only end with violence, and I know exactly which side will not stop...
But the judge held that the torrent files are accessories to the main crime of copyright infringement .... That makes them tainted and illegal
By this reasoning, a page that holds a link to a torrent, would also be illegal. Therefore, a page that holds a link to a page that holds a link to a torrent would be illegal. Furthemore, a page that holds a link ...
Part of the case is to decide how far Swedish copyright law goes. It is a clear conflict of interest to belong to several organizations with a stated opinion on the issue, one of which lists one of the plaintiff's attorneys as a member.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
You never think about the people you're ripping off--the musicians, software developers, screenwriters, and so on.
Horse-carriages and automobiles my friend.
Musicians: If I can't copy their music, then neither can they. Do gigs and performances like real musicians do. There's no law that says you, as a musician, are entitled to income. It's an art, if your art sucks, if people don't like you enough to buy your cd's, you don't get paid, and you don't get to whine about it.
Software-developers: You produce tools that people use to create value. Tools that can be magically copied with no effort. If you want to make money on it, do it by implementing the tools you have created (being the creator gives you a fair head-start in this). Would you have a problem giving away hammers to people for free if you could replicate an original (which you made yourself) ad infinitum?
Screenwriters: Adjust your expectations. Just because your output-volume has risened does not mean the individuals demand will too. In every other field people know what they're buying before they buy it. Don't jump at people for wanting to know whether your work is quality or insipid trash before they decide to buy (or not buy) your product. A recent survey has shown that people who pirate movies are ten times more likely to buy movies than people who don't pirate. Don't whine if you fail.
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.sr.se/sida/artikel.aspx%3Fprogramid%3D1646%26artikel%3D2785979&ei=Y53zScLzB5L2MMmx2KgP&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DR%25C3%25A4tteg%25C3%25A5ngen%2Bkan%2Btas%2Bom%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3Dl0W%26sa%3DG Copyright is the law, but some of these organizations are not just calling for the law to be enforced as written, but for it to be strengthened. There is also this issue From the linked story Foundation. SE An extra job as a judge has, in addition to the job of alderman in the district court. One of his colleagues here is Monique Wadsted representing the American film companies in the trial. Really a judge on a high profile matter should know to step aside if there is even the appearance of impropriety.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
Nevermind that it's the very reason judges should be objective.
Which this judge wasn't.
Having the judge be a member of copyright protection organizations isn't bias. Copyright is the law, and he's a judge...how is this a story?
So when several highly rated professors of Swedish law describe it as "borderline", "curious", several strongly negative to his lack of disclosure and so on that's overruled by the slashdot armchair quarterback with the brief English summary, right? It was the top story in most Swedish online newspapers when the story broke, and it wouldn't be if those people had said this was just bullshit.
Nobody cares about the "Pirate Party." It's just a bunch of morons who signed up online out of spite and probably will never be heard from again. (...) It's like you guys want to dig for oil forever and expect it to never run out. The piracy issue is finally coming to a head.
Yeah, because their youth organization with 17000 members now, bigger any other, in fact bigger than the following two put together won't be a problem. I mean, just keeping it steady it'll pour 2000 members/year into voting age. Or that all the youth organizations are now advocating copyright reform. You're the one seeing the water recede from the beach. Better lift your eyes a little because the real wave is taking a few years longer. The Pirate Party doesn't stand alone among the youth. The Green youth want to fully legalize non-commercial file sharing. So do the Liberals. And the Christian Democrats. The rest are just vague.
Maybe it's like you say, people just want free swag. But if enough people want copyright gone, it's going. Copyright holders could bitch and whine on how they own their ideas forever, but like what would they do? We don't even need to have a bloody revolution, we'll just have an election, pass a law and bye-bye it goes. What you're seeing now is the first 100Mbit generation, people used to passing around files as if it was nothing and so scarcity is just wierd. They could download 100 music channels simultaniously and still never get to hear it all. Remember ratios and that shit? It's becoming a thing of the past as we'll have more bandwidth than we got time even watching full HD. Sweden now is where the rest of the world (well, except backwater USA) will be in 10 years. It has only just begun.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Professor Hydén continues with enumerating "at least three strange things in a strange trial" (translation): First, that someone can be sentenced for being accessory to a crime for which there is no main culprit: "This assumes someone else having committed the crime, and no such individual exists here... the system cannot charge the real culprits or it would collapse in its entirety." It is unprecedented in Swedish judicial history to sentence only an accessory. Second, that the accessories should pay the fine for a crime committed by the main culprits, "which causes the law to contradict itself." And third, that accessories cannot be sentenced to harsher than the main culprit, which means that every downloader must be sentenced to a year's confinement. Prof. Hydén sums up by saying that to allow this kind of judgement the Swedish Parliament must first pass a bill making this kind of services illegal, which it has not done.
I'm not certain on the second point, but the first and third definitely don't seem like problems to me: Imagine a guy I can't identify convinces me to help him commit a crime. If I'm caught and he's not, and there is sufficient evidence that the crime occurred and that I helped, I hope that, under any sensible legal system, I can be convicted of being an accessory to a crime. On the third point, at 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, I need only be found accessory to 10,000 individual counts of something punishable by one hour in jail for my accumulated penalty to reach 1 year. If I'm found repeatedly committing the same crime (or aiding in that crime), that's an aggravation, which makes the punishment I'm due end up on the worse end of the range, whereas the "main criminal" might be a first timer and, thus, not have any aggravating circumstances, thus taking the shorter term.
Of course, those arguments suppose that TPB is actually involved in a crime, which is a different argument altogether.
But the judge held that the torrent files are accessories to the main crime of copyright infringement .... That makes them tainted and illegal
By this reasoning, a page that holds a link to a torrent, would also be illegal. Therefore, a page that holds a link to a page that holds a link to a torrent would be illegal. Furthemore, a page that holds a link ...
...would make it come down to intent and knowledge of the illegal material. Two points that TPB fell on.
We picked a Socialist this time.
The focus is there because circumstantial ad hominem is a valid counter-argument to the ruling if you aren't a law specialist. If you aren't educated in law, you can't really evaluate the ruling itself adequately. There is a reason for law schools to exist. Laypeople are mainly supposed to trust the opinions of experts in their appropriate fields, in this case the judge. If the judge has a conflict of interest, his opinion is tainted, and it makes a lot of sense to ask for him to be replaced. It doesn't make a lot of sense, however, to argue that asking for such a judge to be replaced somehow validates his ruling. It just shows that you agree with the ruling for whatever reason. It's a circular argument.
Deus est fatalis
Except that if you pirate it, you no longer have an incentive to save up for it.
In 100 years, things will have settled into a two-party system.
Is this recent? I recall TPB years ago claiming the reason their site was legal because there were no laws against being an accessory to copyright infringment in Sweden, as there were in other countries.
Granted, I expected the Swedish legislature or whatever to close that loophole.
If copyright was anything like it was in the beginning of the U.S. (14 years, then it's public domain), I would whole heartedly support it and whole heartedly reject infringement.
However, in the current state of affairs where copyright apparently lasts for the life of Mickey Mouse + 20 years, the balance is tipped so far over that ignoring it en-masse actually brings things closer to justice than obeying it does.
That doesn't mean I condone "piracy", but I can't honestly condemn it either.
As for this particular trial, the level of bias on the judge's part is extreme and is an offense to justice. Enough so that even if I fully believed that the verdict and sentencing was correct, I would probably STILL oppose it as a matter of principle.
If a judge is a member of a group that is against murder (for example the catholic church), he can still preside over a murder case. Of course on a murder case you have a dead person, and the person who is suspected of the killing is put on trial, and not the maker of the knife used for the murder.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
the only way to right these wrongs is to pirate physical objects... like ships off of Somalia. -Hold them ransom until our pirate heros are freed. right? .torrents everywhere!
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/220764
in the name of repressed
Kill your TV
I know many people say the same thing, but just why should someone be "proud" of coming from a particular area?
Us versus them-ism?
Um, actually, from personal experience, there have been numerous times I've downloaded a movie or CD, enjoyed it, then gone out to purchase it. Most common with movies, but if Amazon allowed individual track purchases in my country, I'd do that a lot more as well.
Hell, I don't have cable, so I'll download a TV show I like, then pick up the season compilation when it comes out, for the bonus features, if nothing else. Your argument fails on the basic premise of trying to predict behaviour over too large a sample with not enough evidence to support it.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
If there were a sound legal theory behind their points
Well, since I doubt a single person here followed every day of TPB trial and is fully versed in Swedish law, of course we can't present a sound legal theory. All we can do is point to the person who WAS there every day, and who is supposed to be versed in the law, and say "We don't believe him capable of impartiality in this matter. We would like this redone, and with someone who will weigh everything equally, and apply the law as it should be."
I've seen people use the metaphor of a judge being in favour of harsher murder penalties in a capital trial, but that's faulty. There's precedent for the application of the death penalty in murder trials. A more accurate analogy would be the judge handing down a death penalty for grand theft auto. There's a crime committed, but the law was probably applied improperly to get that ruling. In this case, as people have pointed out, under Swedish laws, accessories cannot receive harsher penalties than the primary commissioner of a crime. However, there was no primary listed, charged, or sentenced as part of TPB trial, thus immediately making the sentencing suspect.
Also, remember, the mere *appearance* of impropriety is supposed to make a judge excuse himself from judging a case. Obviously, since it's a story in Sweden, there's the appearance, making him ethically suspect. If a separate judge finds the same in a retrial, I'll accept the verdict. But currently, this verdict doesn't even pass the laugh test of legitimacy.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Google knows TPB content violates US copyright law, and people in the US accessing it are likely breaking said law. But they're not blocking it from showing up on their search engine. They're freely allowing people to find it. Better charge them next, under that philosophy.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
One of the major arguments was that there are various providers for torrent tracking, for example Google. Therefore if Google is not at fault in assisting piracy then Pirate Bay shouldn't be either. Pirate Bay believes it is essentially providing similar service than Google in a more convenient way. (http://www.google.com/search?q=x-men+origins+torrent)
A judge rendering judgement as a "creative act" as you put it, would in more common parlance be derided as "legislating from the bench," or more mildly as judicial activism. This is something frowned upon in most places where government has the concept of separation of powers, because it is not the place for the judiciary to be creating law: that is a job for the legislative branch. This is a touchy issue for Supreme Courts everywhere, because it's they that most often have to tread that fine line. Judges should be deciding cases based on what the law says, not what they would prefer it said.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Think you mean Interpol, there, buddy. American Feds aren't going to have much jurisdiction. I think most people would settle for an official rebuke of the judge for not recusing on the appearance of impropriety.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
You're helping a bunch of people partake of the works of others without their consent.
Different laws in different places, sir. It's not illegal to share music in Canada due to the media levy. So technically, as long as I stay to the audio portions of TPB, I'm completely within the law of my country, complete with consent. TPB is not responsible for the laws of the land of its users, only of where it's based. Is it wrong that they want to be charged, tried, and sentenced based purely on that law, and not on the agenda of parties purported to be neutral?
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Not even close. Google indexes keywords and points you to relevant sites. The Pirate Bay hosts and distributes torrent files and provides trackers so they can function.
Google pointing to torrents is simply an incidental consequence of its legitimate uses and wouldn't even exist if bittorrent indexing sites like The Pirate Bay weren't operating.
I mean, literally impossible. Sweden is a socialist country, as much as any country in the world is Socialist. My libertarian friends assure me that socialists are people who have no initiative, and do not care about their rights. Therefore, these reports of a popular movement concerning civil liberties must certainly be lies. Protect your bodily fluids!
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
One of the key issues IIRC was that the swedish supreme court made a case law some time in the late 90s/early 00s where they explicitly allowed linking to mp3s etc. This case law was connected to a previous version of the copyright law and e-trading regulations, so I guess it was only valid for a few years, but nothing has changed in principle as far as I know.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
God, if that isn't a literal prisoner's dilemma then nothing is.
If everyone cooperates (turns themselves in), then they all win by having successfully blockaded (DoS'd) the attempt to criminalize what TPB is doing.
If only a few do, they get screwed.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Indeed.
The basic problem is that "copyright protection", as used today (DRM, asshat lawyer scum, etc) is destructive to the geek/nerd/intelligent human being's basic desire to exercise their right to tinker.
We don't want to just buy something, then use it till it dies. We want to take it apart. Put it back together. Improve it. Repair it if it breaks. UNDERSTAND IT.
DRM on a digital movie - for one example - makes it harder to exercise our right to tinker. We can't easily pull a segment from it, or multiple segments, practice remixing it and splicing it and editing it and tweaking it and making something new, different, unique out of it.
DRM or "access protection" on a video game console - basically, a glorified computer - stops us from learning how to code new programs for it. From tweaking it to act as we want it to. From improving it - by adding storage, for instance, that reduces the crappy load times of disc-based consoles to something more bearable or that reduces the drain on the battery of a portable console.
Nintendo even wanted to get the US to outlaw the famous Afterburner mod - you remember, the thing they blatantly ripped off when it came time to create the Game Boy Advance SP, and the DS line?
The problem is, "piracy", or copyright infringement, is no different from other fields. Car geeks get to the point where they don't have to waste money on taking their car to a dealership or car shop. The car companies have in recent years tried to make this impossible by using proprietary shaped bits on certain fasteners in the engine, or packing things in super-tightly (in one case even making it impossible to change your oil yourself). The VW Rabbit, for another example, requires the removal of an entire wiring harness just to change a fucking headlight. And of course there are the "diagnostic computers", and the 5-year lag time during which the output codes are a "proprietary trade secret" to prevent non-Dealership car shops from being able to service them...
It's not just the copyright field. Freedom to tinker is something we should all have a right to, in EVERY field.
Let's keep in mind that the fringe isn't always crazy, sometimes it's just ahead or behind the curve of opinion. Other times, the different small/fringe groups incorporate parts several "mainstream" ideologies.
The false dichotomy between "Democrats" and "Republicans" is actually damaging, because that itself is what can promote "extremists" to either lash out violently, or end up as powerful elected officials.
With some representation and need for coalitions, we actually might see some sanity in policy, rather than just constant ad-hominum attacks, unfounded "ethics investigations", and nobody would care about Hannity.
As is, the system is feeding a level of polarization that is not healthy, nor conducive to good policy.
Plus, the constant extreme swings of a 2-party-only system condemns us to such a mismash of existing law that entire statutes become self-contradictory.
Right now, we live in relatively stable times, but history shows that politics is subject to tsunamis of opinion shift. These usually happen when a major stress to the existing system occurs, and that is when you see revolution instead of evolution.
Even the appearance of a potential impropriety is itself an impropriety. Those are the rules that I had to deal with as an enlisted person in the USAF, and I would hope that a judge were held to at least that standard.
I say toss the case, and have a retrial before a verifiably unbiased judge.
Personally, I think the pirates deserved the sentence, but the trial is now tainted in my eyes. There's no way that I can respect this verdict because the trial itself appears to have been a "railroad job". Which means that no Swedish court ruling should be treated as credible if the ruling stands.
In American courts, IIRC, a judge who doesn't disclose a conflict of interest and recuse themselves faces impeachment (or removal) for this very reason.
Since you posted AC and I can't assess your linguistic skills via a profile, I'll just say we can agree to disagree on how to spell "there". Otherwise, you make a solid point.
But I think this guy goes one better. He's legislating from the bench, and not like the normal accusations, this is like putting innocent people in jail. If you are accused of being an idiot, you go to jail in my courtroom. Accused of wearing plaid, no warrant needed you're in Bubba's room.
Neither of which are illegal under Swedish law. Under Swedish law, the ONLY people breaking the law are those downloading and uploading the pirated content.
...and those assisting them - "främjar en gärning med råd eller dåd" (for our English readers "furthers an act with advice or deed").
Which is what TPB got done for.
Then also the internet providers should be punished. They assisted the up-and-downloaders. Also the electrical utility company, which provided the electric energy for the computers adn network equipment involved.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Exactly. I think copyright was a good idea in its original form. The public domain is the first priority for the good of the nation as a whole, but hows about granting a monopoly on revenue from the work for a limited time to the original creator as an incentive and a reward? Great idea. But if it can't be made to work because greedy corporations like Disney keep pushing for extensions until the term is effectively unlimited, then it's screwed and we should return to the first priority, which is the public domain.
Hoist the jolly roger and set sail, me hearties. Copyright is dead, long live the public domain (or what we'll make pass for such)! YAarrr!
Loose lips lose spit.
That's incredibly retarded. I listen to lots of musicians that produce music which can't be performed live (unless by "perform" you mean put a disc in a CD player). Your paragraph about software developers doesn't even make sense, what does "implementing the tools you have created" even mean in the context of a game programmer?
It's these kind of ultra-flimsy rationalizations that makes people who support piracy look like weak minded fools.
On one side: copyright infringers.
On the other side: people who make things that can be easily copyright infringed.
Which group do you think is bigger? This isn't a Slashdot specific thing, although the intricacy of the (usually wafer thin) arguments reaches unparalleled heights here. The real reason is simple: people want things for free. Stuff like DRM, bullying lawyers etc came after the wide spread abuse already existed, but nobody who enjoys pirated material wants to admit that, and now the direct consequences of their own actions have become the very means they use to justify those actions. A paradox!
Then the question: what is copy protection?
In case of DVDs, the original copy protection was CSS. But this has been broken so much that it is not much more than a protocol, just like encoding a video to mpeg or to wmv, this is just a little more data mangling that has to be done to get back the original image. After all copy protection (CSS, Bluray's system, whatever) is a mere protocol, an algorithm that has to be followed to be able to display the original image/movie/music.
Nowadays when popping a DVD in my computer, be it Linux or Windows, I expect it to play, not seeing anything about this "copy protection". I also kinda expect to be able to read the raw data, and with that to copy the DVD. Without noticing copy protection.
How do you (as consumer) know it's copy protected, thus illegal, or not copy protected, thus legal? Because it is written on the disk? Then just writing it on the disk would be enough to "copy protect" it?
Could be a nasty can of worms if the copy protection lobby would really want to bring this to court.
...and those assisting them - "främjar en gärning med råd eller dåd" (for our English readers "furthers an act with advice or deed").
A more commonly used phrase in English would be "to aid or abet":
Aid = "give help, support or assistance to"
Abet = "to incite, instigate or encourage"
However, all of these tend to apply to a specific crime. If I open a bar in a really shady part of town, I can be fairly sure there'll be a decent amount of drug deals, prostitution, sale of stolen items and various other criminal conspiracies happening on the premises, but as long as I don't have any specific knowledge of any everyone can sit down and have a drink. And if one of the bar guests claims to have heard something, it's not unreasonable that I ask him to tell the police and not ask me to evict them.
These laws aren't meant to cover everyone that's ever provided some tool or service to a criminal, or we'd all be in deep shit because surely we've all done something that's somehow furthered someone's criminal endeavour. Particularly if you include acts of omission, which normally only applies in under special circumstances like "Harboring a known fugitive". If noone knows he's a criminal on the run it can't be aiding or abetting, if you didn't knoe through ignorance or negligence you're still far from aiding and abetting. There's no evidence, and no reason to believe given the volume of files, that those running TBP had any idea that the files they've been charged with assisting was on TPB. Only some general idea that "yes, copyrighted files are shared here".
A lot of people get caught up in the torrent/tracker vs. google and how you can find torrents on google but no tracker. That is complete nonsense, the equivalent of the "tracker" part is the server part of an URL. Getting 100 peers from the tracker is no different than getting 100 hits on different servers using google. Ultimately google links together lots of clients and lots of servers with Google as the single nexus point. The Pirate Bay links together lots of peers and lots of seeds with TBP as the single nexus point. The rest is really trying to pick at semantics.
Ultimtaely all that's left are some wishy-washy arguments that the service itself is so geared towards copyright infringment, its very existance is aiding and abetting in tiself. IT's certainly a big stretch.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Why do you consider Napster any different to Bit Torrent?
Napster was an American file sharing service, and thus it was fine and dandy. The Pirate Bay is a foreign file sharing service from far-away socialist Sweden, so it is just evil.
Note: I live in Sweden.
No, because you need to prove both intent and knowledge.
Intent: TPB's Carl Lundström testified that one of the purposes of TPB was copyright infringement. Knowledge: The court found it proven that TPB knew about the infringing material.
For Google it is not possible to establish intent.
I'd take exception to this, when I was a student/child with little disposible income I often copied games/films. As I've grown up and my disposible incomes increased I now only own legitimnate copies. When I turned 19/20 I spent alot of my income in insuring everything I owned was legitimate, from making sure I only had XP installed on one machine to locating the original C&C game. I gave up when it was impossible to locate certain games and when certain albums were over £25 to purchase from HMV/Virgin Megastore.
I didn't do it because I feared getting prosecuted or anything else, I did it because I loved a certain film, song or game. Rather than treating people like criminals (which is why I don't own Red Alert 3 despite really wanting it) media companies need to relax their copyright attitudes and take time encouraging the above viewpoint.
Someone who has deep knowledge of a group or place where they live should form an opinion about it. If the people have admirable qualities, the location has appealing vistas*, or the community has a proud history, then that should engender pride. People should tend to try to live where they find the most satisfaction in the most areas because to do so gives them a more pleasurable daily life.
If you therefore encounter someone who likes their area and speaks well of it, then you are encountering someone who shows the qualities that make them a person you are likely to enjoy knowing. If you meet someone who shows the opposite qualities, then they are not doing the things that are most likely to make them happy and that sort of thing is also contagious. In a nutshell, a person who doesn't like the home team is more likely to make your life unpleasant than someone who does.
* - Note the lowercase V, I don't know if there is anywhere that has appealing Vistas
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Your argument is essentially how the bittorrent protocol could be used while ignoring the standard way TPB does use it.
The intellectual dishonesty in this debate is absolutely staggering. If the fact that the site is named The Pirate Bay isn't enough to illustrate its purpose in unauthorized redistribution of copyrighted works, a browse through the top 100 torrents and their mocking I.P. owners should.
I'm intrigued as to what kind of music it is that can't be performed live.
DJs have been creating music synthetically and through mixing for a long time, and pull in huge crowds when they "perform" it. I mean if Kraftwerk can make a living out of live performances, any good musician can...
We do have two rounds in our presidential voting. Compare Hillary Clinton to Dennis Kucinich--very different candidates, and both had an equal shot at the Democratic nomination. On the GOP side, compare John McCain to Ron Paul.
Outsiders don't stand a chance in elections because they are outsiders. If they were wildly popular they wouldn't be outsiders would they? I would say that a political system that keeps outsiders on the outside is not broken. Democracy does not mean lottery--not every candidate has an equal chance in elections. Failure of your (or my) favorite candidate to carry the day does not mean that the system is broken. It might just mean we don't have popular ideas.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Looks like you have a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of copyright at the fundamental level. You should learn a little bit more before posting in the future.
A better analogy would be that the judge is painting over the sign that states the speed limit, to make someone driving within the legislated limits a criminal.
try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }