Pirate Bay Legal Action Dropped In Norway

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pirate Bay Legal Action Dropped In Norway

Posted by Soulskill on Monday March 15, 2010 @09:55AM from the they-see-which-way-the-cold-wind-is-blowing dept.

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."

223 comments

All that means... by JustShootMe · 2010-03-15 09:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is that they've figured out another way to accomplish the same ends. It ain't over.

--
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
1. Re:All that means... by bragr · 2010-03-15 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  I'm voting ninjas.
2. Re:All that means... by sharkey · 2010-03-15 10:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And remember, when it comes to pseudo-property rights claimed by those who produce nothing of their own, the ends always justify the means.
  
  --
  
  --
  "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
3. Re:All that means... by C4st13v4n14 · 2010-03-15 10:29 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The reason why they keep losing in court is because of strong privacy laws in Norway. In order to sue anyone for downloading copyrighted material, it would require the ISPs to identify users by IP addresses, something which is a very big no-no here.
  We also have an automatic toll system set up in a few places (on highways entering cities, for example) to automatically scan cars' number (license) plates and send bills to the car owners. This information is deleted as soon as the bills are paid and cannot be used by law enforcement. There are also speed cameras all over that take photos of the driver and automatically blur out the passengers. If you get a ticket as the car owner and you were not driving the car, then you don't have to pay it. My wife drives my car and I driver hers, which completely eliminates these sort of fines. Some people drive with burkas and sunglasses! Motorcyclists cannot get fines as they wear helmets. It's quite an interesting system.
  Anyway, this topic has been slashdotted several times already, most recently here.
4. Re:All that means... by Darkness404 · 2010-03-15 10:42 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Don't you guys get attacked by terrorists every single day then? Because over here in the US if you don't identify everyone based on their IP address we're gonna have 9/11 -EVERY DAY-!
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
5. Re:All that means... by BitHive · 2010-03-15 10:44 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  What a socialist nightmare!
6. Re:All that means... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 10:50 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  What a fascist wetdream!
7. Re:All that means... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 10:53 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe the terrorists were unable to find the address of high profile targets due to privacy laws.
8. Re:All that means... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 11:15 · Score: 0
  
  THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE SOCIALISM!!!! pure and unadulterated invasion of priva....wait a minute...
  That sounds pretty fair, actually...
  Maybe the US should become socialist. We'll have more freedom from government oppression!
9. Re:All that means... by Kjella · 2010-03-15 11:19 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The reason why they keep losing in court is because of strong privacy laws in Norway. In order to sue anyone for downloading copyrighted material, it would require the ISPs to identify users by IP addresses, something which is a very big no-no here.
  Actually, they don't get that far. The biggest blocker for them right now is that their license to store private surveillance data from public networks has been refused by the Data Inspectorate, so they simply aren't getting started. The police is obviously not wasting their time investigating it. Right now the winds are blowing quite strongly in the direction of privacy, we may *crosses fingers* refuse EU's data storage directive, that'll be a first in 16 years.
  In Sweden they know that any real anti-piracy crackdown would bring the Pirate Party into parliament, despite all the noise when the Pirate Party entered the EU parliament last year there's been essentially no legal activity and the file sharing is already at new heights, higher than before the FRA law, It's no wonder why they make their best offers like free Spotify in Scandinavia, they're trying desperately to hold the flood gates.
  It's just like when Microsoft sees they could lose their dominance somewhere and offer a supergood deal to keep them on Windows. They know if copying for non-commercial use is legalized in one country, that country will become the center of all hubs and trackers and seedboxes and vpn services bringing the whole house of cards down. And technology keeps working against them all the time, if you have a 1 Mbit line letting someone leech from you really eats into your bandwidth but if you have 100 Mbit you barely notice. It's just borrowing away a little bit of what you're not using yourself.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
10. Re:All that means... by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-03-15 11:34 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  They do, but terrorist attacks are not disclosed to protect the privacy of those involved. ~
11. Re:All that means... by shoehornjob · 2010-03-15 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  Is that they've figured out another way to accomplish the same ends. It ain't over yet because the lawyers have resorted to injecting massive amounts of malware into the torrents.
  
  --
  "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
12. Re:All that means... by Runaway1956 · 2010-03-15 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  The malware means nothing to people like me. Well - maybe not "nothing", but damned close to it. If I decide to download a torrent, only to find that it's corrupt and/or carrying a payload, I've wasted the download time. The malware runs in a virtual machine, if at all, and I can restore the virtual machine instantly. The REAL machine won't run windows executables, so I'm safe, safe, safe. (no, I don't have Wine installed, or any of those new cutesy programs that rely on Wine)
  So, come on, RIAA - if malware is all you have to offer, hit me with your best shot!
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
13. Re:All that means... by syousef · 2010-03-15 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  Don't you guys get attacked by terrorists every single day then? Because over here in the US if you don't identify everyone based on their IP address we're gonna have 9/11 -EVERY DAY-!
  
  Don't you guys get attacked by terrorists every single day then? Because over here in the US if you don't identify everyone based on their IP address we're gonna have 9/11 -EVERY DAY-!
  That attack was pioneered by Bill Murray and is referred to as the Groundhog Day attack.
  
  --
  These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
14. Re:All that means... by justinjstark · 2010-03-15 13:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The terrorists don't hate their freedoms. Only ours. Duh.
15. Re:All that means... by DJLuc1d · 2010-03-15 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  God I envy you.
16. Re:All that means... by Opportunist · 2010-03-15 14:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Really? Is that verified?
  Sam, grab your rocket launcher, the C4 and the detcord, we're heading for Sony HQ!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
17. Re:All that means... by Opportunist · 2010-03-15 14:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Honestly, bring it on.
  Gimme liberty or gimme death got out of fashion, I know. Well, I'm old fashioned.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
18. Re:All that means... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2010-03-15 14:54 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Here in the US, the government makes us count our cum loads? Doesnt everyone else in the world do that? If you miss a drop, the terrorists win! FReeeeeeeeeeeeeddddddddddddddddddddddumbFAIL.America.broke
19. Re:All that means... by eeCyaJ · 2010-03-15 19:44 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  It would be like 9/11... times one thousand!
20. Re:All that means... by joss · 2010-03-15 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  818 - As if, like, wow, man, totally
  
  --
  http://rareformnewmedia.com/
21. Re:All that means... by Lord+Bitman · 2010-03-15 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  have you tried driving safely?
  
  --
  -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
22. Re:All that means... by Xest · 2010-03-15 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  If Norway isn't a member of the EU why would they have to implement the EU's data storage directive? Does the Norwegian government often implement EU laws anyway despite not being a member, or does this come under some separate agreement like the EFTA of which Norway is a signatory?
  In a way, I'd like Norway in the EU, it'd add another more sane voice to the party, we could do with a few more of those. It'd probably be a bad thing for Norway though, as I imagine the benefits we'd gain, would be equal to the benefits Norwegians would lose I guess, so staying out is understandable!
23. Re:All that means... by clickety6 · 2010-03-15 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  We also have an automatic toll system set up in a few places (on highways entering cities, for example) to automatically scan cars' number (license) plates and send bills to the car owners. This information is deleted as soon as the bills are paid and cannot be used by law enforcement. There are also speed cameras all over that take photos of the driver and automatically blur out the passengers. If you get a ticket as the car owner and you were not driving the car, then you don't have to pay it. My wife drives my car and I driver hers, which completely eliminates these sort of fines. Some people drive with burkas and sunglasses! Motorcyclists cannot get fines as they wear helmets. It's quite an interesting system.
  It's great you have these strong privacy rules in place, but then when you start abusing the freedoms to avoid paying justified fines, you just put pressure on to have the laws weakened to stop them being abused in this way.
  
  --
  ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
24. Re:All that means... by Kjella · 2010-03-15 22:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This is one of those times where I really like wikipedia:
  Supranational European Bodies
  Norway is the red, white and blue flag that is part of EEA, EFTA and the Schengen area. It's our participation in the EEA which means that we must implement EU directives, to be part of the "inner market" there must be equal market conditions in all countries - a clause interpreted at least as wide as "interstate commerce" in the US constitution. Technically we have a reservation right, but we've never used it. As you can see, there's only two countries left in our bubble, and the other is Iceland that is tiny to begin with, has mostly financially collapsed and is now applying for EU membership. The initial agreement (1994) was good but since the renegotiation in 2004 we gain nothing by standing on the outside. The EU decides, and Norway follows willingly or unwillingly and there's no economic incentive either, we pay the same as if we were EU members.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
25. Re:All that means... by quadrox · 2010-03-15 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  A whole lot of speeding fines are utter bull.
  I drive a lot through germany on their autobahn. There are places where there is a sudden strong speed limit without much justification, a camera to catch you after a relatively short distance, and then suddenly the speed limit is gone again (just after the camera).
  Seriously.
  I make it a habit to drive through there extra fast (in a foreign car with foreign plates) just to show them how much I care about their bullshit.
26. Re:All that means... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2010-03-15 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm voting ninjas.
  How would you find them on the ballot ?
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
27. Re:All that means... by Xest · 2010-03-15 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  That's actually a pretty handy diagram, haven't stumbled across it before.
  As you say I do wonder then if there's much point Norway being outside the EU, although even if you did join I assume you'd want to keep your own currency as it's always seemed pretty strong and I assume it still is? I haven't paid so much attention to it in the last year or two.
  I've always liked Norway, although I've never made it across to Oslo yet, I did go to Narvik a few years ago to watch Orcas for a couple of days. It'd be really sad if the EU ever did influence Norway the wrong way in terms of rights, freedoms, privacy and so forth as I've always felt that it's one of the few bastions of sanity left in Europe- I'm not even sure about Sweden since the whole pirate bay police raid and court case debacle and the judge being a clear supporter of the IFPI, but at least the people of Sweden have made a strong point with The Pirate Party, even if the government and court system hasn't particularly shown itself to be very trustworthy.
  Here in Britain, well, it feels like our government and half the population are a lost cause, and there's not even any sign of that changing with vast amounts of the general public still supporting things like CCTV, ID cards, net censorship and so forth and no sign of a political movement with any strenth yet willing to stand up for our rights.
28. Re:All that means... by zmollusc · 2010-03-16 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Do you mean safely as in 'at a speed decided upon by a faceless committee by a process that is secret and based upon data that are also secret'?
  Gotta respect those speed limits.
  
  --
  They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
29. Re:All that means... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-16 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  So only the stupid and unprepared get speeding fines? Doesn't seem fair - but I like it.
30. Re:All that means... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-16 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  Great. Just great. The record labels have discovered Shadowrun and think that black ops teams are a good investment.
31. Re:All that means... by Terrasque · 2010-03-16 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Well.. Except for the americans now and then, no. Not really.
  
  --
  It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
32. Re:All that means... by hitmark · 2010-03-16 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  the funny thing is that outside of denmark, norway is the one nation that have implemented most EU directives. And its not even a full member nation! The more i think about it, the more i wonder if the nation is run by faceless bureaucrats, using the elected politicians as sock puppets whenever there are outrage about something.
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
33. Re:All that means... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-16 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  I guess they stay a little safer by not invading other countries, or assisitng revolutionaries in other countries by selling them arms, then wondering why those organisations then turn and attack them when the mood takes them 8).
34. Re:All that means... by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2010-03-16 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  My god, that would be nine hundered eleven thousand!
  
  --
  If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
35. Re:All that means... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-16 21:52 · Score: 0
  
  If you are so old fashioned how come you aren't dead?
Meh... by bragr · 2010-03-15 09:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  I view pirating stuff as a moral right, but one that should be exercised with forethought - by pirating windoze instead of using linux, you're still helping windoze. Pirating $FPS-du-jour instead of playing Nexuiz/OpenArena/Warsow/Sauerbraten is also harmful.
2. Re:Meh... by JMatopos · 2010-03-15 10:19 · Score: 0
  
  By pirating "Windoze":
  - You're making legitimate customers pay more - harming them;
  - You're reducing the profits of microsoft - harming them, their employees, shareholders and families thereof;
  - You're giving file sharing bad publicity - harming the legal uses of it;
  - You're making software developers resort to DRM - harming everyone;
  In fact, the only one who you're helping is yourself. Get off your high horse. You've no more 'moral right' to do this than you have to steal a car.
3. Re:Meh... by jez9999 · 2010-03-15 10:19 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I pay a monthly Sky subscription of ~£15/month. I just signed up to sky.com's Sky Player and supplied account info so they knew it was really me, who pays my subscription. They recognized the packages I subscribe to. I wanted to catch up with a House, MD episode. They wanted to charge me £1.50 to 'rent' it (ie. play it once in their player). I just torrented it.
  As long as media corporations are so unreasonable, I reserve the right to say, fuck them. Copyright law should be reformed to allow people to pay what is reasonable, then pirate on a noncommercial basis. It's the lesser of the evils, vs. corps charging what the market will bear.
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
4. Re:Meh... by jx100 · 2010-03-15 10:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  How is he exactly doing any of that?
  The increase in price is something Microsoft sets.
  The reduction in profits is just an ephemeral reduction that would've happened in the exact same amount had he gone with linux.
  Bad publicity I could sort of buy, but that could easily be attributed to the copyright holders (who have loads of money to make it look bad) as opposed to the masses of poor copyright infringers.
  Software developers all have the choice to implement DRM or not, and even those who have software copied may not necessarily choose to implement DRM.
5. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  To Watch this show over the Zune Marketplace you would net yourself almost $8 in MS points. Why not torrent? You're going to goto work the next day and tell your co-workers / friends how much you enjoyed it! Thats free advertising for them.
6. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 10:32 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  - You're making legitimate customers pay more - harming them;
  Not if the person wasn't going to buy it anyway (eg. would run Linux in the absence of pirate Windoze)
  - You're reducing the profits of microsoft - harming them, their employees, shareholders and families thereof;
  See above
  - You're giving file sharing bad publicity - harming the legal uses of it;
  Yep, that's bad, and also giving Windoze free publicity, by using it
  - You're making software developers resort to DRM - harming everyone;
  A good thing, as it is an additional motivation to use Free Software
7. Re:Meh... by JMatopos · 2010-03-15 10:47 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  "How is he exactly doing any of that?"
  The increase in price is set by Microsoft at a level that will give them a modest profit once they have covered their own expenses - if they have to employ developers to implement e.g. WGA (a direct backlash against pirated copies of windows) then their own expenses will rise - and so will the price we pay for it.
  If in addition some of the people who pirate windows would pay for it if they were unable to pirate it (as assuredly a small proportion of them would), then that's a reduction in profits.
  Admittedly it might be a relatively small effect, but it's there. Pirating windows, contrary to what the parent of my post claimed, does not help microsoft. I would expect that it slightly harms everyone but the person receiving windows for free.
  "Software developers all have the choice to implement DRM or not, and even those who have software copied may not necessarily choose to implement DRM."
  Certainly, but more pirating seems very likely to lead to more DRM. Do you think that Ubisoft would have put their ill-conceived needs-internet-connection DRM on Assassins Creed 2 if they weren't worried about their product being copied?
8. Re:Meh... by BitHive · 2010-03-15 10:51 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Why should I pay for your health care? I don't have kids.
  Why should I pay for your education? I have Wikipedia.
  Why should I pay for your OS? I have Linux.
  In short, the people arguing that everyone should buy intellectual property are the worst kind of socialists in wolves clothing.
9. Re:Meh... by nurb432 · 2010-03-15 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck finding something worth buying.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
10. Re:Meh... by madsenj37 · 2010-03-15 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  As long as they price things out of a range you consider reasonable, i.e, you not only have enough money to purchase and you desire to purchase at that price, you are not what they consider a customer anyways. They cannot expect you to buy and should not consider it lost revenue. Maybe that is just my business school education talking though; I have never been to law school.
  
  --
  Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
11. Re:Meh... by eclectechie · 2010-03-15 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  You can keep your games, the library has the books I don't buy, and I buy my music.
  However, money can't buy the BBC Formula 1 television coverage over here in Canada, and the TSN excerpts are abysmal.
  North American Formula 1 fans NEED torrents to get what the people of Great Britain get as a matter of course.
  And to you wonderful people who record the BBC coverage and upload the torrents, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!
  
  --
  "The empty vessel makes the greatest sound." -- William Shakespeare; Henry V, 4. 4
12. Re:Meh... by cecom · 2010-03-15 11:12 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Who gave you the idea that you are entitled to watch back episodes for free? Is that like a basic human right or something? If you don't like their prising, buy the dvd, a tivo, or find another provider (my cable company lets me watch old episodes for free). Just because you think something should cost less, doesn't give you the right to steal it.
13. Re:Meh... by tepples · 2010-03-15 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  You're making software developers resort to DRM - harming everyone;
  A good thing, as it is an additional motivation to use Free Software
  True, but not all works of authorship are "software", and the publishers of works other than software have done things to harm free software. For example, people in the United States (home of Slashdot) cannot play DVDs using free software.
14. Re:Meh... by tepples · 2010-03-15 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  You're going to goto work the next day and tell your co-workers / friends how much you enjoyed it! Thats free advertising for them.
  Then what's the free alternative to House MD?
15. Re:Meh... by compro01 · 2010-03-15 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  You might look into Shaw direct (formerly known as starchoice). They carry BBC and BBC Canada.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
16. Re:Meh... by NeutronCowboy · 2010-03-15 11:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You're assuming that pirates would have paid for the content if it had not been available via filesharing. That's an unsupported assumption. Not only that, it flies in the face of Econ 101: a product that is free has higher demand than a non-free one.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
17. Re:Meh... by brit74 · 2010-03-15 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  .. except, of course, when pirating is available and their opinion of 'reasonable price' is subject to whim, then the calculations go right out the window. For example: I pay hundreds of dollars to fly on an airplane. If I discovered a completely foolproof way to fly anywhere I want for free, then my opinion of "reasonable price" for air-fare suddenly shifts. I suddenly decide that $300 is far too much for air-fare (even though I've paid more than that in the past, when my options were "pay $300 and fly" or "don't fly"). At this point, my opinions about "reasonable price" are suddenly unhinged from anything. I can decide that flights need to be $20, or else "it's not reasonable".
18. Re:Meh... by TikiTDO · 2010-03-15 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft sets the prices at an arbitrary level that it feels will result in the biggest profits. They understand perfectly well that if they were to say, increase the price by 50% then a lot less people would buy it, regardless if they downloaded it or not. However, if they were to drop it by 50% then though they may have more paying customers they would net less money. So no, piracy has little to nothing to do with the price of Windows. This is all the magic of the supply and demand curve.
  Next, I will grant that some of the people that pirate windows would have bought it had piracy been impossible, but consider this: what about the people that pirated the new windows, liked it, and told their normal friends to get it. Normal friends that know about as much about torrents as Joe Average knows about quantum mechanics. Taking away piracy would result in a net loss of advertisement, and from that, profit.
  In all, I would say that for Microsoft, windows piracy has a neutral direct economic effect, and a positive overall economic effect by allowing them to claim greater market penetration, and therefore charge more for the associated services like driver signing. They can also bump up the prices of developer tools, since using said tools on a well established system is worth more than using those tools on a system barely anyone uses.
  Finally, I am not entirely sure what point you are trying to make with AC2. Ubisoft wasted what must have been a good chunk of resources to develop a DRM that was supposed to stop piracy in its tracks, and it was cracked within a day. This sounds to me like a horrible business decision more than anything else. Did the pirates walk into the Ubisoft HQ, and force them to implement that DRM system? Certainly not. Would they have gotten more money had they skipped the DRM system? Possibly. Did Ubisoft actually consider the benefits of having this new DRM system of theirs? Most certainly not. Let bad decisions rest at the feet of those who made them.
19. Re:Meh... by TikiTDO · 2010-03-15 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  Watching it on the TV?
  And yes, there are ads, but ads do not result in reduced profits, so it is free financially. Or you might have TiVo, in which case it's not any different from watching torrents in the first place.
20. Re:Meh... by Runaway1956 · 2010-03-15 12:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "Pirating windows, contrary to what the parent of my post claimed, does not help microsoft."
  You've forgotten that Bill Gates used to gloat over piracy in places like India. He likes to have his software pirated, for precisely the same reasons he offers huge discounts to schools. Like a drug pusher, he wants to see them hooked early.
  "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not."
  -Bill Gates
  In an interview with Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher of Wall Street Journal, Bill Gates admitted to watching pirated movies on the Internet. Here are some excerpts from the interview posted on AOL News:
  MR. MOSSBERG: Talk about YouTube. What do you think about that? Why aren't you doing something like that?
  MR. GATES: If we did YouTube, we'd be in a lot of trouble. First of all, people would say, "How do you make money?" Second, they'd say, what about all that copyright violation taking place up there. It's a neat site. I saw a bunch of old Harlem Globetrotters movies up there the other night, it's great.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
21. Re:Meh... by Runaway1956 · 2010-03-15 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  Dating a doctor? There was this little bitty lady who worked with my son when he had surgery, she had the biggest Betty Boop eyes - man, oh man. I could get into that!
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
22. Re:Meh... by madsenj37 · 2010-03-15 12:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  In the case you present, the profit models need to change. Free music can lead to better more people buying merchandise and going to shows for example. Or pioneering technology like 3D that is too expensive and/or not available and gives an experience that pirating cannot. Ways of profiting are there, they have just changed.
  
  --
  Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
23. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  North American Formula 1 fans NEED torrents to get what the people of Great Britain get as a matter of course.
  Yeah, for some fucked-up definition of the word "need".
24. Re:Meh... by kimvette · 2010-03-15 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Or, if it's available on hulu or crackle, you can watch standard def streams of the shows a week after broadcast, totally for free. Not only do you get to watch the shows, but the producers earn fair revenue in exchange. Nothing is "stolen" in the process, and by supporting such streaming services, you are showing the producers it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing situation.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
25. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  That would be Frank Abagnale. They made a movie about him. Perhaps you should try to catch it if you can.
26. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 12:55 · Score: 0
  
  What exactly do you consider reasonable. Sounds like you want everything for free and don't care who you don't pay. So tell me what value you add to society so I can just take it.
27. Re:Meh... by TimHunter · 2010-03-15 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  As long as media corporations are so unreasonable, I reserve the right to say, fuck them.
  Fuck yeah. I say, "Media corporations, you're so unreasonable I don't want your damn content. Keep it. I'll find some other way to entertain myself."
28. Re:Meh... by hairyfeet · 2010-03-15 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  I would agree with you except for one problem: MSFT had a perfect way for getting rid of tons of pirate Windows copies and what did they do? They stepped back, took perfect aim, and shot themselves right in the damned foot!
  The $50 Windows 7 HP and $150 family packs caused more pirates to just buy Windows than I had ever seen before. Suddenly guys I never thought would go out and buy Windows were not just buying one copy, but were often buying the three packs and converting all their machines or those of their families. And what does MSFT do? Right before Xmas? Double the price on the single and kill the family packs!
  Which to me is just one more proof Ballmer monkey or whomever he put in charge of sales is a drooling moron that needs to be fired. They could have not only killed a huge amount of piracy, they would have lowered the amount of bad press Windows gets for malware by getting rid of a lot of XP machines, and they could have then went on to try to upsell them to higher tiers like Windows 7 pro. Instead even guys like me that don't pirate aren't upgrading our XP machines because it feels too much like a ripoff after the $150 family packs and $50 singles. I would love to se how much Windows 7 pirate editions went up after the HP deal was yanked, because I'm betting it was a good spike. Stupid, just fricking stupid.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
29. Re:Meh... by TheRaven64 · 2010-03-15 13:32 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  socialists in wolves clothing
  That is probably the best band name that I have ever read on Slashdot.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
30. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  No. They aren't.
  The cool kids download games so they don't have to deal with the terrible file protection bullshit software all the game companies pump their discs full of. Then when they find a good game they buy it to support the good company, but not the system they are using to discourage piracy.
  I hope you mean buy music through something like iTunes, I didn't know people still owned CD players until I visited an old folks home the other week.
  Books on the other hand, still have my (on behalf of cool kids everywhere) full endorsement.
31. Re:Meh... by justinjstark · 2010-03-15 13:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Pirating is not free. Everybody takes a risk by pirating of being sued or wasting our time downloading malware, something of bad quality, or bogus files.
  But, even still, it is always much easier to pirate a movie (for instance) than it is to purchase it. I think most of us who pirate don't just do so because it is free, but also because the non-pirated versions are often DRM-laden, low-quality, and expensive and we are forced to jump through hoops just to get the content we desire.
  For instance, let's say I want to buy the movie "Rounders." What are my options?
  1) Go to the store and buy it for nearly $15 after tax. I would have to drive half way across town and waste a bunch of time. Not to mention $15 is a little steep for an older movie.
  2) Use an online service like Amazon Video on Demand. What? Rounders isn't available? Darn. Even if it were, I would have to pay $3-4 to watch it once or about $10 to "own" it. But owning it only means I can watch it on amazon.com or download it and watch it through their player. What? Their player isn't available on linux? Darn? And I can't play the videos on my netbook (the only computer I own) because a flash-embedded high-quality video plays at about 3 frames per second.
  3) I can go to thepiratebay.org and download Rounders. It takes a half hour to an hour to download a decent quality movie. It uses a standard codec so this high-resolution movie plays wonderfully on my netbook. There is no DRM or flash player to worry about. I have this movie for as long as I want it and can watch it whenever (and on whatever) I want even if I don't have an internet connection.
  If a movie studio started selling XVID (or some other decent codec) movies on their website similar to those found on thepiratebay for a reasonable price ($5) without DRM or any of that other garbage, you can bet your youngest child that I would spend the money rather than pirating it. This new distribution channel (the internet) is changing the way we want to get content and also making distribution cheaper. But the movie studios and distributors are trying to fight this change after it has already happened. Pirating is newly part of the free market system just as was copying your friend's MC Hammer cassette tape. You can make all the arguments you want about pirates pirating because it is free; but, until the distributors make their content available in a decent format at a decent price and allow their consumers the freedom to use this content as desired, your claim doesn't hold as much water.
32. Re:Meh... by Opportunist · 2010-03-15 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't like their prising, buy the dvd, a tivo, or find another provider (my cable company lets me watch old episodes for free). Just because you think something should cost less, doesn't give you the right to steal it.
  Not an option for me. I miss an episode of House, I can:
  a) Wave my fist in anger.
  b) Wait for a year or so 'til they decide it's fine now to give me the DVD.
  c) Hit the torrents and wait 5 minuts.
  I noticed that options a) and b) are not really satisfying. I actually do not have an option available to me that offers me that episode, even if I wanted to pay, nobody's there that would want to take my money.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
33. Re:Meh... by Opportunist · 2010-03-15 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm... History Channel has a few pretty good documentaries right now. Dunno if our private networks broadcast anything but House and Simpsons, though, didn't tune in outside those timeslots, so you might be right.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
34. Re:Meh... by daveime · 2010-03-15 15:07 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  In the UK at least, for the BBC you have *already* paid for it via the Licence Fee. For the other channels, you have *already* paid for it indirectly via advertising, which increases the prices of the goods you buy.
  Anything else (i.e. claiming piracy hurts DVD box-set sales) is just double dipping / greed by the TV companies.
35. Re:Meh... by petermgreen · 2010-03-15 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  The music industry seems to have got it and realised that selling a product that's as good as what the pirates offer isn't such a bad idea after all.
  The movie industry OTOH seems to still be trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Witness the way blu-ray has far more competently designed protection than DVD and the fact that they are going to ban new player designs and then later any new players from having HD analog outputs and they have the ability to bar movies from playing in HD over unprotected channels on older players.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
36. Re:Meh... by MidnightBrewer · 2010-03-15 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody has a moral right to do crime. Just because something is easy to do and you can convince yourself that it's justified because you don't think they're Good People doesn't grant any kind of justification for your actions.
  Of course, I'm replying to an AC, which means he'll probably never read it.
  
  --
  "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
37. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  How about I harm nobody because I would have never even bought it. If I could get it for free, sure I'll get it. If I have to pay, then I'll pass. You can't lose something that you never had.
38. Re:Meh... by Xeno+man · 2010-03-15 16:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That's right. It's just like when prohibition was introduced and how wrong it was for people to go out and drink at a speakeasy. Those criminals justified their actions on some moral ground but with massive government enforcement they soon found out how wrong they were. Now thanks to prohibition we live in a much safer alcohol free world.
39. Re:Meh... by walshy007 · 2010-03-15 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody has a moral right to do crime
  Crimes, or committing 'offences' are defined by law, law and morality often conflict, not to mention it is practically impossible for any given person to know all laws
  According to law, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it, while morals vary between the person there tends to be common understood standards for most things in a society. I would argue that if a law is unknown to you, and you do something that a majority of your peers would consider moral, if not legal, it should be justification.
  Even upon knowing the law and willingly breaking it it can be justified, in some places it's illegal to copy government documents on the local laws due to 'copyright' could you honestly argue that it is immoral to break that copyright in order to share the information with the people who are beholden to those laws?
  There comes a point where laws must be broken, granted copying movies isn't that point (for me, and most people), but to say there is no moral right to do any crime is a hard sell, when any given action can be described as a crime by the state.
40. Re:Meh... by mpe · 2010-03-15 19:44 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  In the UK at least, for the BBC you have *already* paid for it via the Licence Fee.
  
  Note that in the UK a drama series will generally be at least nearly complete before a single episode is shown. The kind of "mid season cancellation" which occurs in North American Productions due to poor ratings of the first few episodes thus can't happen.
41. Re:Meh... by mpe · 2010-03-15 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  However, money can't buy the BBC Formula 1 television coverage over here in Canada, and the TSN excerpts are abysmal.
  
  At least not without having to physically travel. In which case your money would go to the airline and hotel industries.
  
  North American Formula 1 fans NEED torrents to get what the people of Great Britain get as a matter of course.
  And to you wonderful people who record the BBC coverage and upload the torrents, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!
  
  No doubt F1 fans all over the world appreciate such torrents. There's clearly an untapped market for global distribution of television. The "industry" is shooting itself in the foot through having regional and staggered distribution models. Some "staggering" would make sense due to timezone differences, but this is measured in hours rather than days, weeks, months (even years).
42. Re:Meh... by mpe · 2010-03-15 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  Pirating is not free. Everybody takes a risk by pirating of being sued or wasting our time downloading malware, something of bad quality, or bogus files.
  
  Most of those risks apply to paid for software. Even paying for software does not always protect you from lawsuits if the vendor has infringed patents or pirated themselves.
43. Re:Meh... by mpe · 2010-03-15 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  The movie industry OTOH seems to still be trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Witness the way blu-ray has far more competently designed protection than DVD and the fact that they are going to ban new player designs and then later any new players from having HD analog outputs and they have the ability to bar movies from playing in HD over unprotected channels on older players.
  
  With out those involved realising that DRM actually encourages piracy.
44. Re:Meh... by Hognoxious · 2010-03-15 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'm Iranian, you insensitive clod!!!!
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
45. Re:Meh... by drop+table+user · 2010-03-15 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  I would buy DVD's if they were available, but they're not (at least not from play.com where I shop):
  * Son's of Anarchy season 2
  * Dexter season 3
  * Mad Men season 3
  * ..
  All of these are available in torrent land. How come film distributors don't get it?
46. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 23:48 · Score: 0
  
  Ah yes, the legal defense that says you are allowed to break the law as long as you were sufficiently annoyed when you did so.
47. Re:Meh... by b4dc0d3r · 2010-03-16 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't search for your source, but on the surface your quote does not support "watched pirated movies." Lots of stuff is up there legally - all it takes is an agreement with the copyright holder. A surprising amount of stuff is legal and blessed, and has been for a while. Lacking other data from the article, you would have to show that there were no authorized copies of globetrotters games available in a reasonable period before that interview. It's important to support yourself with quotes and sources and such, but do choose wisely.
48. Re:Meh... by I'm+not+really+here · 2010-03-16 02:48 · Score: 1
  There are many foolproof ways to fly free:
  
  If you have pilot training, steal a plane!
  Pay for a plane ticket with a fraudulent form of payment
  become a steward/stewardess
  hide in someone's very large shipping container (remember the breathing holes!)
  Ok, so maybe not "foolproof", but I'm sure there are many other ways to fly for free that follow these lines.
  
  Just because there are free ways to fly^H^H^H get music doesn't mean that suddenly I say "hey, if I break the law or become a DJ, I can get all the free music I want, so I don't think that music is worth more than a penny per song to me!"
  
  What? You say this isn't the same thing because it's not convenient for you to get the free airfare, but torrenting is convenient?
  
  Well, it may seem convenient to you to torrent things (and to most of us on this forum), but others see the value and convenience of buying a CD. They don't have to learn about torrenting, worry about getting viruses or fake files, hassle with printing the cd jacket art or lyrics, their CDs have longer shelf lives, no effort was required to burn the music onto CDs, and being completely honest and legal is a value added for many people (including myself, though much of the new music is crap, so I just listen to my collection of legally purchased music, get songs sent to my by my friends who are independent artists, and listen to Pandora to find the occasionally good new band whose music I generally buy so I have a copy to play whenever I want).
  --
  Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
49. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-16 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  I actually do not have an option available to me that offers me that episode, even if I wanted to pay, nobody's there that would want to take my money.
  This one is like shooting fish in a barrel!
  
  d) Watch it free online at FOX's website.
50. Re:Meh... by hitmark · 2010-03-16 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  while i am only speculating, i wonder how much of the piracy acts as a kind of "preview". That is, one download to see if its interesting. For instance, how many movie trailers makes the movie look interesting; but when one watch the final product one find that the trailer basically held all the best scenes? With free, there is no risk involved; but even $0.01 makes people wonder if they should bother as they may not like the content.
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
51. Re:Meh... by hitmark · 2010-03-16 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  the former is already happening, as more and more record studios are changing into being a one stop promo shop, handling all elements of artist activity.
  the latter? meh. 3D right now is more a excuse for the hardware and movie companies to get people to replace their perfectly good hardware and media once again.
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
52. Re:Meh... by eclectechie · 2010-03-16 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Some "staggering" would make sense due to timezone differences, but this is measured in hours rather than days, weeks, months (even years).
  There is a companion "Live Timing" internet feed, where you can see the same lap/sector time info for all cars that the teams in the pit lane do. To benefit from that, you need to be watching in real time.
  
  --
  "The empty vessel makes the greatest sound." -- William Shakespeare; Henry V, 4. 4
53. Re:Meh... by IdleTime · 2010-03-16 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  alt.binaries.formula1
  
  Much faster than torrent and all the 3 practices sessions along with the qualifying and race, including BBC pre-race shows are posted the same day.
  
  --
  If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
54. Re:Meh... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-16 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  The video you are trying to watch cannot be viewed from your current country or location.
  Seems the fish are safe to fight another day.
55. Re:Meh... by Opportunist · 2010-03-16 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Great idea. Now all I need is a US IP address.
  While we're at it, anyone able to provide a UK one? I'd like to catch up on IT Crowd while waiting for the dubs...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
56. Re:Meh... by Thinboy00 · 2010-03-16 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention wildly inaccurate... IP people are closer to the clowns running Brave New World than anything else; they're not socialists but totalitarian capitalists (i.e. fascists, aka "corporate bastards").
  
  --
  $ make available
57. Re:Meh... by cecom · 2010-03-16 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  I see your problem, but ultimately it doesn't matter. The bottom line is, nobody is required to sell you any product for any price. It just happens that in this case you can obtain the product for free, which however explicitly goes against the wishes (and depending on the country legal rights) of its owner and creator.
  No matter how we rationalize it, torrenting it would be unethical.
  Not to mention that providing a DVR service, like the original poster wanted, clearly costs something - resources, etc. The media corporations and cable companies may be greedy bastards, but they are not the only ones. Any reasonable business is practically obligated to sell for maximum profit.
58. Re:Meh... by Opportunist · 2010-03-16 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  Is it ethical (or even "free market" compatible) to NOT sell to people who want to buy? It's actually quite strange when you look at it from a trader's perspective: There's a potential customer. Transporting the goods to him is trivial and almost free. He is willing to buy and even pay the price you set (I wouldn't mind paying a few bucks to actually see House in English instead of our braindead dub).
  Yet they REFUSE to sell to me.
  Now, there's of course some sort of area protection in place in contracts with our local networks. Which by itself is an anachronism, but whatever. Yet our networks, too, refuse to sell me House in English. I can NOT buy it, even if I was willing to buy it, hell, even if I was willing to pay more for a good that is cheaper to make (no dub required). It is basically impossible for me to get House (or The IT Crowd) in English, and especially in the latter case this is a true letdown.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's about time! by KennyP · 2010-03-15 09:57 · Score: 1

Why sue when you know you're gonna LOSE?
1. Re:It's about time! by Jazz-Masta · 2010-03-15 10:12 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Why sue when you know you're gonna LOSE?
  Ask SCO.
2. Re:It's about time! by fusiongyro · 2010-03-15 10:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:It's about time! by ImprovOmega · 2010-03-15 12:19 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Why sue when you know you're gonna LOSE?
  Ask SCO.
  So you're saying that Microsoft is secretly funding them?
4. Re:It's about time! by betterunixthanunix · 2010-03-15 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Would you be surprised? Hm, Microsoft funding someone who is suing a torrent website that encourages people to share...yeah...like that is within the realm of possibility...
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
5. Re:It's about time! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-16 00:40 · Score: 0
  
  Assuming Norway's supreme court works like America's [...]
  
  Don't.
  It doesn't.
6. Re:It's about time! by catman · 2010-03-16 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, no, it doesn't quite work like that. What we're afraid of is that they will start lobbying even harder to get the law changed. Disclosure regulations should make it harder for the lobbyists to throw money at the representatives, but, who knows
Aren't they still facing jail time? by gront · 2010-03-15 09:58 · Score: 1

Subject to a pending appeal, don't the guys running it still face a year in jail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial
1. Re:Aren't they still facing jail time? by Zironic · 2010-03-15 10:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This is a completely different legal action in an entirely different country. This case was about forcing an ISP to block access to the site.
2. Re:Aren't they still facing jail time? by M8e · 2010-03-15 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  They are getting an appeal and the earlier judgment means nothing.
  "Pirate Bay Appeal Scheduled for September 28th"
  http://www.zeropaid.com/news/88349/pirate-bay-appeal-scheduled-for-september-28th/
3. Re:Aren't they still facing jail time? by gront · 2010-03-15 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Right, but before everyone breaks out the champagne and hails the latest pirate-bay-based-lawsuit as a victory, was just pointing out that its not all happy times and file-shared pr0n down pirate bay way.
4. Re:Aren't they still facing jail time? by jonbryce · 2010-03-15 10:40 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That's in Sweden which is the country next door to Norway.
5. Re:Aren't they still facing jail time? by gmhowell · 2010-03-15 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry. We're Americans. All them Europeans look and sound alike. (Must have to do with walking, eating right, free healthcare, and socialistcommunistfascistterrorist indoctrination.)
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
6. Re:Aren't they still facing jail time? by Opportunist · 2010-03-15 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  It's easy to distinguish the Swedes. They look like Californians, but they speak the better English.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
7. Re:Aren't they still facing jail time? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 20:33 · Score: 0
  
  That's in Sweden which is the country next door to Norway.
  Another important difference(*) is that Sweden is part of EU and Norway is not.
  Pre-EU, Sweden had better protection to its citizens, now it getting worse and worse, in thirty years or so I wouldn't be surprised if it has gotten as bad as in USA.
  (*) Other differences: Norway is part of NATO, Sweden is not. Norways main exports are oil products and fish, Swedens main exports are steel, wood-products, high tech and condensed milk. Norway has been a protectorate (read colony) of both Denmark and Sweden, Sweden has been in union with Denmark and partly under Danish rule during short periods, but the first Nordic union during the viking-era (Denmark, Norway and the main parts of Sweden), had its base in Norway. Norweigans and Finns use to call Sweden "big brother" as a pejorative (Finland has also been a Swedish protectoriate (now Swedish capital Stockholm was even the main base during the slave trade of hedionistic Finns from Finland to the Christian Europe, when owning Christian slaves was forbidden in pre-feodal Europe (they "fixed that" by means of legal wizardry in feodal Europe))). The Norse and Swedish langauges are nearly identical, but Norse is a very easy language to learn (1-2 years) and Swedish is an extremely difficult language to learn (few people have been able to learn how to speak or write even remotely proper Swedish as adults, with the extrordinary exception of author Theodor Kallifatides, a Greek-Swedish author that writes in the most beautiful Swedish of any living author).
8. Re:Aren't they still facing jail time? by catman · 2010-03-16 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  You must be Swedish. s/hedonistic/heathen/ although I think that these days we're all hedonistic up here on the top of Europe. Norse is what we spoke about 1000 years ago - and I have met exactly two foreigners who spoke accent-free Norwegian: a Swedish radio man and the German chancellor Willy Brandt. You probably have a similar situation in Sweden - like Japanese, you almost have to grow up here to speak it correctly and without an accent :-) Hilsen naboen
Stop stealing you fucking faggots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 09:59 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Ante up or stick to the public domain offerings, you faggot shit eating faggot bitches.

Faggot.
1. Re:Stop stealing you fucking faggots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 10:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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....
2. Re:Stop stealing you fucking faggots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 10:17 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Times are tough. Yet, I can afford the finest and firmest shits to eat and the hunkiest, studliest faggots to buttsex with using the money I saved pirating...no, stealing your worthless garbage.
  
  Fuck you, content providers. Your number's up. I have all the good content there is to have. My gigabytes and gigabytes of media that I stole from you is good enough to tide me over for the rest of my life. You could cut of my internet connection tomorrow and you'll still never see a fucking dime from me. You already lost. Fuck you.
3. Re:Stop stealing you fucking faggots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
4. Re:Stop stealing you fucking faggots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  Ummm... so you claim you lost albums because you weren't willing to do something that you claim that is illegal to back them up (which I'm not convinced it's illegal at all. it's sounding like a strawman to me) but you're willing to download which is illegal and you're much much more likely to get caught?
  
  You're an idiot and the people who've modded you up have aligned themselves with an idiot.
5. Re:Stop stealing you fucking faggots by Deus.1.01 · 2010-03-15 11:50 · Score: -1
  
  Remember that pretty thing called DMCA....you know that pretty little thing where you arent suppose to circumvent DRM's.
  THANKFULLY! Norway gives the FINGER to DMCA when it comes to this....OUR CONSUMER rights trumps DRM shit.
  
  --
  My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
6. Re:Stop stealing you fucking faggots by kimvette · 2010-03-15 12:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "My gigabytes and gigabytes of media that I stole from you is good enough to tide me over for the rest of my life. "
  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
7. Re:Stop stealing you fucking faggots by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  You did a great job of putting into words the real heartfelt emotion of how I feel about why I pirate content, and how I could give a shit about copyright perverters complaining about my file-sharing that enhances the value of their media while they drive away in their beamers, benzes, and lexus while I worry about my son's college education.
  Awesome job, bud!
8. Re:Stop stealing you fucking faggots by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-03-15 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  You'd have more of a life left over if you'd actually stolen the physical media.
  
  And killed everyone who got in your way.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Yaarrr!!! by Starteck81 · 2010-03-15 09:59 · Score: 0, Redundant

Yaaarrr!!!!... now walk the plank.

--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
Buying politicians is cheaper by schwit1 · 2010-03-15 10:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

The path of least resistance to the ends they want is via campaign contributions and scare-tactic(child pron, terrorism, etc) lobbying.
1. Re:Buying politicians is cheaper by linzeal · 2010-03-15 10:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That is not as easy in western Europe as it is the states, but it still happens. People over there are mildly clued into what is going on in their country even if some still do vote out of irrational fears it is nowhere near as prevalent as it is the states. So they expect their politicians to at least appear to do " the right thing ".
  
  --
  An Education is the Font of All Liberty
2. Re:Buying politicians is cheaper by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  Except that in Norway, campaign contributions generally bring backlash. We're talking about the country where teleprompters met with public outrage and have not yet caught on.
3. Re:Buying politicians is cheaper by JohnnyBGod · 2010-03-15 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Um... not that your point is invalid because of this, but you really should look at a map to see where Norway is.
4. Re:Buying politicians is cheaper by Jenming · 2010-03-15 16:17 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Citation needed.
  I expect the correlation between campaign contributions and policy decisions is as strong in Europe as it is in the United States.
  
  --
  Morpheus, God of Dreams.
5. Re:Buying politicians is cheaper by chgros · 2010-03-15 18:41 · Score: 1
  
  I expect the correlation between campaign contributions and policy decisions is as strong in Europe as it is in the United States.
  That may be true, but campaign contributions are typically much more limited.
6. Re:Buying politicians is cheaper by js_sebastian · 2010-03-15 22:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Citation needed.
  I expect the correlation between campaign contributions and policy decisions is as strong in Europe as it is in the United States.
  Actually, in many european countries there is no such things as campaign contributions from private corporations. They are called bribes. (example: france, italy). I'm not saying this automagically solves the problem, just pointing out that what the anglo-saxon world calls lobbying is illegal in many other large democracies.
7. Re:Buying politicians is cheaper by CharlyFoxtrot · 2010-03-15 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  Citation needed.
  I expect the correlation between campaign contributions and policy decisions is as strong in Europe as it is in the United States.
  There's no doubt it happens but less than in the US IMHO. In Belgium for example political parties are given funds by the government to run election campaigns to make them less dependent on external contributions.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
8. Re:Buying politicians is cheaper by Dorkmaster+Flek · 2010-03-16 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, in many european countries there is no such things as campaign contributions from private corporations. They are called bribes. (example: france, italy)
  You can add Canada to that list as well. One of the interesting things I learned once I started getting more involved with the political side of tech issues is that, up here, businesses cannot contribute to political campaigns. There's also a limit on how much a single individual can contribute (something around $1200 I believe).
  
  --
  I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
9. Re:Buying politicians is cheaper by linzeal · 2010-03-16 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Scandinavia for all intents and purposes is part of the political system and culture of geographically situated western Europe.
  
  --
  An Education is the Font of All Liberty
How many years? by fragmentate · 2010-03-15 10:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

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
1. Re:How many years? by bragr · 2010-03-15 10:16 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The original police raid on the Piratebay, which resulted in the four of them being brought up on charges was on May 31, 2006. I believe it then took them about a year to process the 160+ servers, depositions, and other evidence into a 4000 page report. That report was then process down into 60 or so charges.
2. Re:How many years? by IrquiM · 2010-03-15 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Less than a year if I remember correctly. At least not for much longer.
  
  --
  This is blinging
3. Re:How many years? by frank_adrian314159 · 2010-03-15 11:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Maybe these litigious companies will realize, one day, there's a reason why.
  Why? The public in general hates the lawyers, not the people who hire them. In fact, the lawyers are acting as a defensive shield for the public scorn that should be heaped on the organizations that hire them to carry out their legal asshattery. As long as people hate the lawyers without questioning who stands behind them, the organizations that hire them will continue to get off scot free.
  
  --
  That is all.
4. Re:How many years? by RivenAleem · 2010-03-15 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  People also forget that there are Lawyers on both sides. There is constant hate directed to the lawyers prosecuting/trying to shut down TPB, but people fail to realise that there's a second bunch of lawyers who are fighting for the rights of TPB to stay up and running.
  So yes, target the people behind the lawyers.
IFPI Norge by Jake+Dodgie · 2010-03-15 10:11 · Score: 0

Considering that a lot of the Pirate Bay listings are Porn I was impressed to see the International Federation of the Pornographic Industry Norway was taking a stand untill my brain re-registered the name correctly and I realised that are probably a bunch of old guys in beards muttering about all the illegal downloads of 78" vinyl.

--
Drunkeness is an electron free version of virtual reality.
1. Re:IFPI Norge by Idiomatick · 2010-03-15 10:18 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  They must be REALLY old, those are some big ass records.
2. Re:IFPI Norge by bughunter · 2010-03-15 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  That's OK. I misread the first sentence to read, "one of the pirates to the case said."
  
  --
  I can see the fnords!
3. Re:IFPI Norge by Arancaytar · 2010-03-15 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  And not the kind of vinyl we might be thinking of, either. :P
I suppose by BigJClark · 2010-03-15 10:11 · Score: 0

Its hard to impose your legal code on a foreign country. Maybe they should lobby their host country to form, oh, I dunno, some sort of massive firewall... hmm

--

Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
1. Re:I suppose by Arancaytar · 2010-03-15 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Well... this was legal action started in a Norwegian court by Norwegian plaintiffs against a Norwegian defendant, so I'm not sure where the "foreign" comes into it.
2. Re:I suppose by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  Follow the money.
ACTA perhaps? by Dan667 · 2010-03-15 10:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

Maybe they do not want to lose in the Norwegian Supreme Count that would allow invalidation of ACTA if it is ever implemented in its current terrible form. Governments should not be involved in a the failure of a business model. Organizations like the RIAA need to stop treating their Customers like Criminals.
1. Re:ACTA perhaps? by betterunixthanunix · 2010-03-15 12:55 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  From what I hear, the likelihood of Norway agreeing to ACTA is fairly low -- they still value the rights of their citizens more than the interests of foreign companies. Or so I am told.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
2. Re:ACTA perhaps? by Kjella · 2010-03-15 22:12 · Score: 1
  
  Hardly any ruling in the Supreme court would prevent them from passing a new law based on ACTA. Actually I think it's more like the DVD-Jon case. They also lost twice, then dropped appealing to the Supreme court because they would be blasted. Then they waited for the EUCD and Norway passed a new copyright law with DMCA-style protections. I highly suspect they drop it now because there's no provisions to force ISPs to cut off web sites now, but I'm sure they'll try changing that.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
3. Re:ACTA perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-16 00:44 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  While Norway would never directly agree to ACTA, EU might (though that seems less and less likely every day).
  And might then get pushed into Norwegian law through the EEA agreement, where EU directives get implemented into national law.
  Norway has a historically low threshold for implementing EU directives into our laws due to fears about EU sanctions. We do have a right to VETO any such attempt, but, like I said, the big parties are either scared witless (spineless) or proEU.
  TL;DR Norway will never get a choice to agree to ACTA or not, but might get bullied into accepting it.
Pirate Bay appeals likely to start in September by angry+tapir · 2010-03-15 10:25 · Score: 3, Informative

In other Pirate Bay-related news: "The case against the four people involved in the running of Pirate Bay is heading back to court at the end of September. The appeals trial is tentatively scheduled to start on Sep 28., the Svea Court of Appeals said on Wednesday."
1. Re:Pirate Bay appeals likely to start in September by Mubbers · 2010-03-15 19:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
Funny enough... by mister_playboy · 2010-03-15 10:26 · Score: 1

Sweden and Norway have actually been united as one country at various times in the past.

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
1. Re:Funny enough... by Narpak · 2010-03-15 14:53 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Sweden and Norway have actually been united as one country [wikipedia.org] at various times in the past.
  A personal union with the same monarch and foreign office. Separate administrations and constitutions. NOT one country.
  
  --
  The Long Now Foundation
2. Re:Funny enough... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-16 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  gg Sworway!
Norway Is A Sane Nation! by b4upoo · 2010-03-15 10:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

Perhaps one day America can hope to be as sane as Norway!
1. Re: Norway Is A Sane Nation! by BitHive · 2010-03-15 10:45 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  nope, their socialest
2. Re: Norway Is A Sane Nation! by gertin · 2010-03-15 10:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  We also created this, so be careful with what you wish for.
3. Re: Norway Is A Sane Nation! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 11:02 · Score: 0
  
  nope, their socialest
  Yes, because fascism is saner.
4. Re: Norway Is A Sane Nation! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  don't be silly fascism has been abolished, like racism in the united states
5. Re: Norway Is A Sane Nation! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  Mayhem is an awesome band! Too bad Varg killed the original lead singer of Mayhem. Satanas!
6. Re: Norway Is A Sane Nation! by Narpak · 2010-03-15 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  And lutfisk *shudder*
  
  --
  The Long Now Foundation
7. Re: Norway Is A Sane Nation! by mjwx · 2010-03-15 15:11 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  What do you expect, Norway is run by the Norse. The Norse used to be called the Vikings. The Vikings were basically land pirates, coming ashore to pillage, plunder and raze as opposed to capturing ships and booty on the high seas.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
8. Re: Norway Is A Sane Nation! by AliasMarlowe · 2010-03-15 19:52 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  And lutfisk *shudder*
  Lutefisk is indeed quite nasty, roughly on a par in nastiness with Finnish Mämmi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammi or Scottish haggis (I've tasted all of them, regrettably).
  
  However, these are nothing on the Swedish "delicacy" Surströmming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surstromming. Many apartment buildings in Sweden have rules preventing one from opening a can of the stuff anywhere in the building (which would become uninhabitable as the vapors spread through the ventilation system). My Swedish colleagues assert that it can only be consumed in tiny quantities, and then only after at least half a bottle of vodka, and potentially triggering an extended vomit.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
9. Re: Norway Is A Sane Nation! by miggyb · 2010-03-16 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  As children always rebel against their parents, however, the contemporary Norse rebels against his ancestors by being quiet, polite and sane.
  
  --
  This signature serves no purpose other than to help you see which posts were made by me.
10. Re: Norway Is A Sane Nation! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-16 00:54 · Score: 0
  
  The Norse were never called Vikings. Small groups of Norsemen travelled to Britain, mainland Europe, Russia and even Turkey as Vikings. Many of them were traders and merchants rather than pirates.
11. Re: Norway Is A Sane Nation! by Carewolf · 2010-03-16 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  The Norse were never called Vikings. Small groups of Norsemen travelled to Britain, mainland Europe, Russia and even Turkey as Vikings. Many of them were traders and merchants rather than pirates.
  Actually a group of Norse traveled to Britain were they we called Danes!(dun-dun-dun). By their own people they were called Vikings, which in Old Nordic means outlaw..
keep on trucking by BitHive · 2010-03-15 10:48 · Score: 0, Troll

go away you uppity socialist homophobe
1. Re:keep on trucking by Deus.1.01 · 2010-03-15 11:56 · Score: -1
  
  Who is the GNAA member....him or you?!
  
  --
  My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
durr by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 10:56 · Score: 0

what does words mean?
moderation error by BitHive · 2010-03-15 11:00 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Parent is not a troll, but rather was hastily moderated by one of the people it describes.
RIAA should go to hell by AmonTheMetalhead · 2010-03-15 11:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

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
Yeap by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 11:39 · Score: 0

Here in Italy, unluckily, the situation is quite the opposite. As you may know we've got recently cut out from Pirate Bay and even quite silently. The route drops after 10-12 hops and can't be avoided with any Internet Provider. I feel like most Italian users aren't complaining that much, just cause they're going elsewhere instead. TPB provided an alternative site which is actually working over here, but how long is that gonna be? Sure it's also an italian translated URL, quite funny, but might not be the right way to play on a wall-wall game. However, it's quite sad and frustrating how they're allowed to censor stuff on command and there isn't really anything to do about that. Norway rox. :)
Yes, it is a human right by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 11:47 · Score: 1, Interesting

Who gave you the idea that you are entitled to watch back episodes for free? Is that like a basic human right or something?
UN declaration of human rights clearly states the rights to enjoy art and culture as universal human rights. You should read it sometime, I bet the country you live in has signed it.
So, it is a duty of the state to make sure that art and culture is available to you (which means: it needs to be affordable). Also, art is extremely objective. You can't just say "You can listen artist X for free" because others might not consider that as art. So, if a country has signed the declaration of human rights, it needs to make sure that its citizens have access to very varying kinds of art & culture.
Now, whether this extends to specific instances (such as specific TV show) is arguable. I would say that in some cases it does: Some works (the simpsons show, LotR books, Lion King, etc...) have became so essential part of our culture that you need to have access to that.
The declaration also states that artists need to be able to profit from their work. So, if the state decides something to be so essential part of the culture that people need to have free access to it, the state also needs to pay something to the artist.
CAPTCHA: Concerto
1. Re:Yes, it is a human right by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 20:44 · Score: 0
  
  There is the legal system's loophole.
  
  Yes you have a human right to art'n'culture, but your Gov opens up and funds galleries and public art displays. Pays for schools to go see plays or have actors come round to schools. You get access to libraries of books, tapes, etc. Here in the UK, we pay a TV license, we get access to the pop culture items like Simpsons, etc.
  
  I am not on a moral high-horse, I torrent TV episodes like everyone else on the planet! I am just pointing out that needs are being met by Govs, just 'cos you can't wait for the DVD to come out or 5 years for it to appear on free TV channels in your region as re-runs, still doesn't give anyone the right to rip it off.
  
  ( To you other lot, ripping off software is still a crime under the terms of the agreements. No matter how you try to morally justify it as a non-sale, it's still an offence to run it without having paid for it. Me, I "banked" with Lord Jobs so I get shafted for software costs through over-priced, toy hardware!!! )
2. Re:Yes, it is a human right by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 22:31 · Score: 0
  
  UN declaration of human rights clearly states the rights to enjoy art and culture as universal human rights. You should read it sometime, I bet the country you live in has signed it.
  Can I have a pony too?
RIAA isn't a problem anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 11:52 · Score: 0

RIAA isn't using DRM anymore. Their works are on the market.
It's the MPAA people who currently aren't participating, and therefore can't even say with a straight face, that piracy has cost them sales. Sales of what? You can't buy unDRMed movies. But you can buy unDRMed music. So give the RIAA a break; they aren't a serious problem anymore.
"They know if copying for non-commercial use" by unity100 · 2010-03-15 11:57 · Score: 1

is legalized in one country"
youre talking about spain.

--
Read radical news here
1. Re:"They know if copying for non-commercial use" by bami · 2010-03-15 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  Or Dutchlantis.
  The word "Copyright" has no legal meaning here, so we can just copy/download as we see fit.
  Distributing is another matter though, so no uploading, and it's illegal to download software without a license either.
2. Re:"They know if copying for non-commercial use" by Jedi+Alec · 2010-03-15 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  That's....not entirely true.
  Right now there's no laws forbidding the download of movies, music etc. However, parliament has already said they do want to implement this at some point, when legal alternatives are readily available.
  
  --
  
  People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Obligatory Post by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 12:28 · Score: 0

Dear MPAA/RIAA,
I consider myself an honest citizen - but you've harassed and bullied me and you've treated me like a criminal. On top of that, you've crippled my product.
Let's examine that statement.
- You strongly push the purchase of a physical piece of media - which I no longer want. If I buy the movie/music in downloadable format, it's DRM protected so that it's almost unusable (eg. DRM servers ceasing to work, people being sued for making DRM "useable")
- You sue anyone, including people that don't own computers, grand mothers and little children. You subscribe to the mentality of "We will stop the beatings when morale improves" (ie. it's you at fault, not the MAFIAA or the archaic MAFIAA business models).
- You put messages on my DVDs and BluRays that I can't skip - they take a long time to sit through on every viewing of the movie. One of them is EXTREMELY insulting, implying that I am a CAR THIEF. Between calling my a CAR THIEF and suing anyone that you can, you re-enforce the message that you do not have respect for your customers - they are lowly thieves and not to be trusted. Your DRM re-inforces the "customers are thieves" message.
So in summary, you give me crap product, treat me like a criminal, sue me to re-enforce that i'm a criminal - and what do you expect? I'll tell you what you'll get. I tell EVERYONE to stop buying your product and I EDUCATE them on how to circumvent your archaic business model so you make no profit. If I am going to be treated this way - and you insist on assuming I'm a criminal, then you will get what you deserve.
Sincerely,
Joe Average
PS F*** the **AA
yuo fail 1t by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 12:46 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Of the warring for *BSD because
But it is still blocked in Denmark. Workaround? by viking80 · 2010-03-15 12:56 · Score: 1

Took a weekend trip from Norway to Denmark, and to my surprise I got a big "STOP" screen when I visited pirate bay from the hotel wifi. The page had a reference to a judgment, and noted that my attempted violation of danish law and my IP address had *not* been recorded.
Not wanting to miss my favorite TV show, I changed my DNS to OpenDNS, then GoogleDNS, but still the same message. I expected this to be a simple DNS block, but they must have blocked off a segment of IP addresses. http://thejesperbay.dk/ did not add any workable solution.
Does anyone know of a workaround for this? Seems like Chinese and Iranian people should be able to help me out here.
Good thing Norway is still open.

--
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
1. Re:But it is still blocked in Denmark. Workaround? by linuxrocks123 · 2010-03-15 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  I posted about the technical details of Chinese censorship here: [http://linuxrocks123.livejournal.com/83456.html]. Basically, for the banned sites, DNS packets are intercepted and hijacked no matter what server they are intended for. If that's what's happening in Denmark, you should be able to work around the problem by typing in the raw IP address of thepiratebay.org (currently 194.71.107.15).
  No matter what the details are, a proxy hosted in a freer country should always work, especially if it's backed by SSL. If you want to use the DNS name, you'll of course have to route the DNS requests through the proxy, but my website has instructions on how to do that. Look here for proxy sites: [http://samair.ru].
  Please post any details of the censorship you happen to uncover -- I'm very interested.
  ---linuxrocks123
  
  --
  vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
2. Re:But it is still blocked in Denmark. Workaround? by CharlyFoxtrot · 2010-03-15 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  Tor is the obvious answer, combined with Foxyproxy for Firefox to redirect traffic through the tor network only when needed to contact the piratebay site. The Tor website provides a convenient prepackaged browser bundle you can download to see if you like it.
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
3. Re:But it is still blocked in Denmark. Workaround? by qc_dk · 2010-03-16 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  While the ISP did not log your attempt, the hotel has. It has become part of danish law that all communication must be stored. If you're Norwegian(or can read Danish :-)) this Danish article explains it: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=2445 The reason is tracking terror, but be aware that a list of all sites you visit will be stored for 1 year, and during that time the police can get a warrant to look through it.
  Everyone was really mad went this went through all the way from ISP to bed and breakfast places. I've heard of one small rural hotel that disabled all their free Wi-Fi and instead you can walk across the road and use the owners Internet, which is not covered by this silly law.
  Secondly, I would never do anything illegal, but I have a good "friend" who assures me you can easily access pirate bay from Danish ISPs simply by using host files. I know ... my friend ... does it.
I'm a troll--so sue me. by sbeckstead · 2010-03-15 13:06 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I really love all the people that say they only pirate stuff 'cause the cost isn't reasonable. Yeah, if I'm broke and I need a loaf of bread then any price is unreasonable so I'm justified in stealing it. Screw you, pay the 2 bucks assholes. And to the guys that say that they wouldn't have been customers anyway so they are justified in taking it I don't get how that works either. 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. it's really simple and I don't get why you can't grasp this concept.

--
Why bother
1. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by Djupblue · 2010-03-15 14:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by Master+Moose · 2010-03-15 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  Now I live in New Zealand. We are a small country with a small population. There are shows/PPVs etc that TV networks pay and FTA have no interest in ever picking up the rights to or broadcasting. If I am unable to watch something I want to watch and am willing to pay for - but obviously not willing to relocate for, what is the harm in my downloading a show or special etc that I would otherwise have no access to?
  
  --
  . . .gone when the morning comes
3. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by judeancodersfront · 2010-03-15 15:32 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Copyright exists to protect intellectual property. It doesn't exist for people to ignore. Er I mean RAH RAH RAH DOWN THE DA MAN. God forbid we actually discuss the benefits of strong intellectual property laws. Or we can just pretend that the open source basement army will one day provide enough software for everyone.
4. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by Fantastic+Lad · 2010-03-15 15:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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
5. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by Djupblue · 2010-03-15 15:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
6. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by jellyfrog · 2010-03-15 23:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
7. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by jecblackpepper · 2010-03-16 05:45 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It is not quite that black and white.
  For example, you decide that buying/renting that blockbuster for $x is more than you are willing to pay for it. Instead you download it and watch it, using up some of your leisure time. If you didn't download it you might well have spent your time on some other leisure activity that costs $y, which is less than $x. Since you have been able to satisfy your need for leisure for nothing you have not spent that $y in the economy.
  It's probable that spending $y dollars on something else, for example an independent movie, helps that sector of the leisure industry to survive and prevents a monoculture of only blockbusters from the MPAA; it also has the side benefit of increasing competition against the MPAA and potentially means that they decide to charge less than $x in the future - benefiting everyone.
  It's why Bill Gates is happy for people to pirate Windows, since it adversely affects their competition while Microsoft still have enough profit to live comfortably.
8. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by sbeckstead · 2010-03-16 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  the difference is that with stealing you are depriving someone of property, with sharing you are depriving someone of the money they should have gotten with which they could have bought property. In the end you are stealing value, property or not.
  
  --
  Why bother
9. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by sbeckstead · 2010-03-16 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  The harm is that instead of creating a market so that other people that might be interested can view it you have removed the incentive for them ever to bother to allow anyone else to enjoy it.
  
  --
  Why bother
10. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by sbeckstead · 2010-03-16 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Um sorry bullshit!
  
  --
  Why bother
11. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by sbeckstead · 2010-03-16 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  by taking what you are not entitled to, you remove the ability of the person that created/marketed it to buy their own bread.
  And why would that be? Can you justify this rule?
  yes it has been in common law for centuries. If you don't pay for the goods you don't get them. Simple.
  
  --
  Why bother
12. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by sbeckstead · 2010-03-16 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  It is not quite that black and white.
  yes it is.
  your example is bullshit. you claim that stealing from the MPAA harms them thus making them want to charge less. Sounds like having your cake and eating it too. On that basis I could justify perpetual motion's existence. You are a moron!
  
  --
  Why bother
13. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-16 17:15 · Score: 0
  
  I hate fucking communists like you that believe in the government controlling distribution. Sharing and steeling are valid market forces and limiting them is just centralized government control. I don't want to subsidize, through my taxes, some asshole that wants to charge $2 for a loaf of bread.
  If he wants to protect his assets and profits he should pay for it himself rather then making everyone pay for his greed. I hate you communist with your fucking government laws and Justis.
14. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by Fantastic+Lad · 2010-03-16 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  Um sorry bullshit!
  Um, unsubstantiated knee-jerk.
  I've met Turning machines with more intelligent responses. What are you? Five?
  -FL
15. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by sbeckstead · 2010-03-17 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry a marked drivel count and high stupidity factor in your reply turned off the intelligent reply circuit. My bad.
  
  --
  Why bother
16. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by sbeckstead · 2010-03-17 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Fine leave. No one is stopping you. If the so called asshole owns the process and makes the bread, I bet he can charge what he likes for it. That's called a free market idiot not communism. In a communism the government owns the bread and you pay for it with labor. In a free market if the corporation can pay more for the congressman than you can he gets his vote. If you weren't anonymous it would be worth giving you a piece of my mind to try raising your IQ up to a level where you might understand me when I told you what I though of you!
  
  --
  Why bother
17. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by Fantastic+Lad · 2010-03-17 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry a marked drivel count and high stupidity factor in your reply turned off the intelligent reply circuit. My bad.
  Aaaaand, you're still name-calling.
  Until you provide some actual content, I'm afraid ALL my observations stand while you are more than likely just living in some flavor of denial. ("La La La, I can't HEAR you!")?
  You know, I strongly suspect that the more often you turn off your intelligence, the less of it you have to turn back on.
  -FL
18. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-17 15:15 · Score: 0
  
  Listen here you knuckle dragger, when people are forced buy the government to support the greedy bastards, that's Communism. Ip is an illusion, nobody owns a possess, that's fucking communism, the government giving monopoles to their fucking friends and comrades (supporters and bribers). I think you should pull your head out of your ass. If you want a really free market head to southern china.... no intellectual property protection and everybody competes like dogs for the best price. No free education, no free health care.. dog eat dog. You soft American socialists are fat and lazy because you don't believe in the free market you believe in protectionism. Protecting your fleeting wealth. Well your greed and laziness has made you broke morally and financially.
19. Re:I'm a troll--so sue me. by jellyfrog · 2010-03-17 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  by taking what you are not entitled to, you remove the ability of the person that created/marketed it to buy their own bread.
  Ah, but the thing is that you don't. Let's be clear: downloading itself has zero effect on the author of any work. The only real costs involved in information transfer are the energy use of the routers running the internet and the servers being used, neither of which are liable to the author, since file sharers generally download from each other.
  The most you can say is that by downloading rather than buying you have deprived the artist of the income they would have gained from you. But when you wouldn't have bought it anyway, there isn't any income to deprive the artist of. Net effect = $0.
  
  And why would that be? Can you justify this rule?
  yes it has been in common law for centuries. If you don't pay for the goods you don't get them. Simple.
  Law is different from morality. You can't justify a law with another law.
IP address are to litte stop 9/11 as they are to e by Joe+The+Dragon · 2010-03-15 13:19 · Score: 1

IP address are to litte stop 9/11 as they are to easy to flag the wrong guy.
Capitalist Education by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 13:23 · Score: 0

"Socialest"? Well, at least under a free, socialist education system you would have learned to spell! Hahaha!
Escape from Outpost #31! by DesScorp · 2010-03-15 13:36 · Score: 1

That's in Sweden which is the country next door to Norway.
Not only did R.J. MacReady escape the clutches of The Thing, he's posting on Slashdot now, apparently
Mac: "Hey Sweden!"
Doc: "They're Norwegian, Mac"

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Phonographic by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 14:08 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Its P.h.o.n.o.g.r.a.p.h.i.c. I misread it in the title. Being on the internet, and the group being in Scandinavia, I was thinkin' something else.
To be tech trendy you must ignore economics by judeancodersfront · 2010-03-15 15:38 · Score: 1

and pretend that software like Autocad will be produced by basement GPL programmers if we eliminate copyright laws. The only problem is that volunteer programmers are much more interested in creating yet another mp3 player by themselves instead of organizing into groups of 50 and tackling complex software engineering problems.
Support for piracy is sophomoric by judeancodersfront · 2010-03-15 15:46 · Score: 1

If you hate record companies then don't buy their products. If you hate Microsoft then support the alternatives. Eroding copyright laws hurts small companies the most. The big ones already have buckets of cash with which they can find piracy-safe revenues.
1. Re:Support for piracy is sophomoric by Djupblue · 2010-03-15 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  "Eroding copyright laws hurts small companies the most."
  Do you have any evidence of this or is it just the usual propaganda?
2. Re:Support for piracy is sophomoric by judeancodersfront · 2010-03-15 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's common sense. A company with 10 billion in reserves and an existing marketshare is in a better position to deal with piracy than a small company that can go under if it has a 20% drop in sales. Small software companies that depend entirely on sales would be destroyed by legalizing piracy while MS would just scale down and direct reserves towards profitable ventures that are immune to piracy.
3. Re:Support for piracy is sophomoric by Djupblue · 2010-03-15 19:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Assuming of course that piracy equals a loss. Which is not proven.
  Getting your software pirated means more people know about and use your product.
  According to Bill Gates: "Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though," Gates told an audience at the University of Washington. "And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
  Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropiracy9
4. Re:Support for piracy is sophomoric by xenobyte · 2010-03-15 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  It's just the usual bullshit propaganda... People (including pirates) are much more likely to support small companies than large faceless corporations, so the 'conscience payback' is much larger. I'm talking about retroactively paying for stuff you initially downloaded and found worth keeping.
  For some mind-boggling stupid reason both record labels and motion picture companies keeps on geo-discriminating and ignoring their back catalog products, which means that a lot of people find that the only way they can get their hands on a product is by downloading it illegally. There's simply no way for them to buy or pay for it - because it just isn't available (yet) where they live.
  This is exactly why I download what I download. It's tv-series has been aired in North America but won't come to Europe for months/years. It's movies not released outside the US. It's music available to radio stations and reviewers but not for purchase yet, or special editions only available in certain territories and not over the net.
  I delete crap right away and the good stuff I delete if I'm able to buy the CD/DVD/Blu-ray. I own 5500+ CDs and 2500+ DVDs and Blu-rays so I certainly don't feel I'm talking the bread from the mouths of poor musicians or struggling actors.
  
  --
  "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Rather irrelevant but - The article's pirate logo by unity100 · 2010-03-15 15:48 · Score: 1

- why is it looking so sad ? and down ? on behalf of pirates worldwide, i protest.

--
Read radical news here
Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 16:42 · Score: 0

Can't help but wonder how much of the decision not to appeal has to do with the European Parliaments proclamation against the ACTA.
This is just delaying the inevitable.. by Madsy · 2010-03-15 18:51 · Score: 1

Judges from both the first case and the appeal claimed that Telenor *was* "aiding illegal copying", but that they could not be held responsible: http://www.tu.no/it/article240000.ece

Både Asker og Bærum tingrett og Borgarting lagmannsrett mener at Telenor medvirker til at det skjer ulovlige handlinger via The Pirate Bay, men at denne medvirkningen ikke er rettsstridig.
This is doublethink in my opinion. Simply granting access doesn't make the ISPs responsible. I can't help to feel that the courts should have been way more clear in this matter.

What inevitably happens, is that the media interest groups will lobby to make our ISPs liable for 'granting access' to copyrighted works. Our copyright law 'åndsverksloven' is up for reform/ratification this year. And the Norwegian Data Inspectorate's main spokesperson and director Georg Apenes is leaving his post soon, making this scenario even more likely. Georg Apenes has been extremely vocal regarding our individual rights to privacy since he entered his position in 1989, and the government resents him for it. He has been a barrier for 'progress', and I really doubt whoever replaces him will have even 10% of his integrity. Most probably they will replace him with a government-friendly, industry-friendly puppet.
OOhhhhh Sweeeeet!!!! by viraltus · 2010-03-15 19:52 · Score: 1

Congratulations PB!!!! Good to see time to time corporations kneeling.

--
Dear /. CENSORS that set people's Karma to Neutral when you disagree with them: FUCK YOU!!
No, that is a lie by SmallFurryCreature · 2010-03-15 20:37 · Score: 1

There is nothing secret about it. Only the US government has problems following that money trail, probably because they are thrown of the scent by generous bundles of cash.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Re:Day by TaoPhoenix · 2010-03-15 20:41 · Score: 1

All together now!
A terrorist a day keeps pesky liberties at bay!

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Re:IP address are to litte stop 9/11 as they are t by SharpFang · 2010-03-15 23:09 · Score: 1

So what, flag them all, send them to GTMO and let God sort them.
There's no way NONE of them is a terrorist.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Reading too fast... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-03-15 23:48 · Score: -1, Offtopic

> ...and by the International Federation of the Pornographic Industry Norway
Huh?
Oh, Phonographic.
Much better.
Maybe less internet for me... 8-|
and who will let to pay to lockup that meny people by Joe+The+Dragon · 2010-03-16 00:55 · Score: 1

and who will let to pay to lockup that many people?
Re:and who will let to pay to lockup that meny peo by denis-The-menace · 2010-03-16 01:22 · Score: 1

The tax paying public.
(I guess that leaves out the rich folks that can afford tax avoidance specialists.)

--
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration