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.

173 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Surprise Surprise. by gubers33 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More big media companies going after money. Maybe it is just my thought but why can't American companies just bother the Americans and not everyone else. This is why people hate us!

    --
    Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
    1. Re:Surprise Surprise. by jonnythan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, they're not really just "American" companies when their products are bought, used, and viewed all around the world.

    2. Re:Surprise Surprise. by Gizzmonic · · Score: 3, Funny

      More big media companies going after money. Maybe it is just my thought but why can't American companies just bother the Americans and not everyone else. This is why people hate us!

      This is why people hate us? I thought it was because we peed on their rug.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    3. Re:Surprise Surprise. by Kratisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quiet, you! As long as they're distracted by the Swedes less poor American college students will be sued.

      --
      Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
    4. Re:Surprise Surprise. by gubers33 · · Score: 1

      HAHA! Touche my friend, I would mod this up if I hadn't already posted.

      --
      Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
    5. Re:Surprise Surprise. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True. But didn't the media companies attempt to force the Swedish government to change their laws to fit said media companies' business model? *That* is far beyond what should be permitted.

    6. Re:Surprise Surprise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They did it in America why not the world?

    7. Re:Surprise Surprise. by theJML · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, that rug did really tie the room together.

      --
      -=JML=-
    8. Re:Surprise Surprise. by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
    9. Re:Surprise Surprise. by SirEel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find it interesting that so many people like american tv so much, I can never see the attraction of bad actors and poor plots even when the show does have an un usefully large budget. Of course, being british, I am going to claim that Doctor Who is the best tv series ever, even when the originals had wobbly cardboard sets and being alien mostly meant wearing funny clothes. Good times.

    10. Re:Surprise Surprise. by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have modpoints, I'll mod this up!

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    11. Re:Surprise Surprise. by castorvx · · Score: 1

      Shut the fuck up, Donny!

    12. Re:Surprise Surprise. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      So you are saying TPB just didn't bribe^Wsupport the politicians enough?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    13. Re:Surprise Surprise. by jerep · · Score: 1

      But then more poor swedes college students will be sued.

    14. Re:Surprise Surprise. by easyTree · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the wondrous future which awaits, every legal and valid activity will thankfully be taxed by our glorious leaders so that they may better protect us from ourselves.

    15. Re:Surprise Surprise. by easyTree · · Score: 2, Informative

      If someone were to facilitate stealing something you created, wouldn't you want to go after whomever was helping to do that, no matter where they were located?

      Copying != stealing*.

      (*) This needs to be a sticky; preferably on the inside of everyone's eyelids.

    16. Re:Surprise Surprise. by jerep · · Score: 1

      I thought the government WAS a private lobby, the millitary a way for private banks to make more money off war and debt, the media their public relations and the masses of entertainments a way to keep us too busy to notice how badly we're getting raped by the other institutions.. I must've misread a memo or something.

    17. Re:Surprise Surprise. by Tellarin · · Score: 1

      It does not work like this.

      If they are going to pursue the idea of licensing content for distribution and broadcast regionally, than it is up to their licensees to go sue whoever they think should be sued. The original companies should just shut up or sue their licensees for not protecting their imaginary property.

      Or they could give up artificially restricting the distribution and then act like global players.

    18. Re:Surprise Surprise. by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am not on their side, but why would they *not* try and change Swedish laws though normal lobbying methods? It's not like merely trying to change laws is supposed to be some sort of nefarious activity, even if it is only being done for your own benefit.

      These companies sell stuff in Sweden, and more importantly, there is a big fat nest of so-called "pirates" there. So, it's not like they lack standing in pursuing these cases due to certain trade agreements. According to their mindset, some of them might even actually believe that this is costing them money. So why would they just say, "oh it's in Sweden, I guess we can't do anything about it, despite these things called treaties. We wouldn't want to be labelled imperialists or anything."

      What should happen is that they are allowed to try, and then they should fail on the merits. It's not like they have a Marine Exepditionary Force and a Carrier Battle Group waiting off the coast to enforce the will of these companies. There are probably more than a few Swedes that even sympathize with them.

      I think it's important to not start getting so wrapped up in our own viewpoint that we forget that our adversaries can act in a legitimate manner too.

    19. Re:Surprise Surprise. by Vovk · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    20. Re:Surprise Surprise. by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2

      So you are saying TPB just didn't bribe^Wsupport the politicians enough?

      They have their own political party (Piratpartiet), so no. They just don't have enough of their members in power yet (1 potential member of European parliament conditioned on whether the Lisbon Treaty is ratified).

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    21. Re:Surprise Surprise. by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah basically.

      Plus piratebay doesn't have enough money to outspend the billions the MAFIAA and other megacorps spread liberally to politicians' reelection campaigns, so even if piratebay lobbied it would be for null: - The politicians will listen to the biggest contributors, not the small ones. Isn't corporatism fun?

      I for one do Not welcome our corporate overlords.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    22. Re:Surprise Surprise. by kensan · · Score: 1

      Let's hope TPB have a better plan than to hand over their whites as ransom money...

    23. Re:Surprise Surprise. by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      It goes far beyond IP too. I have heard tell of agreements where authorities must make x number of arrests for drug possession (namely marijuana) in certain European countries in order to maintain favorable trade relations. Can't recall how recent this is, but the is doing it for Christ's sake! So then who's going to stop the private groups too?

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    24. Re:Surprise Surprise. by fooslacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True. But didn't the media companies attempt to force the Swedish government to change their laws to fit said media companies' business model? *That* is far beyond what should be permitted.

      Not exactly. They tried to get the government to change the law but "forcing" usually involves guns and missiles. I pretty much hate the megacorps but they don't have private armies and they don't attack countries to make money so I suggest we not overstate our position which in turn minimizes the legitimacy of it.

      What they did was lobby governments and apply financial pressure. That seems reasonable for a corporation even if I don't like the results.

    25. Re:Surprise Surprise. by DrLang21 · · Score: 2

      I thought this was already complete. Sales tax, gas tax, entertainment tax, property tax, income tax, estate tax... what are we missing here? Hell I even have to pay tax to park my car in a national forest and go hiking.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    26. Re:Surprise Surprise. by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Give it time, and they will soon have A) their own armies and B) the willpower to actually attack something when it is in their best financial and political interests to do so.

      Blackwater (or similar) goes to the highest bidding GOP-related (oh yes, I brought politics into this) oil company to raid say Venezuela for the oil and gas fields?

      Not so far-fetched.

      I think the only thing keeping them from doing so is current international law frowns upon it.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    27. Re:Surprise Surprise. by easyTree · · Score: 3, Insightful

      what are we missing here?

      Brain implants such that all enjoyment may be monitored at the point of experience and an audit trail constructed.

      Good citizens should not shirk their responsibilities to the state by enjoying their response to a stimulus for which they have not been taxed.

    28. Re:Surprise Surprise. by seriesrover · · Score: 2, Interesting

      British too (and Dr Who is great) - I don't think American acting is better or worse; its just that theres more American "stuff" to pick bad examples from and highlight. Now if you want to see bad acting you should see TV from Latin America. So that begs the question : why is it so popular? I think its more about the culture that surrounds it. One talks with family / friends / work colleagues / radio / internet forums about these shows and it makes you feel part of something. The bad acting or the cardboard sets then become irrelevant.

    29. Re:Surprise Surprise. by Draek · · Score: 1

      Hardly any of them are US companies, Sony is japanese for instance, EMI is british and Vivendi is french. Its just that they bought laws in the US first because, apparently, politicians are cheaper over there than in Europe.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    30. Re:Surprise Surprise. by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      I'm taxed for the air I breath. At least if they use brain implants, maybe they'll stop taxing me for stimuli which I do not use.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    31. Re:Surprise Surprise. by samboneym · · Score: 1

      If someone were to facilitate stealing something you created, wouldn't you want to go after whomever was helping to do that, no matter where they were located?

      I suppose this is time for the inevitable copyright infringement != theft post. *sigh*

    32. Re:Surprise Surprise. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Maybe or maybe there'll just be a deeper definition of 'use' based on some difficult-to-follow path through your subconscious.

      i.e. exposure to a stimulus is always implicitly accompanied by use.

    33. Re:Surprise Surprise. by FridgeFreezer · · Score: 1

      People don't hate the US because of this. They hate you for hundreds of other reasons, chief among them being that you don't know what all those other reasons are and why people might not like them.

      --
      There is no music - home taping killed it.
    34. Re:Surprise Surprise. by regrepsnefpoh · · Score: 1

      Why did you get credit for being funny when you just made the same joke as gubers?

    35. Re:Surprise Surprise. by Hojima · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is pretty much why I support pirating. Yea, it is stealing, but you know what? Fuck them. They have enough money to run the world and they're still not satisfied. I'm not going to give them one red cent when they're exploiting the work of everyone else while thinking that they deserve everything. Want a solid example of the assholes you think might suffer because of copyright violation? My super sweet 16 (I've never seen a full episode because it gets me so pissed). All those spoiled little shits that cry when they only get 3 fucking sports cars will grow up. And when they do, their shitty little attitude and ineptitude for anything short of doing what it takes to get what they want will stay with them. Quite frankly, holding back their revenue through theft is the only way to truly make a difference, or at least prevent things from getting more sour.

    36. Re:Surprise Surprise. by Loko+Draucarn · · Score: 1

      You don't put damned fruit on a pizza. Fruit does not belong on a pizza.

      What about tomatoes?

    37. Re:Surprise Surprise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's not the stealing itself that's wrong. Stealing is perfectly ok. It's the lack of having a commision from a sovereign nation. Or these days, a sovereign corporation. That's what makes a pirate a pirate.

    38. Re:Surprise Surprise. by migla · · Score: 1

      I, for one, don't hate you. What I dislike is much of US foreign policy since decades back.

      People who "hate Americans" really should learn about Noam Chomsky, Kurt Vonnegut and Bill Hicks, for example. All great Americans (IMO).

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    39. Re:Surprise Surprise. by rgarbacz · · Score: 1

      I think that such an attitude just puts more arguments in the hands of companies like RIAA when convincing politicians with tighter control and stronger regulations.
      I like watching movies myself, but from the perspective, I think than in most of the cases I just wasted my time. It is far better to learn something or do some sport.

    40. Re:Surprise Surprise. by rgarbacz · · Score: 1
    41. Re:Surprise Surprise. by Aklyon · · Score: 1

      tomatoes aren't fruit. or vegetable. they're food.

      --
      I reserve the right to have a physical object so I can sell it later, and recover my money.
    42. Re:Surprise Surprise. by BaronHethorSamedi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All those spoiled little shits that cry when they only get 3 fucking sports cars will grow up.

      Yeah, those entitled jerks! (As opposed to throwing a temper tantrum when you have to pay 10 bucks for a CD...)

      Quite frankly, holding back their revenue through theft is the only way to truly make a difference, or at least prevent things from getting more sour.

      It's cute that you think mass theft makes a positive difference. Guess what--it fuels massive litigation (which enriches copyright lawyers), and gives corporate entities and pro-copyright lobbyists a pretty valid (by your admission) argument for negative copyright reform. ("We need tighter laws because pirates are taking money to which rights-holders are entitled by law.")

      Want to truly make a difference? Here are a few ideas:
      Donate to (or hey, participate in) an independent film project.
      Work on an independent or open-source game project.
      Write, paint, draw, or record a potentially profitable creative work and publish it independently. (Best option--almost all profits go to you!)

      All of these involve working around a dinosaur of a copyright regime that does need reforming. All of them are potentially profitable, and encourage positive reform. All of them also involve doing something besides sponging off Bittorrent, pretending the RIAA or whoever has done you some personal wrong by insisting that you pay for what they're selling.

    43. Re:Surprise Surprise. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Food and clothing is still tax free.

      Interstate mail-order or net purchases are tax free (unless you count the USPS.gov's fees as a tax).

      Sex is still tax free, unless your sex comes from a Nevadan prostitute, where they apply a tax to the transaction.

      Mowing your neighbor's lawn or babysitting their kid is taxfree. (shhh)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    44. Re:Surprise Surprise. by qopax · · Score: 1

      "Interstate mail-order or net purchases are tax free"

      Actually, they're not... I don't know about mail-order, but you're technically supposed to report net purchases and pay tax for them anyways.

      --
      I pwn this comment. "The Fine Print" says so.
    45. Re:Surprise Surprise. by Netssansfrontieres · · Score: 1

      Where do you live? I was thinking of coming over and stealing your stuff, since I think I deserve it more.

    46. Re:Surprise Surprise. by KingKiki217 · · Score: 1

      Re: Your sig (I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1.):

      1

    47. Re:Surprise Surprise. by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      Actually I think they ARE just american companies whose products are bought, used, and viewed all around the world.

      and yes, we hate them. but the hatred is more for the company and what their actions stand for, than the american-ness. wouldn't matter if they were from mars...

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    48. Re:Surprise Surprise. by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      to clarify, that is to say, it wouldn't be any different if they were from mars...sorry if there was any confusion.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    49. Re:Surprise Surprise. by Eil · · Score: 1

      It's not like they have a Marine Exepditionary Force and a Carrier Battle Group waiting off the coast to enforce the will of these companies.

      What they do have is millions of dollars set aside for gifts, kickbacks, and fancy lunches to help "persuade" people in powerful places of their point of view. Those of us who want strong fair use laws (artists and consumers alike) don't.

    50. Re:Surprise Surprise. by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      I pretty much hate the megacorps but they don't have private armies and they don't attack countries to make money

      some have in the past

  2. The US is seeking money within the EU? by BlueKitties · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the EU imposes a fine on these movie companies for anti-competitive behavior.

    --
    "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    1. Re:The US is seeking money within the EU? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hope so. I'm an American and I think the EU needs to come down on our movie/record companies.

    2. Re:The US is seeking money within the EU? by lorenlal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Help us EU! You're our only hope! No.. seriously.. Our system of checks and balances resulted in lobbyists writing the checks, and the executive branches appointing justices that fit their political desires. It's pretty sad that we let the record companies tell legislature and the judiciary that it's okay for them to investigate without probable cause, sue citizens into oblivion with numbers that have no grounds in reality, and then turn around and complain that they don't make enough money after screwing the artists.

    3. Re:The US is seeking money within the EU? by benjfowler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've got news for you. The EU are even bigger bitches to Big Content than the US.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HADOPI_law

      The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, folks. When they're not allowed to indulge in their scummy rent-seeking in the US, they'll try it on in Europe, hoping to set some dangerous precedents with which to further erode our rights.

      Big Content doesn't generate anywhere near as many jobs as they claim , their products are mostly garbage, and they contribute very little to the cultural life of the countries they infest. And they demand privileged treatment all the time, whilst attacking our rights as citizens.

      No corporate welfare for Big Content!

    4. Re:The US is seeking money within the EU? by spyrochaete · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the EU imposes a fine on these movie companies for anti-competitive behavior.

      That's a great point! The Pirate Bay should update their site so that it only works on IE! That ought to incur the wrath of the EU.

    5. Re:The US is seeking money within the EU? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Our system of checks and balances resulted in lobbyists writing the checks, and the executive branches appointing justices that fit their political desires.
      >>>

      Our system of checks/balances broke-down when the State Governments lost power over the Senate. Prior to that point the Senate acted as a moderator to stop the Washington D.C. government, and to keep most of the power at the State level where it belongs (per the Constitution). Now that "check" is gone, and D.C. is sucking up all power in sight.

      A couple states have issued proclamations that they won't comply with unconstitutional laws (nullification), but D.C. just laughs and keeps passing more laws. It's reached the point where even a powerful state like California can't legalize medical marijuana for use by doctors, because D.C. will send federal police who ignore California's duly-passed laws and arrest the doctors anyway.

      Everything is off-kilter.

      We need a new constitutional convention. We need to propose amendments that will strictly define what D.C. can do or cannot do, and what powers are reserved to the States.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:The US is seeking money within the EU? by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      We need a new constitutional convention. We need to propose amendments that will strictly define what D.C. can do or cannot do, and what powers are reserved to the States.

      That may sound like a good idea, but I wouldn't just anyone highly involved in United States politics currently to run said convention. The people would get screwed over hard and the Federal will have complete control, which is what the original Constitution was trying to explicitly disallow.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    7. Re:The US is seeking money within the EU? by VulpesFoxnik · · Score: 1
      --
      RES PUBLICA NON DOMINETUR
  3. Sunde, bloody Sunde by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1, Troll

    You'd think that they'd have learned their lesson from the last trial to just keep their mouths shut.

    But like has been their style since the days they began getting legal threats, these people just can't seem to shut up for their own good.
    http://thepiratebay.org/legal

    There's no debtors' prison anymore, so at least they have that going for them.

    1. Re:Sunde, bloody Sunde by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Start fucking respect the sovereign of other countries. Most of them know better than you, and it's your practices and customs that are weird to the rest of the world.

      I suppose you're being sarcastic.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial

      The Pirate Bay trial was a joint criminal and civil prosecution in Sweden of four individuals charged for promoting the copyright infringement of others with the torrent tracking website The Pirate Bay.

      And for the results...

      Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundström were all found guilty and sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine of 30 million SEK (app. 2.7 million or USD 3.5 million).

    2. Re:Sunde, bloody Sunde by easyTree · · Score: 1

      It's their problem to solve. Every countries have problems, and ultimately it's up to them to solve them. Not up to another country to intervene in what it thinks it's the better solution..

      I think you're being overly harsh. Put yourself in the position of the guy with the cigar behind the desk at evil-corporate-conglomerate-hq. If you had a whole government on your payroll, wouldn't *you* use it as a business tool? Otherwise, it's just wasteful.

    3. Re:Sunde, bloody Sunde by geegel · · Score: 1

      Fair enough.

      The problem is not the fact that companies use their leverage on the government but rather that such a leverage exists in the first place.

      Just saying...

      --
      right...
    4. Re:Sunde, bloody Sunde by easyTree · · Score: 1

      I seem to have forgotten to end my previous post with '</sarcasm>'...

    5. Re:Sunde, bloody Sunde by shipbrick · · Score: 1

      I suppose that you're tying to imply there is no American (mainly corporate) influence attempting to impose their financially motivated desires on on sovereign government. I find that very difficult to believe.

      First, see this http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-begged-sweden-to-take-down-the-piratebay/ and reference therein. "As I am sure you are aware, the American Embassy has sent entreaties to the Swedish government urging it to take action against The Pirate Bay and other organizations operating within Sweden that facilitate copyright theft."

      Note that many of the companies suing are the Swedish counterparts of American founded and headquartered corporations.

      From your wikipedia reference: "The raid, alleged by The Pirate Bay to be politically motivated and under pressure from the Motion Picture Association of AMERICA (MPAA),[14] was reported as a success by the MPAA in the immediate aftermath but with the website being restored within days and file sharing now firmly in focus in the Swedish media, The Pirate Bay considered the raid "highly unsuccessful" for the site's operation.[15]" (emphasis mine)

    6. Re:Sunde, bloody Sunde by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      No, I was merely responding to the claim that copyright is an American practice and custom that is "weird to the rest of the world".

      The PB trial was held in Sweden, decided by a Swedish court. The defendants were found guilty in their home country of Sweden.

      Perhaps it is true that some countries find our copyright practices and customs weird. But Sweden isn't one of them.

    7. Re:Sunde, bloody Sunde by geegel · · Score: 1

      That's the problem with being sarcastic. You get more fundamentally true statements in the process. Somewhat like religion, but that's a different beast.

      --
      right...
  4. Geniuses or Morons by bryan1945 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 'content' companies are either geniuses or morons in how they throw lawsuits out like last year's fashions. If some stick, win! If not, raise prices or sue another grandma. I don't know Swedish law or how the court system works, but from the summary (no, I did not RTFs) this sounds like a wild shot in the dark.

    I do not believe in piracy, but I also do not believe in the 'content' companies policies, rules, or regulations. Exactly why do we still need region coding on DVDs? At least I still have my local library to rent (for free, well, except for local taxes) books.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    1. Re:Geniuses or Morons by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      People that see 'piracy' as wrong, but support libraries always seemed to be confused to me. Unless your stance is that the law is the law, right wrong or otherwise, you should always follow the law, and it should never be questioned, how can you be against piracy, yet support the distribution of other peoples works without their consent?

    2. Re:Geniuses or Morons by zwei2stein · · Score: 1

      Exactly why do we still need region coding on DVDs?

      To let them make more money obviously. Set price for each market to be different and reap optimum profit from each. Its not dissimilar from different voltages/socket shapes or NTSC/PAL tv format difference. Product locked to market and thus preventing it from competing with cheaper itself in different market.

      Obviously, this is at huge cost to customers. It should be outlawed, but i guess as long as people can pirate stuff and get around it, noone will care enough to go into streets and protest loudly or write to senators.

      See, this is where content companies win: they get away pulling all sorts of crap because techie people who care can get around it easily and nontechhie people don't care.

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
    3. Re:Geniuses or Morons by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Funny

      Calling it piracy was a massive mistake.
      Piracy sounds totally bad ass, second only to Ninjas. White label burned discs, labelled in sharpie are cooler than the Fonz.

      They are never going to get rid of this image now. Here is an anti piracy video for your enjoyment.

    4. Re:Geniuses or Morons by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Big Content are just abusing the legal system as a weapon. They don't care if they win or lose, because it costs a lot of money to defend against a lawsuit in most countries.

      In other contexts, they're known as SLAPP suits.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

      More examples of the dinosaurs in Big Content propping up their failed business models through the legal system and coopting lawmakers.

    5. Re:Geniuses or Morons by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Simple.

      People feel most-compfortable with the status quo, and that includes copyrighted works but with an exception for libraries. Yes it's illogical but that's how it's "always" been. Of course one wonders why a City Library is allowed to buy a book, loan it out physically to thousands of people, but not do the same digitally. Hmmmm.

      Grandparent poster wrote:
      >>>>>they throw lawsuits out like last year's fashions. If some stick, win! If not, raise prices or sue another grandma.
      >>>

      That's because there's no punishment for bringing a case, wasting years of government resources in court, and then suddenly dropping the case when it appears to be going south. And there should be. Any case brought by a megacorporation should require it be taken to completion, else the filer will have to pay a fine to compensate the State for its time/expenses.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:Geniuses or Morons by RedK · · Score: 1

      Libraries have an implied license to such temporary distribution. Usually, the distro groups don't have said license. The only hypocrisy is expecting something for nothing when you yourself expect to be paid for your work. Change the laws if you don't like them, for now, the lawsuits are legit, if not carried in a legitimate way.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    7. Re:Geniuses or Morons by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      Unsurprisingly, copyright law applies to copies. (Admittedly, trying to use that reading does get a bit fuzzy in the area of performances, which aren't exactly copies.) The owner of a copyright gets control over copies/broadcasts/performances of their work and some control over works deemed "derivative" of the original, nothing more.

      Libraries do not make copies, and therefore copyright law does not apply to them. They simply lend out physical copies they bought which is perfectly legal by the first-sale doctrine. They may hurt profits, but then so may lending media among friends and used media sales. Although, DRM is targeted at basically those "problems".

      From a practical point of view, libraries only let you keep the media for a limited time, so it is qualitatively different from pirating the media and keeping your own copy forever. Also, of course, you may have to wait for the library to have a copy available if the item is popular.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    8. Re:Geniuses or Morons by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Of course one wonders why a City Library is allowed to buy a book, loan it out physically to thousands of people, but not do the same digitally. Hmmmm.

      We (I work in an academic library) can do it digitally, It can even be free to get the first three thousand books*, you just have to play by the rules to remain within the law.

      *I'm currently in the process of implementing this for our students before the new term in September.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  5. You can't do that... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They keep throwing arond "They're suing us over something which we don't own" - if I make alot of money through a company I own which is involved with illegal behaviour - selling the company does NOT strip you free from all crimes.

    Yeah, they're taking alot of flak from just about everyone around the world, but only because they're so smug about what they're trying to get away with. They're just getting what they deserve.

    1. Re:You can't do that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      if I make alot of money through a company I own which is involved with illegal behaviour - selling the company does NOT strip you free from all crimes.

      "involved with illegal behaviour" is an interesting phrase.

      It doesn't quite say that what TPB itself is doing is illegal, does it? Only that it's "involved" - a pretty nebulous term really, when you think about it. Is what THEY are doing illegal? That's the question.

      But for you, being "involved" with illegal behaviour is apparently illegal itself already, or at least enough to be held responsible for that illegal behaviour of others you're involved with. Moreover, you apparently have no qualms about equating "illegal behaviour" with "crime", either, even though the two are quite different (all crimes are illegal, but not vice versa - or are you a convicted felon just because you once parked your car in a no-parking zone and got a ticket?).

      But none of this matters, anyway.

      What does matter is what the law says, and it's wholly unclear to me that TPB broke any Swedish laws; and not everything that is unethical is automatically unlawful and thus grounds for prosecution.

      Similarly, even if what they did IS illegal, that doesn't mean it's necessarily unethical, and whether they're "just getting what they deserve" is also something that people can quite reasonably disagree on.

    2. Re:You can't do that... by Co0Ps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They havn't commited any crimes or "illigal behaviour". Unless you're talking about the extemly vague "participation", according to a judge with none to small insight in how the their technology worked, that was biased (according to common sense, he was a member of a copyright organization), in a trial that spawned from an investigation by a cop that quit and got a job at Warner Bros.

      TPB is hashmapping files and tracking what hashes diffrent IP addresses downloads. Since they where not publishing, nor distributing, any material, they had no obligation to filter it. Linking is not a crime.

      By selling the company they where actually doing the industry a favour, trying to make it more compliant. Two things could happen, it could either transform into something better, or it would be the death of TPB (most likely). Both scenarios are favourable by the industry. But since the distributors rather kill themselves than ever regonizing anything that could spawn out of the pirate community, they choose to sue them some more, kick them while they're laying down.

    3. Re:You can't do that... by oneirophrenos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they're taking alot of flak from just about everyone around the world, but only because they're so smug about what they're trying to get away with. They're just getting what they deserve.

      Their smugness is repeatedly brought up, and I don't quite understand how it affects the severity of their crime. Does it really matter if they're smug or remorseful, is their "crime" still not the same? If they had kept a low profile about the trial, would you then have said they don't deserve what they get?

    4. Re:You can't do that... by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      It's called schadenfreude.

      You ever watch The Green Mile?
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120689/

      Compare and contrast the deaths of Delacroix and Wharton.

    5. Re:You can't do that... by davegravy · · Score: 1

      By selling the company they where actually doing the industry a favour, trying to make it more compliant. Two things could happen, it could either transform into something better, or it would be the death of TPB (most likely). Both scenarios are favourable by the industry.

      I disagree. I suspect they would rather have TPB disappear entirely than add credibility to the use of the bittorrent protocol by having a successful (Ameri-)legal distribution business based off it. As it stands the vast number of ISPs who throttle bittorrent traffic are working in the industry's favour, and this would cease to be the case if TPB became an (Ameri-)legal entity.

    6. Re:You can't do that... by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>>"They're suing us over something which we don't own"

      The argument which has been used for at least 5 years now (where have you been), is that trackers don't have copies of the books, songs, or videos. The possession is in the hands of the private *citizens* and the tracker merely acts like a phone company to connect these distant homes to one another. i.e. The tracker doesn't own the works.

      >>>if I make alot of money through a company I own which is involved with illegal behaviour

      A company telling User Joe Smith that he can find a copy of "Twilight Zone" from User Trinity, and providing B's address to A is not illegal behavior under current law. You might wish it was, but it ain't.

      The people who are the "criminals" in that case are Mr. Smith and Trinity, not the tracker company, and they are the ones who should be getting sued for violating existing laws, not piratebay.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:You can't do that... by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      Its one thing to allow others to post links it another altogether to promote the posting of links to illegal material. If put up a bulletin board at a restaurant I own call "The Pot Smokers Bay" and people were putting up fliers on where to buy pot, I would be held responsible.

      Not if your restaurant was in a place where it is legal to buy pot.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    8. Re:You can't do that... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      If put up a bulletin board at a restaurant I own call "The Pot Smokers Bay" and people were putting up fliers on where to buy pot, I would be held responsible.

      Whatever happened to freedom of assembly?

      And it used to be you were only held responsible if you exercised editorial control. Now it seems that editorial control is mandatory so that you can (and will) be held responsible.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    9. Re:You can't do that... by tekrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are involved with "illegal behavior"?

      So, when a stolen laptop gets sold on eBay, why isn't the CEO and Board of Directors of eBay hauled off to jail? Why hasn't the owner of the stolen laptop sued the pants off eBay? Isn't eBay involved with "illegal behavior"?

      ebay just facilitates the sale between teo individuals. eBay does "sell" the item, nor do they "warehouse" or "own" the item.

      Similarly, The Pirate Bay doesn't "host" the file(s), movies, MP3s, or anything. They facilitate a transaction between uploaders and downloaders, but TPB doesn't "own" the file, doesn't sell the file, doesn't "warehouse" the file.

      If TPB is involved in "illegal behavior", then similarly, eBay is just as involved, and perhaps even more so, as eBay deals in tangible physical property that can be "stolen", but I don't see an army of lawyers queueing up to go after eBay.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    10. Re:You can't do that... by samboneym · · Score: 1

      Their smugness is repeatedly brought up, and I don't quite understand how it affects the severity of their crime. Does it really matter if they're smug or remorseful, is their "crime" still not the same? If they had kept a low profile about the trial, would you then have said they don't deserve what they get?

      I think it offends those who try to portray themselves as even minded when they've already judged them as guilty. After all, remorse can sometimes be a factor at sentencing.

    11. Re:You can't do that... by lacoronus · · Score: 1

      extemly vague "participation", according to a judge with none to small insight in how the their technology worked

      Well, if it is as you say, that the verdict is based on a misunderstanding of what TPB does and how the law works, TPB should have no problem filing an appeal that overturns it. But they haven't. The only thing they've managed is to claim that the judge was biased, but so far nobody has made an argument as to why the reasoning behind the verdict is wrong. Since it's been 3+ months since the verdict, I would have expected something to come up.

      Since they where not publishing, nor distributing, any material, they had no obligation to filter it. Linking is not a crime.

      They were storing and distributing the .torrent files, which was found to be a case of knowingly aiding and abetting copyright infringement, in line with section 18 of the law regarding electronic commerce. This is what any appeal must overcome.

    12. Re:You can't do that... by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 1

      ebay just facilitates the sale between teo individuals. eBay does "sell" the item, nor do they "warehouse" or "own" the item.

      No, but they have policies in place against the trading of stolen goods, whereas Pirate Bay actively encouraged people to infringe upon copyrights. There is also the point that few, if any, people knowingly go on eBay to purchase stolen goods, whereas the sharing and download of copyrighted materials was/is The Pirate Bay's raison d'etre. It's in their fucking name. The only way that argument would have any cachet is if eBay was called iFence or eConversion or something (stupid) like that, and made it perfectly clear that they wanted to be known as a place for the exchange of stolen goods.

      tl;dr; Intent means a lot.

    13. Re:You can't do that... by Jeian · · Score: 1

      Every time I see this argument, it pisses me off.

      Google links to information. TPB likes to claim that they're innocent providers of information, but they're fully aware that the primary reason people use their site is to pirate media.

      I have no love for the RIAA/MPAA either, but to claim that TPB is being persecuted for providing an innocuous service is stretching the truth. A lot.

    14. Re:You can't do that... by Co0Ps · · Score: 1

      TPB should have no problem filing an appeal that overturns it. But they haven't.

      Actually they have. They will be able to appeal it twice, and we're currently waiting for the second trial.

      so far nobody has made an argument as to why the reasoning behind the verdict is wrong

      There has been a lot of arguments against the verdict. One example is that they are just as guilty to "accessory to crime against copyright law" as google is.

      They were storing and distributing the .torrent files, which was found to be a case of knowingly aiding and abetting copyright infringement...

      A torrent file is technically equivalent to a link. Since linking is not distribution it's technically not forbidden. In my opinion, restricting linking is censorship, and I find laws that restrict linking crazy.

    15. Re:You can't do that... by lacoronus · · Score: 1

      so far nobody has made an argument as to why the reasoning behind the verdict is wrong

      There has been a lot of arguments against the verdict. One example is that they are just as guilty to "accessory to crime against copyright law" as google is.

      That argument ignores that Google lacks intent, something the court found TPB had, which means that whoever made it hasn't understood the verdict.

      They were storing and distributing the .torrent files, which was found to be a case of knowingly aiding and abetting copyright infringement...

      A torrent file is technically equivalent to a link. Since linking is not distribution it's technically not forbidden.

      I suspect you make the same mistake many tracker operators do. A torrent file may share some attributes with a link, but the big issue here is that some linking is in fact illegal. It's called "aiding and abetting". Google get away with linking to illegal material because they respond to complaints and take down the offending links. (Google for "wolverine torrent" and see the text at the bottom of the page.) If Google didn't clear out links to copyright infringing material, they'd be aiding and abetting, and would also be found guilty.

      So stating that a torrent file is equivalent to a link isn't sufficient to get you free - you have to look at the intent behind it.

    16. Re:You can't do that... by migla · · Score: 1

      Well, illegal or not, spreading as much information to as many people as possible, is obviously a good thing.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    17. Re:You can't do that... by metaforest · · Score: 1

      "A company telling User Joe Smith that he can find a copy of "Twilight Zone" from User Trinity, and providing B's address to A is not illegal behavior under current law. You might wish it was, but it ain't."

      Utter bullshit.

      Put another way:
      Lets say I am asked by person A where I might find a person B who will sell person A drugs. If I give them a reference to a person B, I am guilty of aiding and abetting the crime of drug trafficking, in most US states this is a felony. It applies in US law for almost any crime you can think of. Providing any form of willful assistance to a criminal act is, in and of itself, a criminal act.

      The Pirate Bay, applying same logic, is in fact aiding and abetting.

    18. Re:You can't do that... by selven · · Score: 1

      Like piracy or hate it, I think their bravery in the face of overwhelmingly powerful interests is an example to us all.

    19. Re:You can't do that... by Savior_on_a_Stick · · Score: 1

      There is a concept in law often phrased as "knew or should have known."

      It applies to both Bays.

      If ebay were suddenly inundated with brand new $50 dollar laptops and did not investigate, they would be guilty of facilitating sales of stolen property.

      Similarly, the operators of TBP knew, or should have known that the service they operated was facilitating copy write violation.

      Whether or not they actually host the files is irrelevant, as they are aware of the illegal behavior, do not prevent it, encourage it, and profit from it through sales of advertising.

      There is a clear difference long established in law between these scenarios.

  6. A good plan... by autoevolution · · Score: 1

    Keep saying you'll sell TPB to some company and just keep delaying it so it never actually gets sold, say "we don't own the site, its being sold to company X". Meanwhile TBP doesn't change at all and we are all happy :)

  7. Today's youth can learn a lesson from these guys by tomzyk · · Score: 5, Funny

    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...

    Wow. In highschool, I always thought expanding a 3-page term-paper into a 4-page term-paper was kinda rough, but could always be done by tweaking the font-size (ie. 13pt instead of 12pt) or line-spacing (ie. 2.1 instead of standard double-spacing)... but turning 8 words into a 40 page document?!? I am humbled.

    --
    Karma: NaN
  8. Sigh by Co0Ps · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not really a smart move by the movie industry. TPB is currently trying to transform into something more cooperative. Probably something that even the movie industry could strike a deal from. Suing would only make this process more difficult, halt it or even prevent it. But that's hardly a suprise as they are arrogant and doesn't hesitate one bit to play the legal card rather then making the slightest effort to adopt to the new digital era. Thanks to the last trial, Sweden now have a Pirate Party politican in the europeean parlament. I wonder whats next.

  9. Not even a good name by Nebulious · · Score: 1

    Reservella? Seriouslly!? Did the executives just get drunk at happy hour one day and come up with the fake company to sue with then?

    Red Suit: We-We need a name that says the company totally reserved the rights for the stuff.
    Blue Suit: How abouuuuut...Re...ser...vella?
    Red Suit: Yes. Yes, write that down and we can count this entire Bangkok trip as a business expense!
    Blue Suit: Awesome, someone get an 8-year-old boy to deliver us some blow. We'll use 'em both up!

  10. The leaders are out of control by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
    than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- The history of the present is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over [the citizens]. The government has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

    I say

    -revolt. The is NO natural right to stop someone from copying your book, or song, or filmed play. The only natural right is the right to lock it into a safe and hide it from view, but you do Not have a right to stop someone from using their own pen-and-paper, or tape recorder, or computer, however they desire. It's THEIR property, not yours.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:The leaders are out of control by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      P.S.

      The government grant of license to an artisan is a *privilege* not a right, and only a temporary one at that.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:The leaders are out of control by samriel · · Score: 1

      P.S.

      The government grant of license to an artisan is a *privilege* not a right, and only a temporary one at that.

      Yes, but when "temporary" means somewhere around life + 75 years... that's not so temporary.

    3. Re:The leaders are out of control by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      and only a temporary one at that.

      Eh, not so much.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    4. Re:The leaders are out of control by Xebikr · · Score: 1

      Could you define "natural rights, then?

      Natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative. source

      The answer to most of the rest of your questions is "no". source

    5. Re:The leaders are out of control by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Agreed, the length of copyright is too long. Does that imply all copyright is evil and piracy is good? TPB seems to want to abolish all copyright, not merely reform it.

    6. Re:The leaders are out of control by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      The Greeks defined natural rights as an innate quality of being human. They then used as an example - putting a person inside a cage. That person will try to break-free, because humans have an instinctive to desire freedom. They have a "right" to be free, and not enslaved.

      The Romans incorporated that Greek idea into their legal codes and elected Senate.

      It was further developed by Scottish philosophers in the 1600s, which then formed the basis for the U.S. and French revolutions and their respective Rights documents, which were not creating rights but merely putting-onto-paper rights that already existed from the moment of creation.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:The leaders are out of control by selven · · Score: 1

      Just wait for when we invent immortality. Of course, it probably won't be a big deal since the medicines would all be patented anyway.

  11. i smell profit! by castironpigeon · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet TPB could make a killing selling the rights to this saga/soap opera/farce to Hollywood to make into a movie. ...and then they could index the torrent for it.

    --
    mmmm...forbidden donut
    1. Re:i smell profit! by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      They already have, or at least something similar:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_This_Film

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  12. Piss the Corporate Overlords off... by GPLDAN · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Remember TPB had a link right off the home page of correspondence? It was with lawyers from Sony BMG, and other places. Usually it was a legalize Cease and Desist type letter.

    The TPB guys would usually respond with some really funny snarky shit. Like "Dear Sirs, here in Sweden we think your shit attitude needs to get bent over a stool."

    In some cases, they would piss the other side off so much they would drop the formal language and start spewing, like "you little shits, we're gonna find you and shut your asses down." It was hilarious to read them simply pissing on the leather shoes of expensive lawyers and telling them to fuck off.

    Well, you do that enough and you get high on powerful enemy hit lists. Don't kid yourself, power multinationals bought off that Swedish judge and make this into a kangaroo court. It's probably one of the biggest travesties of justice of all time, the slope is so fucking slippery. They may as well sue the IETF or ARIN for giving out IP addresses to enable piracy. That's how egregious the law was twisted for the interests of powerful capitalists.

    Now? Now they are laying on the hurt to teach the world a lesson.

    1. Re:Piss the Corporate Overlords off... by davegravy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, you do that enough and you get high on powerful enemy hit lists. Don't kid yourself, power multinationals bought off that Swedish judge and make this into a kangaroo court. It's probably one of the biggest travesties of justice of all time, the slope is so fucking slippery. They may as well sue the IETF or ARIN for giving out IP addresses to enable piracy. That's how egregious the law was twisted for the interests of powerful capitalists.

      There's a chance TPB pissed off the enemy enough that they will be irresponsible in their retaliation, falter, and some good will come out of this.

    2. Re:Piss the Corporate Overlords off... by Keyper7 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Remember TPB had a link right off the home page of correspondence?

      "Had"? It's still right there, under the link "legal threats".

    3. Re:Piss the Corporate Overlords off... by j1976 · · Score: 1

      The legal/mail/response page is still available here. Typical quotes include things like (in a response to Dreamworks) "It is the opinion of us and our lawyers that you are ....... morons, and that you should please go sodomize yourself with retractable batons."

    4. Re:Piss the Corporate Overlords off... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      As long as we collectively pretend to believe that some people are wise enough to sit in judgement of another, this will continue to happen. It just isn't so.

    5. Re:Piss the Corporate Overlords off... by Savior_on_a_Stick · · Score: 1

      TPB has always been about piracy.
      They knew what was going on, and took no action to prevent it, as well as benefiting from it.
      Ads on TBP generate revenue, and the revenue is based on site traffic.
      Track only non-infringing torrents and TPB would cease to exist, and so would the revenue stream.
      They do not enjoy common carrier status.
      Snarky comments do not negate the simple truth of the matter.

    6. Re:Piss the Corporate Overlords off... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Travesty? Not really, and mostly for the reasons you described.

      It's true that they weren't storing any IP. It's absolutely true. And if they'd done as bittorrent did and said, "Look, we're just a service, we don't have control over what people put up" they would have been in a MUCH stronger position.

      If they'd made a token effort, if they'd said "If you give us specific instances, we'll pull them down" they would have been able to say, in court, "This is bullshit, we acted in good faith" even if they never implemented any sort of filter, and didn't bother to keep people from reposting torrents for copyrighted IP. That would have made a huge difference.

      But when they turn around and cop this huge attitude, and gloat over the fact that they're facilitating "piracy" and that no one can touch them...You're just begging to be nut-punched by the long arm of the law.

      It should come as no surprise to anyone that they lost. Courts of law do not work in such a way as to protect people who are gloating about violating the spirit of the law...You can violate the spirit, but you have to adopt this air of hurt innocence.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    7. Re:Piss the Corporate Overlords off... by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      The hard drive business would also be in trouble without piracy. As would ISPs that offer high speed downloading. And computer makers too. Looking at the progress that piracy has fostered, the truth is that TPB founders deserve a Nobel Prize.

    8. Re:Piss the Corporate Overlords off... by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Don't kid yourself, power multinationals bought off that Swedish judge and make this into a kangaroo court. It's probably one of the biggest travesties of justice of all time, the slope is so fucking slippery. They may as well sue the IETF or ARIN for giving out IP addresses to enable piracy. That's how egregious the law was twisted for the interests of powerful capitalists.

      That could end up being their biggest mistake. In Europe there is a long tradition of socialist and egalitarian thinking, especially when private companies are perceived to be crushing the little guys. This could end up backfiring on them big-time. The Pirate Bay trial has already catapulted the Pirate Party from unknown to third largest political party in Sweden with a seat in the European Parliament. Even the major social democratic parties in Europe are beginning to align with Pirate Party positions on copyright to prevent defections of younger members. If the multinationals continue to be pushy with the EU, they may see an even more serious backlash.

    9. Re:Piss the Corporate Overlords off... by Savior_on_a_Stick · · Score: 1

      I understand where you're going with this, and I've pointed out for years that most technological advancements in media and distribution are directly traceable to porn loving old men in their basements.

      And you definitely have a point with high speed internet.

      I need it at work as we need to send our own company-generated media around without people twiddling their expensive thumbs waiting for it to arrive.
      (No, I don't work for a media company - we just have an artsy ethos and generate a lot of pretty pictures and video in support of our tangible product.)

      I really would have no need for a cable connection at home, except for downloading large media from the internet.

      If I wanted a better gaming experience I would shelve my very fast cable connection for a slower, lower latency dsl line.

      I can't remember the last time I was able to actually saturate my connection downloading from a legit site.

      Cable internet *is* very much piracy driven.

      Drive sales - no so much.

      Most people don't archive what they download - they watch it, and with the exception of a few rare "keepers" delete them to make room for the next download.

  13. Re:Today's youth can learn a lesson from these guy by davegravy · · Score: 1

    There's probably 39.5 pages of definitions and other legal language/diarrhea

  14. Re:Today's youth can learn a lesson from these guy by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1

    Amateur. You forgot about adjusting the spacing between characters and downloading new fonts where at the approved 12pt (usually the largest we were allowed) was the same as a 15pt in a standard font like Arial.

  15. America - We do take out, and now delivery too! by davegravy · · Score: 1

    Didn't you know? Secretly everyone wants to be American, and part of the fun/culture of being American is being sued by large corporations. Now you don't even have to come to America to experience this, America will come to you!

    1. Re:America - We do take out, and now delivery too! by jerep · · Score: 1

      You make it sound like america is a trip into an amusement park where no matter what happens, you lose.

      Id much rather live outside and have the circus come to my local town, so I can ignore it and stay home doing useful stuff, like downloading movies and music while coding my way through world domination.
      When you live in america, you tend to forget you live at the circus and it becomes reality, then you begin to think paris hilton has talent and american idol is a really great show.

    2. Re:America - We do take out, and now delivery too! by easyTree · · Score: 1

      rofl.

      Where do I sign to get my mexican slaves? .. and will you send them by airmail?

  16. Re:Today's youth can learn a lesson from these guy by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

    You have much to learn, grasshopper.

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  17. Re:So... by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 1

    And will it be available as a torrent?

    --
    Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
  18. He who has the gold rules by Brain-Fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Intellectual Property" (sic) has just become the most valuable thing on the planet. So, naturally enough, the wealthier portion of humanity wants to own and control most of it.

    It is also "abundant," (can be replicated infinitely, by anyone, at zero cost).

    So, as we have seen before, the wealthy destroy this abundance by passing laws to create artificial scarcity. They have every incentive to do this.

    The flippant public attitude that TPB is showing will not protect them from the wrath of the rich.

    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.

    It isn't that they refuse to listen to reason....it is that they are following their obvious incentives to their logical conclusions. Expect more. Much more.

    1. Re:He who has the gold rules by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>It is also "abundant," (can be replicated infinitely, by anyone, at zero cost).

      You really hit the nail on the head with that sentence. Once a book, song, or movie exists, it can be mass-produced at zero cost. It's the ultimate product where the "economy of scale" has no limit. It's an infinite value.

      For example if Disney could convince every person on earth to buy "Fantasia" from itunes.com, they would have made 6 billion customers times ($10 minus $5 for apple's cut) == $40 billion in profit. And every time a new baby is born, Disney gains a new customer, and they can replicate Fantasia for even more money.

      Pure profit.
      No cost.

      No wonder businessmen are falling all over themselves to protect their exclusive distribution privilege, and kill bittorrent.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:He who has the gold rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There are really only three things that we pay for, because they are scarce: land (both surface area and the minerals it is made up of), human muscle, and human brain power. Any other perceived scarcities (so far, anyway) can be corrected by proper use of the first three. If we are not willing to pay for the brain power, why should we pay for the muscle? What is special about human muscle? So maybe we should just go back to a society where only land has value. Sounds like that would really benefit everyone, doesn't it?

    3. Re:He who has the gold rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If we are not willing to pay for the brain power, why should we pay for the muscle?

      Sounds like a flawed argument by analogy to me. Brain power and muscle power do have something in common, but that doesn't imply that they have everything in common. We might want to treat them differently precisely because of what is unique about them.

      So maybe we should just go back to a society where only land has value.

      That is quite a slippery slope there...so to speak.

      If we are not willing to pay for the brain power

      That sounds like another slippery slope fallacy. Wanting to avoid payment in some circumstances does not imply wanting all brain-power to be free all the time.

      The majority opinion of slashdot seems to be (all apologies for putting words in the mouths of those who disagree) that there should be copyright restrictions and people should pay for copyrighted content...but that the current set of restrictions is too heavy-handed. A happy medium is what people really want, and all the rebellion we are seeing now is just a result of there not being a happy medium.

    4. Re:He who has the gold rules by spinlight · · Score: 3, Informative

      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:

      • Transportation Equipment
      • Chemicals
      • Computer & Electronic Products
      • Machinery, Except Electrical
      • Petroleum & Coal Products
      • Miscellaneous Manufactured Commodities
      • Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components
      • Food & Kindred Products
      • Plastics & Rubber Products
      • Fabricated Metal Products

      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
  19. Why "piracy"? by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    Who in the industry decided to call it "piracy"? Piracy sounds cool. In many (most?) fictional depictions the pirates are the good guys. (Modern-day piracy notwithstanding.) Why don't they push to call it "software theft" or "computer mugging" or something?

    1. Re:Why "piracy"? by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      Calling is "piracy" made me want to use it to obtain Pirates of the Caribbean. It sounded like it was the preferred method.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    2. Re:Why "piracy"? by selven · · Score: 1

      Thank you for a great idea sir. right now, I'm going to go off into people's houses and mug their computers and take their hard drives with all that software on them. Compared to copyright infringement, it's more fun and the penalties are lighter too.

  20. Hmm ... not being sued in the US by Pool_Noodle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I find it mildly amusing that this group of movie studios isn't suing TPB on US Soil, no instead these companies have to take their embarrassing freak show of Illegally obtained evidence, overzealous lawyers, and greedy "businessmen" to a country where none of the players reside just to try and "stop the evil criminals". Simply put, enough is enough, I'm not defending TPB, but at the same time I think its safe to assume 3 things - interest in piracy is going to increase even more (stick it to the evil movie companies), America will look even worse in the global view for trying to "police the world" (thank you to those who posted that already), and simply put, if they do manage to stop TPB by some freak coincidence 10 more places will spring up in their place, 'cause you can't stop the signal (yeah ... I couldn't resist the Serenity reference). Instead of wasting time and resources these companies need to learn to stop fighting the new technology and use it to their advantage - DVD's and digital downloads without DRM (com'on how many ways does it have to be broken before these guys learn that its not working !?), CD's that don't lock up and freeze computers (oooh ooh .. how many people remember this Sony Fiasco ??), DVD's that don't remove your ability to skip previews (yes, I actually own DVD's that prevent you from Skipping the previews), the list goes on and on. Oh well, my 2 cents on the topic.

    --
    "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind" - Dr. Seuss
  21. Are you being deliberately obtuse? by Savior_on_a_Stick · · Score: 1

    A library purchases X copies of a work to loan to their members.

    Piracy involves buying one or zero copies, then replicating them.

    Do you really not see the difference?

    1. Re:Are you being deliberately obtuse? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      A library purchases X copies and supplies it to Y people so that the Y people don't pay the creator.

      Piracy involves a non-library purchasing X copies and supplying it to Y people so that the Y people don't pay the creator

      No, I don't see the difference. Certainly you are not going to claim that it is the 'replicating' part that is wrong. You can't seriously be claiming that a library lending out a copy has any less impact on the sales of media than Joe Bluebeard replicating a copy for his pal. In both cases, both people get to use the media and in both cases one is not paying the creator.

      I am thinking that you seem to fall into the confused category.

    2. Re:Are you being deliberately obtuse? by laederkeps · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you really not see the difference?

      That's not it at all! To get the slashdot crowd to understand your argument, you just need to rephrase it to a more familiar syntax:

      $library =~ /(sale)+/
      $pirate =~ /(sale)?/

      See? To a publisher, the difference between a library and a pirate is like the difference between the + and ? quantifiers!

    3. Re:Are you being deliberately obtuse? by Java+Pimp · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Hmmm... the difference...
      • A library purchases X copies and can LOAN those copies to at most X people at a time. When all copies are loaned, no further people may acquire a copy.
      • Piracy involves purchasing 1 copy and duplicating it and supplying it to an unlimited number of people.
      • A borrower from the library must return the copy after a given period of time. If not, they pay a fine which is used to purchase another copy (paying the creator again) if the item is not recovered. The borrower is still obligated to return the copy even after paying said fines or may be charged with theft.
      • Receiving a pirated copy requires nothing to be returned. The pirate still has the original copy from which even more copies are made.
      • A borrower from the library may use the content without paying the creator, however, if the borrower wishes to use the content again, it must be re-borrowed from the library or purchased from the creator. If the borrower chooses to get the content from the library, the content is not continuously available to the borrower as it may be borrowed by someone else at the time the borrower may desire it. If the borrower wishes uninterrupted access to the content then it must be purchased from the creator.
      • Receiving a pirated copy does not require the copy to be returned and is therefore in the receiver's possession in perpetuity. If the receiver losses his copy, he may go back to the pirate to receive another copy as the pirate still retains the original.
      • It is piracy to make a copy of the item borrowed from the library.

      In the context of the library, the content creator has been paid for every copy purchased by the library and borrowed by the consumer.

      In the context of piracy, the content creator has been paid only for the original copy and none of the copies traded by the receivers.

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
    4. Re:Are you being deliberately obtuse? by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      What about $Ripper? Unless $Ripper got $Product from $Thief but even then $Publisher usually(always?) makes a profit/breaks even from the theft, just not $Local_Retailer

  22. TPB not as impressive as they hope. by cellurl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    TPB is not impressing me as much as they were.

    Would someone tell me why TPB doesn't put up a Unicef tip jar. I would donate. Then we would see a game changer. TPB-shutdown == kids-starving.

    1. Re:TPB not as impressive as they hope. by mooterSkooter · · Score: 1

      That is quite possibly the most brilliant idea I've ever read on one of these, far too frequent discussions, on piracy/TPB. Well done!

  23. You win the horse shit award by Savior_on_a_Stick · · Score: 1

    1st, no one ever said it's a natural right.
    It's a derived right, which the majority have agreed is an overall benefit to society.
    The fact that intellectual property is not a physical thing doesn't negate it's existence.
    Your position is ignorant and lacks even internal consistency.

    1. Re:You win the horse shit award by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>> It [copyright] is a derived right

      No it isn't. A "derived right" can be traced back to a natural right. For example ownership of money is a "derived right" because money is collected when labor is sold, and labor comes from my body which I own. Therefore I own the money since it was "derived" from my body.

      And yes artisans own the items they produce, whether it's a chair or a book.

      But they do Not own my trees in my backyard, and if I want to chop one down and copy the artisan's chair design, I can. It's my tree. Or if I want to press the tree into paper, and handcopy the artisan's book, I can. AGAIN IT'S MY TREE. Artisans don't have a right to control how/why I use my own personal property. I'm not the artisans' slave and the tree is not his to control.

      On the contrary:

      What artisans have is a *privilege* granted by the government in the form of a copy license, and said privilege is temporary one which will be revoked after XX number of years. (HINT: If it was a "right" it could not be revoked, because rights are innate qualities of being human.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  24. justice for the rich by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

    This is just another example of Big Media trying to bleed the little guy dry. This is an abuse of the judicial system where the plaintiff badgers a defendant through the legal system by forcing the defendant to commit all their funds to legal fees until they can no longer afford anything but a settlement.

    This works just fine in America. I guess it's a welcome practise in Sweden as well.

    1. Re:justice for the rich by skrolle2 · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't cost you any money, because Sweden has a system where the loser pays the legal fees. In the first TPB trial, TPB lost and was also ordered to pay the legal fees of both sides, but since they appealed it, that order is also stayed for now.

      However, it costs you time and effort to defend yourself in court, which can be misused.

    2. Re:justice for the rich by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

      Thanks very much for this clarification. In American law the loser isn't always responsible for legal fees. Even if the defendant wins the case they still have to put forth the fees until such a time as they are reimbursed, so that, in addition to time spent, can be a huge drain on personal resources.

  25. The fix is in by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think events recently have made it absolutely clear that there will be no justice in the courts, anywhere. Specifically, the previous Pirate Bay trial where the judge was an advocate for the plaintiff's cause, and Sony v. Tenenbaum where the judge refused to allow a fair use defense to be presented to the jury. The fix is in.

    1. Re:The fix is in by selven · · Score: 1

      We just need an organized effort to catch evidence of the judges/politicians' daughters downloading and they'll start humming a different tune.

  26. Except that.... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    You really hit the nail on the head with that sentence. Once a book, song, or movie exists, it can be mass-produced at zero cost. It's the ultimate product where the "economy of scale" has no limit. It's an infinite value... For example if Disney could convince every person on earth to buy "Fantasia" from itunes.com ..... No cost..

    Except that, Fantasia, with its hand drawn cells, is not exactly the kind of movie that one is going to just whip up in their spare time. Many movies are hideously expensive to make.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Except that.... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Thankfully for disney they no longer make movies like that. Excepting even their "3d cgi pixar" style movies, almost all of the animation is done on/with computers.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    2. Re:Except that.... by RedK · · Score: 1

      So I guess digital artists, render farms, scripters, voice actors, offices, studios, storage, marketing, bandwidth, online store servers, customer service representatives are all free and cost zero right ? Sure they are fixed cost except for bandwidth, and one more or less copy doesn't change these, but the cost of distribution is not zero, it is just a bit smaller for every copy sold. So let's stop saying it's free and pure profit for them. That is as true as saying that downloading your copy is stealing.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    3. Re:Except that.... by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      Ok, so $40B minus, say, $100M. That's, oh, roughly now ... $40B. The OP's point is that at this economy of scale, the production cost is nearly zero, especially when making $5 per copy sold. If you were to charge $0, then the production cost is significant. But even at these current prices, we all know that the profit levels are so stupidly high as to be laughable.

    4. Re:Except that.... by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>>>Once a book, song, or movie exists, it can be mass-produced at zero cost... For example if Disney could convince every person on earth to buy "Fantasia" from itunes.com, they'd get ~40 billion dollars profit and no manufacturing cost
      >>>>>

      >>Except that Fantasia, with its hand drawn cells, is... hideously expensive to make.

      Except that Fantasia only cost Mr. Disney 0.003 billion to produce. He paid-off that bill in the 1960s, so every digital copy today's Disney Company sells online would literally be zero cost. And pure profit.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:Except that.... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      I said no such thing, I was merely correcting the GP who assumed that disney movies are still handdrawn.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    6. Re:Except that.... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      AS I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL POST, if the movie already exists there's no additional labor that needs to be paid. Therefore Disney can sell-off 6 billion Itunes copies of Fantasia without cost.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:Except that.... by Znork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Many movies are hideously expensive to make.

      With monopoly rights and the ability to exact huge revenue streams from the economy, many movies become hideously expensive to make.

      Without monopoly rights (if you believe in free markets) we'd see far more efficient use of the money, and movies would become much cheaper to make. Perhaps the pure technical quality would trail a bit, but then again, without copyright it would be much cheaper and easier to build upon older works, removing costs for double work.

    8. Re:Except that.... by RedK · · Score: 1

      And as I said, you need to recoup the costs of making said movie. Not to mention what you say is again patently false. Online distribution, retail distribution, marketing, customer service, none of that is free and is all things that need to be done in order to get the copy from Disney to your TV/PC/portable device. So spouting BS like it's fact when you're wrong.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    9. Re:Except that.... by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      A non-stupidly high profit level is one whereby:

      • The ROI is measured in only 3-4 digits (as a percentage). (e.g., 5-10 times the cost, for most "good" movies.)
      • The room for others to profit off your work without a license is kept to a minimum (can never be zero): e.g., to pirate a movie takes some work on the part of the user, but if they could download the movie with no more work than going to the store to buy a copy, and the cost would be so minor as to make most people who would otherwise pirate conclude it was cheaper to actually buy the movie legitly than to pirate it, the amount of piracy would be reduced to near-zero. Pirating a $2 movie isn't worth the risk, but pirating a $45 blu-ray movie is in another ballpark altogether.

      I'm sure there could be more points to consider in deciding if a profit level is ethical, but this should provide a starting-point.

    10. Re:Except that.... by devleopard · · Score: 1

      I guess you've never run a business before. Marketing, employee salaries, electricity, etc. By your logic, since the code that drives Slashdot is already written, once programmers' salaries (cost x hours to write) are paid, Slashdot never needs anymore advertising. Ever. (As a programmer, I realize no code is ever finished, but for the sake of discussion.) I agree with your point, but polluting it with nonsense detracts from its credibility.

      --
      The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
    11. Re:Except that.... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>you need to recoup the costs of making said movie. Not to mention what you say is again patently false.

      You really need to take the time to read what I write, because I don't enjoy repeating myself. "Fantasia" cost Disney a mere 0.003 billion to produce. Mr. Disney paid it off in the 1960s, therefore there's no more production cost. It's bought-and-paid-for, just like your car or your computer or television.

      >>>Online distribution, marketing, customer service, none of that is free

      Yes which is why I said, out of each $10 sale, Apple Incorporated gets to keep $5 of it. THEY take care of all that website/marketing crap. And Disney keeps the other $5 for itself. Minus duplication costs ($0.00) yields five dollars.

      Listing Fantasia on itunes.com literally costs Disney *nothing*.

      If you still disagree, then I challenge you to list the costs Disney would have to pay to sell this movie on Itunes. Not just generalities. Specific, broken-down labor costs. You won't be able to, because there are none.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  27. Re:Today's youth can learn a lesson from these guy by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

    I sold ad space in my senior thesis in highschool.

    --
    Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  28. Re:Today's youth can learn a lesson from these guy by RedK · · Score: 1

    Your teachers were amateurs. Word count was a much better metric and harder to circumvent. Sure you could over-abuse propositions, but then your text sounded like it was written by a first grader and you failed.

    --
    "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
    Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
  29. Real Agenda? by Plekto · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, plans for The Pirate Bay to be sold to Global Gaming X seem to have stalled.

    I suspect that this was the reason. Imagine what making this a legitimate business and media content provider that's outside of U.S. jurisdiction (and markets) would do to the big media companies' grip on local markets.

  30. This is the only way to affect TPB ... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    This was a move pure and simple to stall the selling of TPB to anyone who might have more capital to move it forward.
    American movie companies need to start thinking with their heads instead of their wallets.
    Just my 2 cents..

  31. Re:Slashdot, what happened to you? by Spewns · · Score: 1

    Alright, listen up Slashdot. AcidPenguin934282349 doesn't care for the tone that this site is taking. He's particularly annoyed that you've all become somewhat socially aware, concerned with the US's corporate power over non-US countries, concerned about the future, concerned about the direction and shaping of the internet and the policies and laws surrounding it, and he's particularly annoyed that you aren't all completely mindless drones. Please just give him an empty science & tech news site, one from 9 years back when so many of these issues weren't approaching us head-on like a speeding train. Let's all close our ears, eyes, and mouths to the things that actually matter in the world.

  32. What about all the other torrent websites? by autoevolution · · Score: 1

    Is TPB the only torrent tracker? I'm pretty sure that there are lots of torrent websites out there that either link to websites and serve as a torrent search engine or host their own torrents but I'm not sure how many trackers there are. What about mininova, isohunt, torrentz, demonoid, etc etc. A lot of torrents have TPB as a tracker even though they are downloaded from different sites. If I download a torrent from mininova, and TPB goes down, is there a chance the torrent wouldn't work because TPB is down?

  33. Have you looked at your bandwidth bill lately? by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Except that Fantasia only cost Mr. Disney 0.003 billion to produce. He paid-off that bill in the 1960s, so every digital copy today's Disney Company sells online would literally be zero cost. And pure profit.

    It's not free at all. Have you looked at your bandwidth bill lately? If Disney puts a bunch of movies online, somebody has to lay out the capital costs for interconnects, software services, the climate control and all of that.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Have you looked at your bandwidth bill lately? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Have you looked at your bandwidth bill lately? If Disney puts a bunch of movies online

      Have you bothered to learn to read? I CLEARLY stated that was Apple's bill, not Disney's. Apple would keep half of each Itunes Fantasia sale ($5) and Disney would keep the rest ($5) minus its duplication costs ($0) which yields pure profit for the Disney Company.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Have you looked at your bandwidth bill lately? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      "Windows 7" is the marketing name. Windows NT 6.1 or Vista 6.1 is the reality. Same old crap, but with +0.1 more bugfi

      The reality would actually be Windows Server 2008 for Desktops... I think Vista was Win2k3, and Win7 is Win2k8.

      --
      This is my sig.
  34. Re:Today's youth can learn a lesson from these guy by Seth+Kriticos · · Score: 1

    Having 8 words to say is already awesome. Modern law and politics is about saying nothing in hundreds of pages. Average font size is 4, single spaced.. (Don't worry about the boring paragraph on page 538).

  35. Re:Slashdot, what happened to you? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

    >>>You appear to no longer be a science & tech news aggregator. Stories about copyright and censorship have come to dominate Slashdot.
    >>>

    If you put a Bluray into your shiny-new player and it refuses to run due to copyright restrictions (aka DRM), then I'd say that's a technical problem and technical news.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall