Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Bay Legal Action Dropped In Norway
superapecommando writes "Copyright holders have given up legal efforts to force Norwegian ISP Telenor to block filesharing site The Pirate Bay, one of the parties to the case said. The copyright holders, led by Norway's performing rights society TONO and by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry Norway (IFPI Norge), have lost two rounds in the Norwegian court system, and have now decided against appealing the case to Norway's supreme court."
Is that they've figured out another way to accomplish the same ends. It ain't over.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
I'm still going to be a rebel and buy my games, books, and music anyway. Its what all the cool kids are doing now.
The path of least resistance to the ends they want is via campaign contributions and scare-tactic(child pron, terrorism, etc) lobbying.
I'm actually curious how log this has been going on. It seems like the corporations, and legal bodies could find more creative ways to spend the money. I would think paying more money to lawyers would be an obvious negative by now.
The comedians of this world have already written hundreds of jokes about lawyers and their self-serving nature. Maybe these litigious companies will realize, one day, there's a reason why.
My ZooLoo
Stop price fixing and trying to thwart actual fair-use and maybe I would. As I see it, I'm just recovering my lost monies from the days of price fixing before digital media, and from all the albums I lost due to CD rot because I wasn't allowed to make a fair use back up. So until you can play nice, don't expect me to....
Perhaps one day America can hope to be as sane as Norway!
A reason that comes to mind is precedent. Assuming Norway's supreme court works like America's, if they appeal and lose they won't be able to sue anyone for anything that looks like this again.
By not appealing, they're giving themselves the opportunity to come back and sue all the way to the top with a case they think is more favorable to the outcome they want.
It's not like people won't pay for access & ease of use, i pay 3€'s a month to use last.fm for instance (and i use it quite extensively, about 40 to 45 hours a week), and i buy Cd's & dvd's, but I'm not going to pay €'s to get the privilege to watch a drm laden movie or series once, or pay to download songs just to be able to tell if the CD is worth shit
You've stolen from them? As in film reels, tapes, and hard disks? If so, you deserve to do jailtime.
If by "stole" you mean "downloaded" then you have stolen nothing. You have infringed on copyrights, which may or may not be legal in your locale. You might have deprived a lackey at one of those production houses (record label, movie producer, TV producer, etc.) a job or a raise, but come on. You've stolen nothing.
If you're so intent on getting stuff for free, why not turn to Pandora, crackle, hulu, and the like? There is a lot of free content up there. By doing what you're doing, and bragging about it with that attitude you have, you are only giving the MPAA and RIAA ammo to say "See? See? This kind of asshattery is why P2P should be illegal."
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Copyright is not property right. Is it so hard to understand the difference between stealing and sharing? The point of copyright is to ensure the publics access to new and old books and music. It is not for making media companies rich. Learn your history.
it's really simple and I don't get why you can't grasp this concept.
The reason you don't get it is that you are trying to reduce a very complex question into a black/white analysis with an easy on/off answer.
This is evidence of lazy thinking or perhaps a fear of dealing with complexity, ie, the real world. This leads to control issues; trying to shove the infinite into something safe and easily managed so that the person doing so doesn't feel threatened by it. It is no wonder that people who think this way are so hell bent on controlling information.
Heaven forbid anything unexpected happen, or that the answer not be reducible to an easily memorized, sound-bite form! People who puff up and strut around with all the answers are generally the most insecure people in the world with a ton of shielding in place to prevent their fragile egos from getting pulverized by the onslaught of reality.
The courageous surf the waves. Cowards denounce the ocean.
-FL
Copyright was created to enforce censorship. it was created to stop people from criticizing the state and the church. Copyright was a monopoly granted to printers in exchange for only printing what the government approved of. It was much later reformed to consider the rights of authors and such. Since then it has degenerated into this so called "intellectual property" that implies that you can own ideas. It is stupid.
Yes, it is in the interest of the public that writers and musicians can make money of their trade so they can provide the public with new works. It is not in the publics interest to give an artificial monopoly on copying works for over 100 years without getting anything in return. It is not in the publics interest to be extorted into paying thousands of dollars for sharing music with each other. When you consider the economic profit of doing something you consider if it will be profitable within 10 years. Maximum. The current situation is ridiculous.
If you sell something to someone, normal property right tells that the buyer now owns said property. He can do with it as he pleases. Including making copies of it and distribute. Copyright is an artificial infringement of the buyers ownership that prevents him from distributing copies of it.
Which just happens to be 9 days after Sweden's next election. They've learned from the EU election - can't risk giving the Pirate Party all that attention before the national election are held.
If it costs more than you want to pay then you don't get to have it. Simple. If you wouldn't have bought it anyway then you still don't get to have it.
And why would that be? Can you justify this rule?
This may be news to you, but laws and rules generally have to have a reason to exist. The law against stealing bread exists for a reason - because stealing harms the person you steal from - it doesn't exist for its own sake. How does downloading something one would never have otherwise paid for harm anyone? It doesn't. Ergo, there is no moral reason for this to be forbidden by law, and no moral reason not to do it.