Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Bay Legal Action Dropped In Norway
superapecommando writes "Copyright holders have given up legal efforts to force Norwegian ISP Telenor to block filesharing site The Pirate Bay, one of the parties to the case said. The copyright holders, led by Norway's performing rights society TONO and by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry Norway (IFPI Norge), have lost two rounds in the Norwegian court system, and have now decided against appealing the case to Norway's supreme court."
Is that they've figured out another way to accomplish the same ends. It ain't over.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
I'm still going to be a rebel and buy my games, books, and music anyway. Its what all the cool kids are doing now.
Why sue when you know you're gonna LOSE?
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
The path of least resistance to the ends they want is via campaign contributions and scare-tactic(child pron, terrorism, etc) lobbying.
I'm actually curious how log this has been going on. It seems like the corporations, and legal bodies could find more creative ways to spend the money. I would think paying more money to lawyers would be an obvious negative by now.
The comedians of this world have already written hundreds of jokes about lawyers and their self-serving nature. Maybe these litigious companies will realize, one day, there's a reason why.
My ZooLoo
Stop price fixing and trying to thwart actual fair-use and maybe I would. As I see it, I'm just recovering my lost monies from the days of price fixing before digital media, and from all the albums I lost due to CD rot because I wasn't allowed to make a fair use back up. So until you can play nice, don't expect me to....
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.
They must be REALLY old, those are some big ass records.
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.
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."
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
Perhaps one day America can hope to be as sane as Norway!
That's OK. I misread the first sentence to read, "one of the pirates to the case said."
I can see the fnords!
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
And not the kind of vinyl we might be thinking of, either. :P
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.
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
is legalized in one country"
youre talking about spain.
Read radical news here
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
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
IP address are to litte stop 9/11 as they are to easy to flag the wrong guy.
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
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.
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?
. .
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
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.
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.
- why is it looking so sad ? and down ? on behalf of pirates worldwide, i protest.
Read radical news here
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.
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.
Congratulations PB!!!! Good to see time to time corporations kneeling.
Dear
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.
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
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/
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
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.
and who will let to pay to lockup that many people?
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
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.
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
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
Um sorry bullshit!
Why bother
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
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
Um sorry bullshit!
Um, unsubstantiated knee-jerk.
I've met Turning machines with more intelligent responses. What are you? Five?
-FL
Sorry a marked drivel count and high stupidity factor in your reply turned off the intelligent reply circuit. My bad.
Why bother
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
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
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.