Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Threats Against Pirate Bay Owners

Posted by timothy on from the this-time-we're-really-warning-you dept.

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."

24 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. Meanwhile... by AniVisual · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is still isohunt, mininova, demonoid and torrentreactor, all based in countries with different jurisdictions. Atop of that, there is still rapidshare, mediafire, and let's not forget the ol' IRC channels. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of The Pirate Bay, torrent greppers or the torrent trackers, though.

    1. Re:Meanwhile... by nacturation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:Meanwhile... by bit01 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also, why is this under "Your Rights Online?" Nobody has a right to illegally download copyrighted materials.

      Some astroturfers like to consistently and dishonestly conflate legal rights with ethical and moral rights, not to mention the meta-questions of whether legal rights (really, privileges in this case) should be assigned at all. It is not at all clear that one (1) person should be able to block what potentially billions of people could do, particularly when in the vast majority of cases it's a victimless "crime" (in fact it enriches society) that harms no one (they weren't going to buy it anyway). "Your Rights Online" is a good category to put related articles.

      ---

      It's not piracy, it's sharing. Didn't your parents teach you to share?

    3. Re:Meanwhile... by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Seven fricking lines of analogy and not a single car?

    4. Re:Meanwhile... by BakaHoushi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, one of the evil warlocks is drunk and drives his magic car into the magical untouchable bar.

      There. Happy now?

    5. Re:Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > 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.

    6. Re:Meanwhile... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Meanwhile... by McGiraf · · Score: 5, Informative

      I never downloaded anything except small .torrent files from them. No Linux ISO or Project Gutenbergs files.

  2. Oh no! by nog_lorp · · Score: 4, Funny

    What will we do without THE ONLY TORRENT TRACKER?

    And we don't even have an alternate tracker that tracks every TPB torrent! If only someone had made OpenBitTorrent.com in time!

    1. Re:Oh no! by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 5, Funny

      These people would have tried to save the Titanic by pounding the water with a hammer.

      "A breach in the hull! Man the hammers!"

    2. Re:Oh no! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    3. Re:Oh no! by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!
    4. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What?

      The WikiLeaks "thanks to the following" list doesn't even include TPB.

      1. Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press (RCFP)
      2. The American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE)
      3. The Associated Press - (AP) world wide news agency, based in New York
      4. Citizen Media Law Project
      5. The E.W Scripps Company - newspapers, TV, cable TV etc.
      6. Gannet Co. Inc - the largest publisher of newspapers in the USA, including USA Today
      7. The Heast Corporation - media conglomerate which publishes the San Francisco Chronicle
      8. The Los Angeles Times
      9. National Newspaper Association (NNA)
      10. Newspaper Association of America (NAA)
      11. The Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA)
      12. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) 13. Public Citizen - founded by Ralph Nader
      14. together with the California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC) 15. The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF)
      16. the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
      17. The Project on Government Oversight (POGO)
      18. Jordan McCorckle, the University of Texas

      Take a look at their advisory board too - http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Advisory_Board
      I don't think WikiLeaks is in danger of collapsing due to lack of support from the 3 guys who run a torrent tracker...

    5. Re:Oh no! by nog_lorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Oh no! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the wikipedia entry for Wikileaks:

      Wikileaks is hosted by PRQ, a Sweden-based company providing "highly secure, no-questions-asked hosting services". PRQ is said to have "almost no information about its clientele and maintains few if any of its own logs". PRQ is owned by Gottfrid Svartholm and Fredrik Neij who, through their involvement in The Pirate Bay, have significant experience in withstanding legal challenges from authorities. Being hosted by PRQ makes it difficult to take Wikileaks offline.

      See those two names - the people who own the company that hosts wikileaks? See how those are the two people being sued in the article summary?
      Next time, try doing a little more research, like maybe checking the wikipedia article for the topic.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  3. Crimes against by cjfs · · Score: 4, Funny

    In April, Fredrik Neij , Gottfrid Svartholm Warg , Peter Sunde and Carl Lundström were found guilty of being accessories to crimes against copyright law

    Poor copyright law, he didn't get out of the hospital for 2 weeks. I don't think he'll ever be the same.

  4. R.I.P Media Industry... (2009 to -) by fibrewire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  5. This is a significant breakdown in the law by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This is a significant breakdown in the law by vivaelamor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lets face reality though, Pirate Bay exists to facilitate copyright infringement. You really can't deny that, it does not make any attempt what so ever to prevent it. It was created by an anti-copyright organization.

      No, they exist to share files. The consequences of providing this service is many people share copyrighted material; I agree that the people running the pirate bay have demonstrated they have no problem with this. You are wrong in saying it exists to facilitate copyright infringement because if copyright was not an issue then the site would still exist to share non copyrighted material.

      You can't hold me responsible for a murder on my property that I had no idea was going on, didn't see, didn't intentionally facilitate and would have attempted to stop had I known about it.. But when on any given day (in fact several thousand times EVERYDAY), I can look out my window and watch it happening, while I sit and drink my coffee, its a slightly different story. When the exclusive reason people come to my property is because I'll provide them with information on how to find victims, and then look the other way while they strangle those victims, I am most certainly responsible for the murders as much as the guy doing it. They can't even say 'I was just following orders', unless you think that was a valid excuse for Hitler as well, considering he was giving the orders, I don't think anyone would go that far would they?

      I wouldn't expect the courts to allow someone watching these murders to take place and not do anything about it, I hope you don't either.

      Why do we feel any different about Pirate Bay?

      Simple, no one really feels that copyright infringement is a crime on the order of magnitude that the content producers want to treat it. If you want to fix the problem, change copyright law, don't allow loopholes around it. Change the law that is the problem.

      The only thing copyright infringement has in common with murder is that both of them are considered unlawful. It may be an effective emotive device to draw a comparison between copyright infringement and murder but I think the argument could be summed up 'people should respect the law'.

      There is a lot of precedent to contest this. We largely got where we are today by people ignoring laws they did not agree with, for example the Boston Tea Party is widely regarded as a justified case of direct action, Wikipedia has many more examples.

      Bad law has the inevitable effect of reducing the respect for good law, in defending the respect for law as a whole you are defending bad law and exacerbating the problem. In showing a disagreement with bad law you can strengthen good law by highlighting the reasons behind it. Consider the chicken and egg scenario: what came first? Law or reason? It is obvious to most that reason came before law but If respect for the law is a goal then that implies that law is an ends rather than a means. When law becomes the ends then the pursuit of reason becomes diminished by the pursuit of law. If people start basing their choices on whether something is lawful then they lose the ability to reason which is far more important than the ability to follow law.

      I worry for the rule of the law when people can so easily skirt around it in this way.

      I worry when we are ruled by law rather than reason. A famous philosopher once said that philosophy allowed him to do by choice what others did by the rule of law, to say that law is more important than reason is to take the power of people to reason for themselves away from them.

      When you make comments like yours, and people mod them insightful, it just makes the anti-copyright movement seem all the more illegitimate. Take legalized racism in America for example. Riots and violence didn't make it go away, it just got people killed and hurt those being wronged more than those d

  6. Re:Is it legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Could you imagine how the internet would look if Myspace, Facebook and Twitter was down whenever they were involved in a court case?

    Much, much better than it does now, yes.

  7. Re:silly companies by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Funny

    Metallica make music? When did that start then?

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  8. Re:silly companies by daybot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Metallica make music? When did that start then?

    I thought they were just a copyright lobby group?

  9. Re:silly companies by mister_playboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Learned what from napster? I haven't used another P2P client since it went away. All the replacements are asstastic and are nothing compared to what napster was in its day.

    Bullshit. If you don't want to share music the way you used to, fine... but don't make up some crap like this in the process. The scene is far bigger and better than the Napster days in every way.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  10. Re: Bullshit by EzInKy · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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.