Slashdot Mirror
The Pirate Bay Is Being Sued Again
BuR4N writes with news that 10 US movie companies have filed a suit in Swedish civil court seeking to shut down The Pirate Bay and impose a fine on its three former operators, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg and Peter Sunde, as well as the site's bandwidth supplier. Speaking to TorrentFreak, Sunde said, "It's another day in the whole soap opera of TPB. They're suing us in Stockholm where none of us live. They're suing us over something which we don't own. I think the most funny part of the whole suit is that they just write: 'Reservella is a company run by Fredrik Neij' — out of 40 pages of paper that's all they have to say, and it's so wrong. They have no paperwork to back it up." Meanwhile, plans for The Pirate Bay to be sold to Global Gaming X seem to have stalled.
Not when you live under fascism...... ooops, I mean "corporatism" where the government represents the corporate lobbyists, rather than the people. Sweden's leaders are just following the path of least resistance, which is to say "yes" to whoever donates the most money to their next election campaign.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
In English law, theft was codified into a statutory offence in the Theft Act 1968 which defines it as:
"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". (Section 1)
Victoria - Australia North and south
Intention to permanently deprive - defined at s.73(12) as treating property as it belongs to the accused, rather than the owner.
Canada
person steals a thing if he or she takes or converts it fraudulently, without colour of right and with intent to deprive the owner of it, either permanently or temporarily.
There's a pattern forming here. I'm fairly ceratin US law would be similar, but theft is defined on a state level so i'd rather not post them all. Copying leaves the original owner with whatever they had. No intent to deprive the owner of use exists.
I will add....America has very few exports now. IP is basically it. So, it is in the interest of America's wealthy to impose strict IP laws (and hence artificial scarcity) all over the planet.
What did you say your sources were for this?
The United States is the 3rd Largest Exporter in the World. The Top 10 Exports from the United States are:
While it is true that the United States has a trade deficit, it is not for lack of exports. Which is to say, there is no excuse at all for the media companies to push for stronger Imaginary Property laws, except that they want a larger piece of the, relatively very large, exports pie. This is pure greed. To frame it as a survival response lends credibility to their arguments that they do not have.
"I do not avoid women, Mandrake . . . but I do deny them my essence." - Gen. Ripper