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?
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.
> 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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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!