Slashdot Mirror
New Threats Against Pirate Bay Owners
angry tapir writes "The Pirate Bay should be closed, and if it isn't, two of the founders will each have to pay a fine of 500,000 Swedish kronor (US$71,500), according to a verdict in the Stockholm District Court. This time it's Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm Warg who are in the court's crosshairs. They have been forced to shut down the site or pay the fine. The court has stated that the site will have to remain closed unless Neij and Warg are exonerated on another similar case they're involved in, which is now on appeal."
As long as they all host Linux ISOs and Project Gutenberg files, which is the only thing Slashdot users would download from them.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Maybe the problem is that so many companies out there can fail because of a free internet. Then again, i wonder what other business models would fail because of a similar "free" something. Medicine? Voting? Any ideas?
Demonoid's been down for over a month, and Mininova was ordered by a court to remove illegal torrents.
Also, why is this under "Your Rights Online?" Nobody has a right to illegally download copyrighted materials.
I think we should be more worried about wikileaks and other assorted projects that the piratebay guys have been supporting.
I have no idea how much of the piratebay's advertising revenues have gone into wikileaks, but my understanding, as superficial as it may be, is that they are the primary group behind it. Maybe fundraising efforts have replaced them, but I haven't heard one way or the other.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
That's not the point of enforcing the law. You don't leave thieves, embezzlers or whatever alone because there's a lot more of them out there. You catch the ones you can.
And more specific to these cases, the industry isn't concerned with ending all copyright infringement, they're concerned with it becoming (more) mainstream. Remove some of the major trackers/sources, a few high publicity lawsuit campaigns, and then "why don't you just download it" becomes "why not just buy it".
The crux of The Pirate Bay's existence is that it is not explicitly illegal under Swedish law to do what they do. We know what torrent technology is and how it works and how it is used. There is no need to go into that. The pirate bay tracks, indexes and serves up torrent file. It is not copyrighted data or information.
The new spin is that they have been convicted of being an accessory to copyright infringement but there is no specific instance of copyright infringement having been associated with the charge. It seems to me that you would first have to prove an offence occurred before someone can be charged with being an accessory to an offence. Can someone be charged with accessory to murder without proof that a murder took place? I understand there is a general and accepted fact that The Pirate Bay does indeed contribute to copyright infringement, but in a court of law where proof and evidence are important, it seems pretty dangerous to convict someone on established presumptions rather than fact based on evidence and that there should be an original offence, based on fact based evidence, to associate with an accessory charge.
Sweden showed that they have integrity of their judicial process by not charging TPB with copyright infringement as their laws do not identify their activities as copyright infringement. Good. But charging them as an accessory to an unidentified offence is a departure from that judicial integrity.
I worry for the rule of law when people can be charged with crimes in this way.
Also, why is this under "Your Rights Online?" Nobody has a right to illegally download copyrighted materials.
Because the rights of illegal downloading is not in question, it's the right to host a site that tracks torrents. You see, as long as there is a site that legitimately hosts non-copyrighted material, there will be people who post torrents that contain other material. To the dismay of the record companies, there will never be an end to piracy, however, these sites should not be one to suffer. While you may compare this to government shutting down legitimate bars that happen to be a gathering place for criminals that sell illegal weapons, there is a difference. Imagine that these bars were magical, so that even a tiny bar would only have to have its name whispered to have vendors teleport their wares through that bar. Some are even in a magical untouchable plane (this would be similar to sites hosted out of jurisdiction). Going after the largest bar because it's very well known and mostly criminals use it wouldn't make much sense. All the criminals would go elsewhere and you'd have the same damn problem, until the evil warlocks responsible monopolize magic bars.
Then we would have to wait for a hero who can wield the sword of Gargatha to slay these evil warlocks. But there's a rumor that these evil warlocks have been killing virgins to gain immunity to the sword. I don't know what this would be analogous to but I though it would be fun to add.
Help fight spam
It's hilarious these people think going after top sites will change anything. The only people enjoying all of this is the lawyers making huge bankrolls during the court process.
When/if pirate bay goes down another 10 torrent sites will rise up to take the reigns. You can't stop it and never will. They should have learned that from Napster.
That's not the point of enforcing the law. You don't leave thieves, embezzlers or whatever alone because there's a lot more of them out there. You catch the ones you can. (No I don't really think the piratebay should be shut down but it IS a stupid argument.)
When the law starts making large portions of the population into criminals, it's time to start changing the law.
I say that because the same laws being used to go after TPB are being used to come after you and me. Or is that a stupid argument too?
The War on Copyright is going exactly like The War on Drugs:
A supersize order of Fail with an extra side order of extensive collateral damage.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
What are you talking about? That is an awful argument.
The argument for legalization of marijuana PREDICTS the further detriment to society from drug abuse becoming more of a problem.
When softer alternatives are prohibited, harder alternatives become more attractive (for example, why bootleg beer when you can bootleg harder alcohol). This leads to more people doing harder drugs.
As if that isn't bad enough, you then foster black market production and distribution of drugs, which is a huge industry that goes untaxed. This also leads to variable purity and supply of the various illicit substances. For drugs like heroin, this means regional rashes of drug overdose.
It is undeniable that drug addiction is a psychological and physiological problem, which should be treated with medical care rather than with the immensely expensive and wholly ineffectual criminalization of people with a disease. As a matter of fact, given recidivism rates of those convicted of drug offenses, it is pretty clear that jailing drug users leads them to continued and harder drug use. I, personally, think a stoner is of less harm to society than a stoner graduated to meth thanks to exposure in prison.
Finally, your argument is awful in regard to the simple fact that, over the last 44 years, marijuana hasn't been legal, so any perceived benefits would not be in effect.
Cmon now, this is still 5 insightful?
I need to post something logged in now to get a +2 karma/subscription post so people can read:
WikiLeaks has a vast community of supporters and maintainers (read the Score:0 anon post under parent).
TPB is a drop in the well of support for WikiLeaks.
> Remind me: How does (x == px) evaluate?
It evaluates as "laws are not based on pointer arithmetic".
See the concept of aiding and abetting. Things that are, on the surface, legal, can be illegal if they are knowingly and willingly and purposefully helping the commission of a crime. YMMV, consult your local legislation for details.
The reason it's filed under "your rights online" is because our legal rights are something we determine as a democratic society.
Rights do not refer to only to current rights, but also the discussion of future rights and changes of existing rights.
We as a society, should have the power, and say to change rights when majority agrees.
While downloading illegal torrents and piracy may be illegal now, there is an important discussion to be had regarding their place in humanity. Further more, there is a much larger discussion to be had about economics all together, and if perhaps there is a better way to live as citizens of our planet.
If we assume that right now, is the best we can do.... We might as well fucking die because as a species of intelligent people, we should always ask questions, invent new things, and reinvent old ideas.
Right now, we could be doing a lot more to help ALL OF US live a better, healthier life... with out poverty and greed... however we dont. WHY?
Maybe one day it will be the right of man, that we deserve much better than what we have now, and call a "civil" society.
Hid.im is a new web-based service that allows users to hide .torrent files inside PNG images. This means that users can easily upload hidden torrent files to their favorite image hosting service and forums, or use it as an avatar on social networking sites without being censored.
http://torrentfreak.com/hidim-converts-torrents-into-png-images-090714/
Exception Duck - may or may not contain chicken.
That's not hidden in PNG images, that's "as" PNG images. It would be better to put it in Exif data, so it's really hidden.
No, but we certainly have the right to download torrents, which are legal in themselves! They aren't copyrighted material; they are pointers to copyrighted material!
Watching a geek self-destruct in the courtroom is one of life's most innocent pleasures.
You have a BT client installed.
You click on a link - and the infringing file arrives piece by piece to be assembled within your computer.
No other action on your part is anticipated or required.
That is all anyone needs to know. The interior mechanics of the system are irrelevant.
one person doesn't block what you can do. That person has the sole right to sell copies of a work HE created. Where the fuck do slashdotters pull this bullshit about it being wrong to create something and then sell it?
If I save up and buy a house, the average slashdotter agrees I own that house FOREVER.
If I take the same money and sue it to pay people to make a movie, apparently that movie belongs to everyone, not me, and I am fucking evil if i want to sell tickets.
What the fuck are people on who make those sort of pathetic mental gymnastics just to justify their own freeloading and loose morals?
I wish the 'free!!!!' crowd would fuck off to North Korea where idiots still believe this shit.
If the fact that ThePirateBay hosts a few legal things means that it should legally be allowed to exist means that there is a problem in the law.
If there is some underground club which encourages the use of illicit drugs, and seems to be created for the main purpose of creating a haven for drug-use, then they can't argue "But we also serve alcohol legally!" when the cops shut it down.
Fact is, ThePirateBay was created, and exists as a source for illegal downloads. Anyone who argues that it's there for legal content is either an idiot, or one of their lawyers who are trying to use the law to their advantage.
Of course, I'm not necessarily advocating that ThePirateBay should be shut down. I love my illegal content. But I'm saying that ThePirateBay doesn't really have a right to exist, based on what the *laws* are. (You can argue that those laws should be changed - but that's a separate issue)
There is still isohunt, mininova, demonoid and torrentreactor
How many of those actually run their own trackers, rather than piggybacking on The Pirate Bay?
http://12.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kr5yqb1ADS1qzkpt9o1_500.jpg
HTH, HAND
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I download all kinds of stuff.
I think I as a consumer have a right to return trashy movies, CDs, or DVDs (i.e. "100% satisfaction guaranteed or money back"), and until the media content companies allow that reasonable accommodation, then I'm not going to buy any of their product unless I've seen it at least once.
I am sick-and-tired of wasting my money on Inglorious Basterds and other dumb movies or shows. Prior to the internet we had no choice; we bought trashy VHS tapes and then laid them on the shelf to collect dust. Now we do. At long last, the balance of power has tipped in favor of the working man.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Except that's a flawed analogy. It's more like if you set up a lounge for legal drinking, and a lot of people brought drugs to the place. Does that mean it should be shut down?
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
its a victimless crime to you, because you don't give a fuck about the hard work put in by the people who actually get off their asses and create stuff.
I guess you mean those "people" (i.e. Corporations) whose creative contributions are shining beacons of light onto our collective dark and gloomy cultural heritage. How did we ever survive, progress and create without string copyrights with healthy extension periods, strict HADOPI laws, intellectual property policing I will never know.
Fucking pathtic
Indeed.
Torrenting and downloading is by and large an expression of civil disobedience in reaction to the complete lockdown the entertainment mafia has on the industry. Fifteen bucks for a fracking CD ? Forty for a DVD? Right.
The corporate control of who gets to be distributed is nearly absolute - wonder why there's so little good music and new artists being put out by the major labels? Wonder why FM radio sucks?
We all know it.
I'm just saying it.
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
Are you honestly trying to argue that ThePirateBay was set up with the intention of being a tracker for legal torrents?
Nobody has a right to illegally download copyrighted materials.
It's bad enough that copyright law restricts what can be said, written, and pictured, but restricting what can heard, read, and viewed is just way over the top. No business model is worth preserving that requires individuals to surrender such basic human freedoms.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
YMMV, consult your local legislation for details.
Why bother? Swedish law states out right that it is legal, yet look at all the judges saying it is not, despite the words written in the books in front of them.
Actually you own that house only so long as you pay the appropriate taxes and maintain the property according to local ordincances. The healthiest way to look at any real estate is that you are constantly renting it from the government. And regardless this is a completely invalid arguement in copyright matters because someone can not in a mater of seconds or even hours create an exact duplicate of your house for a few cents worth of electricity.
You would own the copyrights for that movie. Copyrights are an artificial grant from the government designed to foster and encourage creation of new media to enrich our culture as it eventually enters the Public Domain. The laws regarding the terms of Copyrights have become to out of whack with the general publics desire that those laws are no longer respected by a huge proportion of of the public. Somewhere there's a quote about laws that no one respects being worthless.
The people making those justifications disagree with the terms of copyright law as it exists today. It is entirely possible that even with more reasonable terms they would not respect the law. But the law does not currently allow a distinction between violating a copyright on something created 50 years ago and a movie that hasn't even hit theatre's yet, so while you are breaking this set of laws you might as well go whole hog.
Trouble with getting your money back if you thought the movie was no good, is that you've already had the product. What's to stop you saying that you didn't like it even if you did? Do you go into restaurants, eat the food and then decline to pay because it wasn't very good? Movies are seldom things of great financial significance. You read reviews, ask friends and watch trailers. And you use common sense - the film Inglorious Bastards was by Tarantino. Of course it was crap. ;)
You say "At long last the balance of power has tipped in favour of the working man" ? The balance of power was always there - if you didn't like something, you didn't buy it.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Except that's a flawed analogy. It's more like if you set up a lounge for legal drinking, and a lot of people brought drugs to the place. Does that mean it should be shut down?
Yes. Speaking of a flawed analogy, lets use your analogy. The club/lounge owner would be responsible for getting rid of the drug users. It's not like they're in the back room, or doing it under the table. They're coming up to the bar and saying, "No, I don't want a drink, I'm just gonna snort some lines off the counter." In what city would that club NOT get shut down?
And that assumes it actually WAS set up to be a legal torrent tracker! As others have pointed out, it's called The PIRATE Bay!
Torrenting and downloading is by and large an expression of civil disobedience in reaction to the complete lockdown the entertainment mafia has on the industry.
Civil disobedience as an act of protest does not involve trying to dodge the punishment prescribed by the legal system - indeed, the very point of it is largely to suffer from the laws you deem unjust while attracting public attention, so that your suffering gathers sympathy for your cause.
Downloading a bunch of files from TPB isn't civil disobedience in that sense unless you're willing to go to trial, and not argue on that trial that you didn't do it, but only that the law as it stands is wrong.