Swedish Supreme Court Refuses Appeal In Pirate Bay Case

concertina226 writes with sad news for Swedish pirates. Quoting the article: "The Swedish Supreme Court will not hear an appeal from the founders of The Pirate Bay against prison sentences and fines imposed by the Swedish Court of Appeals, the court said on Wednesday. Over a year ago, the Court of Appeals sentenced Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde, and Carl Lundström to 10 months, eight months, and four months of jail time, respectively. The court also said they must collectively pay a 46 million kronor (£4.3 million) fine." The Pirate Bay has issued a response: "With this said, we hear news from our old admins that they have received a verdict in Sweden. Our 3 friends and blood brothers have been sentenced to prison. This might sound worse than it is. Since no one of them no longer lives in Sweden, they won't go to jail. They are as free today as they were yesterday."
Update: 02/01 15:15 GMT by U L :Reader think_nix helpfully copied the Pirate Bay response in a comment for those who cannot access the site.

Comments

Hilarious, in a sad way.

[headkase]

Remember every time copyright industries thought they had finally shut down The Pirate Bay? Yeah, just popped up again. Them not serving time because they aren't in Sweden? Not a perfect analogy but close enough for me!

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[indre1]

So now every small copyright infringement will lead to detainment until the decision has been reached as pirates are "highly more likely to flee the country"? Or at least the record labels would like to see it that way...

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[lightknight]

*shrugs*

They could just do something similar to what the movie industry pulled a long time ago (in order to nerf Edison's patents): move someplace where their actions are not illegal. Let's be honest, whichever country ends up with that many pirates (programmers, etc.) is going to bank. And not just a little, as these people tend to be some of the more skilled in the industry (they will make it rain). Fortunately, the vast majority of countries are not joining in (just yet) on this global witch-hunt, so such measures are (for now) unnecessary. However, if and when it should happen, I project that the countries involved in said persecutions will experience a brain drain that will set them back only a century or so.

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[dave420]

You: Overreacting greatly.

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[Kjella]

The world is too connected for that. Any country that tried would instantly become the distribution hub for the rest of the world, which would bring the collective wrath of copyright pundits in all other countries down on you. Reminds me of that East European politician that wanted to lower the age to star in porn to match the age of consent, he got a massive international shitstorm. Now why would all these countries give a shit about what a fart of a country a continent away does? Because if it's legal to watch two 17yos fuck there, you can bet those movies would go all over the world via the Internet. That's why after the DMCA they pushed the EUCD and continues to push anti-circumvention laws everywhere they can, it does them no good if they're only illegal in the US if they're ripped abroad and already unencumbered when they're downloaded in the US. Same with YouTube when they refuse to comply with anything but US law, unless you want to go Chinese on them you just have to realize that your citizens will go there and see whatever it is you don't want them to see. It's a nice idea but the time when your country could do it your way and my country could do it my way and they actually stayed independent is long past. It has its good sides but it also makes it almost impossible to be the one country that radically cuts copyright.

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[MadTinfoilHatter]

They could just do something similar to what the movie industry pulled a long time ago (in order to nerf Edison's patents): move someplace where their actions are not illegal.

They did. They performed all their actions in Sweden where their actions were not illegal. This is also why there for a long time were no action taken against TPB, despite the site being far from unknown to the prosecutors of that country. Then after a few years the MAFIAA started pressing for US politicians to do something about this. They in turn put pressure on Swedish politicians (behind the scenes, since in Swden it's illegal for the politicians to tell the prosecutors what to do). Suddenly their servers are confiscated and they're put into a courtroom before a judge who conveniently happens to have close ties to the Swedish MAFIAA-equivalent...

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[PopeRatzo]

No longer free, now an entirely owned and operated subsidiary of the USA and their MafiAA overlords.

Besides being a little bit over the top, it's also fundamentally incorrect.

The USA and Sweden are owned by the same conglomerate. "Crime family" is such a nasty phrase, don't you think?

La Cosa Nostra is kicking themselves for not thinking of the term "job creators" to describe themselves.

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[Grishnakh]

So how did they get convicted anyway, if what they were doing was perfectly legal? Did they change the law or something?

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[Ihmhi]

They in turn put pressure on Swedish politicians (behind the scenes, since in Swden it's illegal for the politicians to tell the prosecutors what to do).

Isn't there also a law in Swedish government can't be influenced by outside forces? I forget what it's called, but I know that it's a uniquely Swedish word that doesn't translate into English really.

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[91degrees]

Why do so many people assert that their actions were not illegal in Sweden?

Every time I ask, people point out that Google has a Swedish website, but Google has websites in just about every country with enforced copyright law, so by this argument, what they did would be legal everywhere.

Presumably there's meant to be something unique about the law in Sweden but I have no idea why people think this.

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[guruevi]

They were convicted on "promoting other people's infringements of copyright laws"

Even though almost all charges were found invalid or dropped during the case, the prosecution was allowed to keep introducing new evidence and witnesses not shared with the defense or the court until the judge had enough of it and simply convicted them.

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[Grishnakh]

That sounds like a complete Kangaroo Court. Some high-up politicians must have been paid off for this.

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[shutdown -p now]

they're put into a courtroom before a judge who conveniently happens to have close ties to the Swedish MAFIAA-equivalent...

For this theory to hold, there has to be more than one judge to have "close ties to MAFIAA" - it would also have to be all judges in the courts in which they have appealed, up to and including the Supreme Court. That sounds like a lot of judges to me.

Perhaps the more likely explanation is that this statement:

They performed all their actions in Sweden where their actions were not illegal

is simply incorrect?

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[DMUTPeregrine]

Cosa Nostra Pizza creates more jobs than any other pizza delivery franchulate in the world!

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not need to change laws to convict people, just a judge.

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[Anonymous Coward]

For this theory to hold, there has to be more than one judge to have "close ties to MAFIAA" - it would also have to be all judges in the courts in which they have appealed, up to and including the Supreme Court

Not really. Western courts have it in their heads that only the original court decides facts, after that the facts are decided and the appeals courts only decide whether the law was applied to the facts correctly, ie if someone pays a judge to declare you dead, you're pretty much fucked on that point. Best you can do is start over on a new judge to be declared alive again, or else get an appeals court to throw out the case on the grounds that the judge was picking his nose or something.

Hell, even if the star witness is outright lying in your case, it's not an appeal-able situation unless your lawyer knew he/she was lying, objected to the lie, and the judge overruled the lawyer and told the jury to accept the lie as truth.

Just one of the amazing things you learn when your city's crime lab is incompetent and the DNA technicians give testimony that directly contradicts their own lab notes, sending innocent men to prison. Josiah Sutton couldn't appeal his case based on the DNA technician's failure to tell the truth under oath, and had to go through the entire court system again for a declaration of innocence while the DA stalled his attempt by insisting that just because his DNA didn't match either DNA sample from a woman who was raped by two men didn't mean he didn't rape her. Clearly the DA believed the woman was too stupid to count to three. That or the DA was. Of course, the DA was so busy keeping Sutton in prison he didn't have time to investigate or prosecute his star witness's perjury, gotta prioritize, you know.

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[Grishnakh]

Yes, but usually you can appeal a conviction and if the conviction was total BS, the higher court will see that and overturn the conviction. But if a conviction is faulty and the only higher court refuses to hear the case, that's evidence of very deep corruption.

I wonder if these guys can appeal to the EU courts?

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[emj]

They performed all their actions in Sweden where their actions were not illegal

is simply incorrect?

As is said above they got convicted on accessory to commiting copyright infringement of 7 movies some music and a couple of games. This wasn't really thought of as something that could seriously happen before they got charged with it, and the sentence seems very perveted imho. If accessory to commit crime give you $3.5 million in fines, I would hate to be sentenced for the crime of actually downloading one movie.

I always thought they would get convicted, but I think the verdict was tad bit extreme. They do not have enough money to pay ~$3.5 million, but neither do most people who get convicted of "Copyright Crimes".

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way.

[xenobyte]

That sounds like a complete Kangaroo Court. Some high-up politicians must have been paid off for this.

They were. The Swedish attorney general was treated to a 14-day all-expenses-paid 'study-tour' to the US, paid for by... the MAFIAA. This was less than a week before the highly illegal raid was performed.

It was illegal because the attorney general signed the search warrant herself, which she could because she was also a judge (not active during her tenure as attorney general but still formally a judge). But this was a violation of the constitution (as it would be in most civilized countries) because you can't be both law giving (executive) and law interpreting (judiciary) according to the separation of powers and if it wasn't for a change in government following an election, it would likely have resulted in the forced termination of the attorney general.

Besides, the raid violated the warrant itself as it only covered servers affiliated with The Pirate Bay but hundreds of totally unrelated servers was also seized.

Last (but not least), it is important to know that NOTHING was found on the servers seized. No kiddie porn, no wares, no infringing files.

Or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

How are you as free today as yesterday if you can't enter a country or it's allies?

Staying out of Sweden maybe simple but that doesn't mean someone won't take you to Sweden.

Re:Or not?

[HapSlappy_2222]

I saw Batman do that once. Shit just got real.

Re:Or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Batman took someone to sweden? O.o

Re:Or not?

[GigaplexNZ]

How are you as free today as yesterday if you can't enter a country or it's allies?

Simple. Yesterday you were partially free. Today you are partially free. Nothing has changed.

That wont stop an arrest warrent going out...

[FriendlyLurker]

Caught in the web that is drawing other threats to the status quo into the Swedish "justice" system.

Re:That wont stop an arrest warrent going out...

[Yaotzin]

Swede here. It's a matter of perspective I guess. The chaplain's largest complaint seems to be isolation, which is pretty bad. On the other side, the cells are pretty comfortable, looking almost like a small hotel room. You get your own bed, tv, desk. Computers are allowed and in some cases video games. Also, prison rape is virtually unheard of.

Re:That wont stop an arrest warrent going out...

[hendridm]

> "Also, prison rape is virtually unheard of."

Really? That's pretty nice. I always wondered why the U.S. would turn such a blind eye to such treatment in our prisons. Such inaction seems to clearly violate 8th amendment rights. But what do I know. :/

Re:That wont stop an arrest warrent going out...

[iggymanz]

The prison system in the USA is big business, very profitable. they don't care what happens to their cash-cow "cattle" as long as they don't die

Re:That wont stop an arrest warrent going out...

[russotto]

Really? That's pretty nice. I always wondered why the U.S. would turn such a blind eye to such treatment in our prisons. Such inaction seems to clearly violate 8th amendment rights. But what do I know. :/

Prison rape is tolerated because it keeps the population in line. A person might be willing to stand on his principles and risk a prison sentence, and the government can't have that. So instead they make the consequences so terrible that people will agree to anything to avoid prison.

Not living in Sweden

[bernywork]

Pretty shit not being able to go home though.

I guess they could probably go in and out fine (EU passport will mean that unless they are on a watch list in the country they are going to they probably won't get caught) but if they get stopped by Police when there and checked then they will have to serve their time.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[elrous0]

What's even worse is that there aren't many places they can go where they can ever be safe. U.S./Hollywood power pretty much owns every government and legal system in the world. There are only a few countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, etc. that would stand up to that power, and they all have issues of their own.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it actually work like that? For me, being convicted of a crime resulting in jail time, would warrant being on a watch list. Isn't passport numbers verified against something when you pass a border in many cases (at least when flying)?

Re:Not living in Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S./Hollywood power pretty much owns every government and legal system in the world

Yeah, in your dreams.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't passport numbers verified against something when you pass a border in many cases (at least when flying)?

Sweden is part of the Schengen area so mostly no. Would have thought there were European arrest warrants that would affect them though, like in the Assange case?

Re:Not living in Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Within the EU you do not need to show a passport when flying, you do need an approved picture ID however. If you are on a watchlist you are likely to end up being caught on arrival since they cross-check passenger manifest.

Being caugt traveling by car, train or boat is unlikely, since customs only check vehicles randomly for restricted goods or if they know a certain vehicle will carry something illegal, like a sentenced man who has not checked in to his 3 star hotel.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[elrous0]

More like nightmares. And if you think that power isn't real, just ask the guys from Megaupload--or Julian Assange, or Gary McKinnon.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[nashv]

You don't have to go that far. Countries like India, China, Russia cover a very large area of the world , and these three have a history of not putting up with U.S.- , well B.S.

It is unlikely, for example that Sweden , the EU, or the US would be able to make India extradite them even if they were caught - and India is a big country to get lost in.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[bernywork]

In regards to the Schengen Borders, nope, not allowed:

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l14514_en.htm

> When crossing an external border, European Union (EU) citizens and other persons enjoying the right of free movement within the EU (such as the family members of an EU citizen) undergo a minimum check. This minimum check is carried out to establish their identity on the basis of their travel documents and consists of a rapid and straightforward verification of the validity of the documents and a check for signs of falsification or counterfeiting.

> However, on a non-systematic basis, when carrying out minimum
checks on persons enjoying the Community right of free movement,
border guards may consult national and European databases
in order to ensure that such persons do not represent a
genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to the internal
security, public policy, international relations of the Member
States or a threat to the public health.

All they typically do is look at your passport to determine whether it's counterfeit. Not allowed to systematically record, lookup or otherwise any EU citizen. While they can periodically look stuff up, if you aren't a threat to the member state you are going to, they probably still won't stop you.

Within the EU:

> Irrespective of nationality, any person may cross the internal borders at any crossing-point without checks being carried out.

If you go to the UK / Ireland, you will have the same treatment, quick look at your passport and keep walking. If you hold an Irish passport and go through the airport in Dublin, it seems holding your passport up to the officer in question is enough, don't even break step as you walk through. In London, they will hold and look at your passport but usually won't ask you a question.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[TheGratefulNet]

india?? they're the US's bitch, too!

you gotta be kidding me. corruption in india makes the rest of the world look tame.

no safety there!

Re:Not living in Sweden

[nashv]

Your knowledge of India-US geopolitics, is tentative at best. As an example from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93United_States_relations ,

"According to some analysts, India-U.S. relations have strained over Obama administration's approach in handling the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[15][16] India's National Security Adviser, M.K. Narayanan, criticized the Obama administration for linking the Kashmir dispute to the instability in Pakistan and Afghanistan and said that by doing so, President Obama was "barking up the wrong tree".[17] The Foreign Policy too criticized Obama's approach towards South Asia saying that "India can be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem" in South Asia and suggested India to take a more proactive role in rebuilding Afghanistan irrespective of the attitude of the Obama administration.[18] In a clear indication of growing rift between India and the U.S., the former decided not to accept a U.S. invitation to attend a conference on Afghanistan.[19] Bloomberg reported that since 2008 Mumbai attacks, the public mood in India has been to pressure Pakistan more aggressively to take actions against the culprits behind the terrorist attack and this might reflect on the upcoming general elections in May 2009. Consequently, the Obama administration may find itself at odds with India's rigid stance against terrorism.[20]

Robert Blake, assistant secretary of United States' Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, dismissed any concerns over a rift with India regarding United States' AfPak policy. Calling India and the United States "natural allies",[6] Blake said that the United States cannot afford to meet the strategic priorities in Pakistan and Afghanistan at "the expense of India".[21]"

So who exactly wants to be friends here? And yes, there is corruption. Yes, there are safety issues. But these exist mainly for lower income groups in India. I am not saying this is an acceptable, but the fact is that the upper-middle and upper classes in India is doing fantastically well, enjoying a standard of living in some ways higher than that in the Western world. And ex-pirate bay admins, in all likelihood , easily fit in the upper middle class (at least) in India.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[NatasRevol]

I wasn't aware of any international copyright laws...

Re:Not living in Sweden

[lightknight]

Yes, and your point is? The technology industry is why the entertainment industry is even as strong as it is today.

Take away their cameras, their lighting, their ability to reproduce their films a thousand times with very little if no degradation, and the maximum audience size for a performance is at most around a thousand (as many as you can pack in a large theater for a single night). If the MPAA is so desperate to put their collective heads in front of that cannon, by all means, let them -> we can make pretend that technology doesn't work for a week, and see how much money they hemorrhage. No TV broadcasts, no radio, no internet, no electric lighting...

 

Re:Not living in Sweden

[Nidi62]

india?? they're the US's bitch, too!

No, they are not. Here is some evidence to counter your claims: The US's biggest ally in the region is Pakistan, who, coincidentally, is India's arch rival, and has been since the Partition in 1948(or was it 47, can't really remember); India either develops it's own weapon systems or purchases them from Russia, who happen to be the US's biggest rival in the geo-political and arms trade spheres; India went against the Non-proliferation Treaty and has nuclear weapons. Just because India doesn't openly antagonize the US like Iran, China, NK, or even Pakistan do, or that many US companies have call centers there does not mean that they are the US's "bitch".

Re:Not living in Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Eventually their EU passport will expire and they will have to go home to renew. Unless they got a foreign passport or seek for political asylum.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Berne Convention of which Sweden is a signatory. It has the force of law amongst the signatories. Nice try aspergers boy.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[Xest]

I think his point was in the "every country" bit.

Those who have been extradited have made the mistake of going to nations that are either loyal to the US, or puppets of the US. The only Western nation where you might get away with it is Switzerland - it worked for Polanski just about, despite massive US pressure.

It's unlikely the US would get a succesful extradition from a few of the South American nations, Russia, or perhaps even China or India, and frankly if you have money, which it's likely the TPB guys do, then you can still live a pretty damn nice life in these places.

The key is to avoid North America, European nations, Commonwealth nations, and states that defend on US money and weapons for defence like Saudi Arabia and South Korea. As I say - that still leaves much of South America, some of Africa, and some of the biggest nations and ex-soviet states, where again, with a bit of Western money you can still live at least as comfortably as you would in the West.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

?!?! They were an operation based in sweden and thus under SWEDISH LAWS not international... That international companies and officials blackmailed Sweden into judging them is something completely different.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[kiwimate]

Bummer. People on Slashdot would be screaming to high heaven about the travesty of justice if these were white-collar criminals/CEOs/basically anyone who'd been convicted of a crime that /. readers didn't approve of and was able to stay out of jail by skipping to a different country.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[dargaud]

Indeed, India is currently running a big media circus of purchasing over a 130 Rafale fighter planes from France, where all the politicians today are running around like maniacs creaming their pants in delight. It's probably just an way to tell Russia or the US to provide similar planes at a 30% discount. As usual.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[xlsior]

...Except that passport is going to have to be renewed after a couple of years to remain usable, and only Sweden has the power to do so.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweden is a Berne convention signatory. Besides facilitating copyright infringement is illegal in Sweden despite what the average Slashtard with aspergers thinks.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[cheesybagel]

They are already in the PAK-FA project so there isn't much of a big deal in this. My guess is they cannot way for that project to be finished, so they are buying these fighters as an interim solution. The Chinese have increased their air force just way too much recently...

Re:Not living in Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Bummer. People on Slashdot would be screaming to high heaven about the travesty of justice if these were white-collar criminals/CEOs/basically anyone who'd been convicted of a crime that /. readers didn't approve of and was able to stay out of jail by skipping to a different country.

Yes, that is what happens when the government starts to make laws that causes a difference between legal and moral.
If the people are free they will follow what they consider is moral rather than what they think is legal. If they are oppressed they will follow what is legal regardless of morals.
After reading up on the details regarding the investigation of The Pirate Bay I think that the Swedish courts are pretty darn corrupt. (Or rather the prosecution, the judges and the defence are all friends and pretty much agrees on the outcome outside of court.)
Did you know that the officer in charge of the operation against The Pirate Bay got a nice job at Warner and that the Judge is a member of The Swedish Copyright Association?

Re:Not living in Sweden

[91degrees]

Julian Assange is being charged with rape. In Sweden. Whether valid or not blaming Hollywood or the US is little more than a conspiracy theory.

Gary Kinnock - trumped up charges, I agree, but that's the US government, not US/Hollywood. Hollywood's control via the US legal system is too far abstracted for it to be all that significant. So yes, the US has impressive power. Hollywood less so outside of the US.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair though, you probably wear your asocial disorder (rude, grandiose, preachy) like a badge of pride too, right?

Re:Not living in Sweden

[Thing 1]

Or Anwar Al-Awlaki.

Re:Not living in Sweden

[Cigarra]

Well yeah, some laws are unfair. What's wrong with opposing to a conviction based on them?

What about Google and Youtube?

[Trracer]

This will basically be precedent for this type of case (in Sweden). So I guess Google, Youtube etc etc can fall under being an accessory to copyright violation?

Excuse any spelling/English errors, non-native here.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, one thing Google has that TPB doesn't is lobbyist dollars.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Excuse any spelling/English errors, non-native here.

Didn't see any spelling/English errors, actually.

That particular problem seems to be more common for Americans than for non-native speakers...

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Lunix Nutcase]

So I guess Google, Youtube etc etc can fall under being an accessory to copyright violation?

Sure, if they flagrantly violate the law and do nothing when they are told about infringing material being uploaded to Youtube. Except that Youtube takes down infringing material when notified about it and thus, no, they aren't doing the same thing as the Pirate Bay.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless MAFIAA can claim copyright on the torrent files (possibly through claiming that a checksum of the original data is a derived work, but I think that's a stretch and would open a wholly different can of worms), then there has never been any infringing material for TPB and other torrent sites to take down. Remember, the only the torrent files can be gotten from TPB, the files that they point to cannot.

In fact, TPB is probably infringing less than Youtube, since when Youtube contains infringing material it actually hosts that data.

Maybe a more apt comparison would be Google, Bing, etc.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Trracer]

So I guess Google, Youtube etc etc can fall under being an accessory to copyright violation?

Sure, if they flagrantly violate the law and do nothing when they are told about infringing material being uploaded to Youtube. Except that Youtube takes down infringing material when notified about it and thus, no, they aren't doing the same thing as the Pirate Bay.

Alright, I can buy that for Youtube since it's actual content being uploaded that they remove.
But how about Google search? TPB just serves the torrent file which is basically pointing to the file you want to download (and thus becoming an accessory to copyright violation), same as Googles search index. Neither hold any content...

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[brainzach]

Google and Youtube respond to DMCA request. They follow the laws and can easily claim plausible deniability.

Pirate Bay never took down any content due to copyright violations and boasts about it. There is no comparison.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[ScentCone]

So I guess Google, Youtube etc etc can fall under being an accessory to copyright violation?

Other than for the sake of trolling and FUD-spreading, why would you conclude that? The two cases couldn't be more distinct. TPB flagrantly promotes the ripping off of people's works, and operations like YouTube have entire staffs dedicated to rapidly investigating and dealing with reports of abuse.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh? AFAICT the supreme court essentially decided that this case isn't unique enough that it needs a precedent.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Kjella]

The possibility is being discussed in Swedish media (via google translate), in fact they specifically mention Google and YouTube. There's nothing specific in the ruling that clearly says that they wouldn't be liable, basically it seems to criminalize all sites that make copyright infringement easier and faster. The wording is very broad and vague, maybe they didn't see anything worth reviewing with regards to TPB but they certainly didn't make things clear on where illegal services end and legal services begin, or even what separates them.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Trracer]

Google and Youtube respond to DMCA request. They follow the laws and can easily claim plausible deniability.

Pirate Bay never took down any content due to copyright violations and boasts about it. There is no comparison.

DMCA isn't valid in Sweden, where TPB was hosted. IANAswedishL but the reason why TPB "lived" so long in Sweden is because there were no legal hindrances at the time. The point is still, they did not host any content, no content passed TPB servers.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Kjella]

Perhaps because they are in the US and the DMCA is their laws, while TPB is not? Okay so they did a lot of other things too but I'd also tell someone acting like US law is world law to fuck off.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[NatasRevol]

I wonder if there's child pornography in Google's index?

That would make for an interesting case.

But I'm not willing to go there.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[lightknight]

Yes, that's why Google threw themselves in front of SOPA / PIPA.

It's not for lack of lobbyist dollars, it's simply that those companies who will have their quarterly returns so greatly impacted are completely unaware of it. If their Chairman / CEOs were aware of the probable damage the entertainment industry was going to do to their bottom line, they would advise their lobbyist to perpetually terminate any legislation coming out of that sector for the next century. But like all things, it will only be after these companies begin to bleed red that they're realize where their revenues went.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand there were/are no infringing material on The Pirate Bay, just torrents.

Now you've done it, by mentioning (referring to) Youtube on Slashdot, this site will be taken down!!

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[brainzach]

Sweden has its own copyright laws and the Pirate Bay does not even try to follow them.

IANAL, so I don't know what legal loopholes they could use to get around Swedish copyright laws, but it would be much harder to claim plausible deniability when you boast that you hosts torrent files from copyrighted work and that is your main source of Internet traffic.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Dhalka226]

And how fast a website responds to DMCA requests has what to do with how Swedish law handles copyright issues?

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[countertrolling]

Google and Youtube are being good citizens

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[HarrySquatter]

So what? Facilitation of copyright infringement is against the law and the Swedish court upheld this. You can keep repeating that lame defense but the law doesn't care.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strictly speaking, precedent is irrelevant in roman style court (as opposed to the common law court type in Britain or the US) court. Each case is handled individually and each judge has to cite the law that is being violated and has to judge on his own. That doesn't make precedence completely irrelevant in practice, but no judge can put up a verdict claiming this case as a basis.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

they used the legal loophole which made the court invent the crime of "assisting copyright infringement". Before this case the general understandning was that if any infringement occured it was because someone made something (which they had no rights to) avaible to others. eg, me hosting an ftp server with "Captain America the first avenger" on my computer and telling you how to log in - that would have been illegal. However, me telling you of a server not operated by me (essentially what a .torrent file does, execpt it doesn't use ftp etc.) or even giving you a http link would not have constituted criminal copyright infringment *against me*. Only ones who'd be investigated would be the person(s) uploading the infringing material and the persons downloading it.

The piratebay case changed that to make it possible to prosecute me under the second scenario for assissting in the infringement. Which is why some of us are worried that when rights holders turn out to be unable to identify downloaders they'll turn to have ISP:s held accountable - after all, they are assisting by providing the bandwith (which to my understanding is exactly the reason why one of the "piratebay guys" was implicated for).

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[brainzach]

The point is that Google and Youtube make an effort to follow copyright laws. The Pirate Bay doesn't.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's garbage - facilitation of copyright infringement? Where does that end? People who make blank CDs/DVDs/hard drives? People who make recording devices? People who make pens and paper? ISPs and computer manufacturers? (No downloading at all without these guys). Hell, technically even people who make the content "facilitate copyright infringement" by creating something to be copied. It's a deliberately vague term and it's being applied in a manner that lets the courts go after those the MAFIAA order them to (i.e. the ones less likely to fight back and win, Google, etc) instead of being applied with any kind of equality.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[jpw72]

While it's possible that the services that Google and YouTube (and others) provide could infringe on copyright, this was actually discussed in the original court of appeals ruling (Svea hovrätt: dom 2010-11-26 i mål nr B 4041-09, see pages 24-25) and the reason given that makes Google et al. different from The Pirate Bay (TPB) goes to the intent of the service provided and legal theories that states that a service provided can be free of liability if the benefit to society is great enough; the primary purpose of Google isn't to facilitate copyright infringement. The court concluded that TPB was used almost exclusively for file sharing so the same grounds for absolving liability wasn't deemed appropriate.

A quick Google translate of the applicable part from the ruling:
"If a search provider is by nature such that it in the first place is a valuable tool for lawful activity and generally socially beneficial, if the legitimate use dominates, distribution or transmission of illegal materials despite precautions can not be ruled out, the operation of such a service in objective point of view be regarded as permissible under the aforementioned theories."

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[houghi]

This will basically be precedent for this type of case (in Sweden). So I guess Google, Youtube etc etc can fall under being an accessory to copyright violation?

No, they are companies who are directed at marketing, so they will not be accused of anything.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that the judges and laywers had to be educated by IFPI, I think I know at least about as much - which is irrevelant anyway, as the purpose of my post was to explain the legal loophole TPB used for years (and I think the prosecuters who deemed prosecution impossible during the first years actually were professional laywers with all kinds of resources available to them - I would hate to think my state is so poor that prosecutors have to do their research in the basement of the public library by candle light).

What was the purpose of your post, it seems utterly devoid of content. Flaunting your own ignorance?

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Saintwolf]

Most likely not. See chillingeffects.org

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[91degrees]

Google will remove search results if they're infringing.

But the main thing is that Google can realistically argue that its involvement with infringement is unintentional.

TPB's entire purpose is to aid piracy. Intent is important. Whether they actually hold content is immaterial. They're distributing content. Yes, the mechanism they use to do it is pretty abstract, but so what? they're causing the data to be copied.

Google's argument - "we weren't aware. We have millions of pages indexed, and the infringing ones are rare exceptions. Nobody pointed these out and once they did we removed them"

TPB's argument - "we weren't aware. Even though most of our most popular torrents are obviously for infringing content, the most popular are pretty unlikely to be there with the rightholder's permission and when we were informed of this we sent a mocking reply"

Intent matters.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[91degrees]

Where does that end?

With "substantial non infringing use".

What is the substantial non-infringing use of a torrent file for the latest Mission Impossible movie, or for that matter for the Pirate Bay?

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse any spelling/English errors, non-native here.

Didn't see any spelling/English errors, actually.

That particular problem seems to be more common for Americans than for non-native speakers...

As an American I must say that I totally agre.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Ihmhi]

That particular problem seems to be more common for Americans than for non-native speakers...

Americans fail English? That's unpossible!

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[shutdown -p now]

The idea, I think, is the general principle that Google takes down links to illegal content when they are pointed out. TPB not only did so, it didn't do so explicitly, posting on their website about how they knew some or other torrent really was infringing on the copyright of the person contacting them, but didn't care because it's legal for them to do so. Well, apparently it's not...

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[ratboy666]

I'll take it slow.

1 - The Pirate Bay didn't host any content.
2 - If there is no content, it can't be copyright infringement
3 - Why should someone in Sweden care about United States of America law? DMCA is not a Swedish law, and has no force in Sweden.
4 - The Pirate Bay certainly followed all copyright laws as they understood them (except that they, somehow, induced others to commit copyright offenses). Now, Google CACHES Web pages. Um... that would be a copyright infraction right there. I didn't give Google permission to do any such thing. Happens every day... Google even presents cached web pages with slightly altered content -- ALSO A DIRECT VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT!

Go ahead, read the bottom of the page here, and tell me what it says. No, I'll save you the trouble:

"Comments owned by the poster". Now, Google reads these pages, indexes, and searches (all arguably fair use). But to make copies of the material?

Not something The Pirate Bay ever did. No caching of content -- hey, no content at all. None.

Do you understand now?

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[brainzach]

The Pirate Bay apparently violated Swedish copyright laws. Unless you are a lawyer and understand the details of Swedish copyright law , it is hard to make a case otherwise.

At least in the US, you won't get in trouble for linking to copyrighted material unless the main purpose of the website is for violating copyright law. There is a distinction in the law that would treat websites like Google, who just use an unbiased bot to index all websites and the Pirate Bay which is a directory of mainly copyrighted content. It would not be a stretch to say that other countries have similar laws.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[amorsen]

That's nothing, in Denmark the Supreme court has determined that a router passing packets from one interface to another is doing copying covered by copyright laws ("eksemplarfremstilling").

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[91degrees]

1 - The Pirate Bay didn't host any content.

Irrelevant. They wrere facilitating distribution.

2 - If there is no content, it can't be copyright infringement

There was content.

3 - Why should someone in Sweden care about United States of America law? DMCA is not a Swedish law, and has no force in Sweden.

The "safe Harbor" provisions are actually there to provide an specific defence. It's a specific set of actions that a service provider can undertake to be found innocent of infringement. Its sole purpose is to provide a process by which an internet based company can avoid prosecution. The fact that it only applies in the US is actually an argument against this defence, not in favour. Sweden has no such provision therefore TPB couldn't have relied on it even if they abided by it.

4 - The Pirate Bay certainly followed all copyright laws as they understood them

Are you using an ignorance of the law argument here or something?

(except that they, somehow, induced others to commit copyright offenses).

They facilitated copyright infringement. They provided the means of copying one file from one machine to another thereby infringing copyright. The mechanism is beside the point.

Now, Google CACHES Web pages. Um... that would be a copyright infraction right there. I didn't give Google permission to do any such thing. Happens every day...

Indeed. Now it's possible that this is fair use, fair dealing or whatever the Swedish equivalent is. If you have a problem then insist that charges are files against google.

Google even presents cached web pages with slightly altered content -- ALSO A DIRECT VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT!

Once again, true. Google will have to rely on a fairly subjective area of copyright law as a defence. Fair use provides an exception. A cached page may well not be covered by that exception.

In copyright law, it make little difference where the data is stored. The crime is in copying and distribution, and specifically in causing copying and distribution. If I borrow a thumbdrive from person A use it to copy person B's copyrighted data from person C's PC to person D's PC, I'm still the one who infringed B's copyright.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[iggymanz]

English? That's what those prissy effete Limey's speak. We speak American, dammit!

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Coren22]

So, if it is against the law in Sweden, can you please refer to the relevant statute?

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Coren22]

How does that match up with Megaupload? They also had take down links and did takedowns, but they are now shut down too.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[Coren22]

http://slashdot.org/robots.txt

They are given specific permission by Slashdot to spider Slashdot. There is a procedure to block Google, Google is doing nothing wrong if they are allowed. No different than my browser caching your comment, I didn't commit copyright infringement because you put your comment on a public forum with intent to share it.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[ratboy666]

Where in that robots.txt is there a legal permission? Where you informed of that when you created content on /. ? Did you take any action to transfer your copyright to /. such that /. could transfer that to Google?

Remeber, in MAI v Peak, the act of copying from DISK into RAM to launch a program was found to be a copyright violation.

Building an automated list of facts is not a copyright violation. For example, this memo contains the word "example". And, providing a reference to this memo is simply stating a fact.

Copying this memo, and providing the copy to others IS a violation of my copyright (Google does this; I don't care about it, and won't prosecute). Your browser cache may well be facilitating your infringing on my copyright (I don't care about it, and won't prosecute). Both are more direct than TPB. The only thing that TPB did wrong was to pick an name that would "needle the man".

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[ratboy666]

"They facilitated copyright infringement. They provided the means of copying one file from one machine to another thereby infringing copyright. The mechanism is beside the point."

(this quote is a keeper)

TPB invented the Internet. Everyone else can be forgotten, because it "is beside the point".

Got it. Thanks.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[91degrees]

TPB invented the Internet.

No they didn't.

Everyone else can be forgotten, because it "is beside the point".

No it isn't.

The point is they copied a file from A to B. Whether they owned A or B makes no difference or the OS that A and B happened to be running, whether they used FTP, bittorrent or http, who invented the protocols, and the file format. None of these have any bearing on whether it was legal or not

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[ratboy666]

This is getting funny. YOU said TPB invented the Internet. Not me. Me quoting you for satiric reasons (read what YOU wrote). You can't even claim context; I ensured that I took enough to include context.

TPB didn't copy a file from A to B, didn't own A or B, and didn't use FTP or bittorrent (they do use http and magnet). And it DOES have a bearing on whether it was legal or not.

Here's why. TPB is simply a site that holds references. That's it. Go to thepiratebay.se and look. You will find

- categorized lists of torrent and magnet files.
- instructions on how to use a torrent/magent client.
- thepiratebay.se/legal -- a collection of legal threats

You will NOT find any videos, music, books, or other peoples cached web sites. Just torrent files. Containing facts ABOUT the content (but not the content itself).

Here, let me illustrate more directly:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:4ceb4ed50ba27874746603dce3211cf1b5435dd8&dn=Hunger+2009+DVDRip+XviD+AC3+MRX+%28Kingdom-Release%29&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80

A snippet that may or may not have to do with a work under copywrite. Definitely doesn't CONTAIN that copywritten work (and, if you think it does, show me where). Someone posted this. along with some comments.

Where is the infringement?

Oh, and, if you ARE right, and that... thing... is actually infringing, Slashdot, and ALL OTHER USER COMMENT SITES, and be easily taken down.

Just do what I did, and post a... thing... like that.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[91degrees]

This is getting funny. YOU said TPB invented the Internet. Not me. Me quoting you for satiric reasons (read what YOU wrote). You can't even claim context; I ensured that I took enough to include context.

Ahhh, right! You interpreted in a manner that no sane person would ever interpret it, and then mock me for your insanity. Nice.

It does require a wilful act. Not an incidental and unintentional result. I apologise. I thought this was bloody obvious.

Just torrent files. Containing facts ABOUT the content (but not the content itself).

They weren't being charged with hosting infringing files. They were charged with "assisting in making copyright content available". The fact that they did so wilfully is implicit in that it's a criminal charge. When you have a file that allows a computer to automatically find lots of bits of a file, and therefore produce a copy of it, then you're providing a hell of a lot of assistance.

So yes, they are completely innocent of the crime of hosting infringing files. Sadly for their defence, this is a crime they weren't charged with.

Where is the infringement?

Well, technically you've possibly infringed copyright laws by wilfully assisting in making copyright content available. You'd probably need to show that people had actually used this to copy a file (I may be wrong here). Slashdot can reasonably claim innocence in that their involvement in the crime was clearly unintentional.

TPB can make no such claim. They knew full well that their site was used for piracy and it's hard to argue even that that wasn't the entire purpose of the site. This is a little different from Slashdot, who have no idea that your comment contains magnet data, and it's hard to argue that this is the entire purpose of Slashdot.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[ratboy666]

Right you are. Because ignorance of the law is no excuse. Because the specific "crime" that TPB was convicted of -- is facilitating copyright infringement. I now give you a link to the Swedish copyright law. I'll provide the English translation, on the presumption that you don't read Swedish (and, no, my Swedish isn't very good either)

http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/13/02/85/96e05389.pdf

Read it, to determine what facilitating illegal file sharing would be.

I'll then point you to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial

and I'll quote from there -

"The appeal started on September 28, 2010 and concluded on October 15, 2010.[122] On November 26, 2010, the verdict was announced. In the verdict, the court found that âoeThe Pirate Bay has facilitated illegal file sharing in a way that results in criminal liability for those who run the service.â

4 months to 1 year in jail, with a total fine of 6.5 million dollars.

In conclusion, no actual crime was proven, but somehow TPB facilitated that crime.

In my post above, I "facilitated" crime worth penalties of just under 1 million with a jail time of 2 weeks to 2 months (based on the TPB trial, anyway, and scaled). No, I did MORE than TPB did, because I knowingly copy/pasted that string. Both Mens Rea and Actus Reus. I think someone should sue me next.

Re:What about Google and Youtube?

[91degrees]

Right you are. Because ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Ignorance of the fats is though. A taxi that I happen to take away from the scene of a crime is different from a getaway driver. Someone who provides a safehouse and protects me from the police is different from a hotel owner who had no idea of my crime

Read it, to determine what facilitating illegal file sharing would be.

Would seem to be violation of the exclusive rights under article 2. It seems by publishing a torrent, an indirect process of preparing a copy was carried out. They were part of this process. As was "King King". Nothing unusual in that. A crime can have multiple participants.

In conclusion, no actual crime was proven, but somehow TPB facilitated that crime.

Actually, I agree here. Unless people were using the torrents I don't think they were guilty.

In my post above, I "facilitated" crime worth penalties of just under 1 million with a jail time of 2 weeks to 2 months (based on the TPB trial, anyway, and scaled).

No sure how the length of penalty works. But yes, I agree that by the same standards, you're guilty of assisting copyright infringement, assuming that someone uses that file to infringe copyright.

Both Mens Rea and Actus Reus. I think someone should sue me next.

There's a prima facea argument. Don't think they would win since a defence of posting it purely as part of a discussion for an example and not with intent to facilitate infringement of copyright.

Very dissapointing

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least we have a way to change things, by voting for the pirate party. It must suck to only have two choices, you americans.

Re:Very dissapointing

[NEDHead]

Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul? Not what I would call a choice. It is a lot like playing Russian roulette with a loaded machine gun.

Re:Very dissapointing

[Skarecrow77]

yes, it does suck, but the alternative could also be like our friends north of the border, where there's something like 4 liberal parties and 1 conservative party so the 1 conservative party gets all the conservative votes, which puts them in power even though they're technically a minority, and they then proceed to enact a bunch of shit legislation like banning mp3s and dvrs.

or at least, that's what the facebook status of my canadian friends tell me.

I've long been a proponent of just abolishing the two political parties we've got here, and having a 7-way draft. we can separate along more logical distinctions.

We can have:
The tree-hugging hippie party
The financial, corporate, and industry party
The religious extremist (pardon me, I mean evangelical) party
The backwoods-montana survival-oriented libertarian party
The inner-city violence and drugs party
The suburbia party
The illuminati

Every one of those hates every other, and nothing would ever get done since any coalition would dissolve within days. From where I sit, that'd be a better situation than the one we're in now.

Re:Very dissapointing

[eternaldoctorwho]

More like zero choices. The Republican candidates are a Wall Street muppet, an adulterer, or a frothy mix of feces and anal lube. The Democratic candidate will be the incumbent Obama, whose track record I am not entirely pleased with. I want someone new, but not one of the Republicans. And voting for a third party candidate is like throwing your vote away.

Re:Very dissapointing

[NatasRevol]

"And voting for a third party candidate is like throwing your vote away."

And will be until enough people change their attitude and actually do just that.

Re:Very dissapointing

[Nadaka]

And while Obama is not campaigning for the role of anti-Christ nearly as hard as any of the republican contenders, he isn't exactly a friend of liberty and sane copyright law either.

Re:Very dissapointing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "proportional representation" and I believe *all* democracies but 4 have this.

The 4 exceptions are the former British empire countries of USA, UK, Canada and India.

But you in the USA also have a Green Party, except nobody ever talks about them. Would be interesting if Ralph Nader becomes POTUS. Copvince him to amend the constitution to allow proportional representation, while you're at it!

Re:Very dissapointing

[Anonymous Coward]

"And voting for a third party candidate is like throwing your vote away."

And will be until enough people change their attitude and actually do just that.

i.e.: Never

Re:Very dissapointing

[groslyunderpaid]

And voting for a third party candidate is like throwing your vote away.

I believe that is a fallacy, otherwise anytime you vote for any candidate that doesn't win, you are just throwing your vote away,

Re:Very dissapointing

[Real1tyCzech]

Thank you!

Re:Very dissapointing

[ifiwereasculptor]

And voting for a third party candidate is like throwing your vote away.

It never ceases to amaze me how you guys haven't figured this out yet. We have a very simple system in place, here: if no one got more than 50% of the total votes, the election enters a second stage, with just the "winner" and the runner-up. It's not perfect, but it's quite functional. You can vote for whoever you want, then if your candidate didn't even come close to winning, you can pick the one you dislike less. That way no one fears "wasting" their votes.

I know the ones in power don't really want more competition to be viable, but it's something the populace really should be pushing and news never got to me about anyone from up there voicing such a proposal.

Re:Very dissapointing

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing the Swedish parliamentary system and the U.S. system is not an apples-to-apples comparison. You must remember that the U.S. is a federation. Congress is supposed to be a representation of the member states of the federation.

Re:Very dissapointing

[Ksevio]

What he really means is voting for a third party is like voting for the candidate in the top two that you dislike most. Your vote for the third party candidate is being taken away from the candidate you dislike least.

Re:Very dissapointing

[houghi]

I live in Belgium and we have the word record in government formation. I still prefere it to have a 7-way draft (Actually much more then that. 7 parties where invited to the table, some were not)
That way I can vote pro-gun and pro-gay mariage and pro-abortion (or any anti or combination) if so much desire.

Re:Very dissapointing

[Nadaka]

It would be possible to have state level proportional representation in the larger house of representatives without changing power of states in the congress.

And while states states rights advocates and the smaller states would hate it, the senate with its 100 seats could be converted to percentile accurate proportionate representation.

Of course, both of these would require constitutional amendments that the 2 main parties would fight against tooth and nail.

Re:Very dissapointing

[tycoex]

Sorry but this is a misunderstanding of political systems. "eternaldoctorwho" is correct that voting for a third party is throwing your vote away in a two-party first past the post system.

If we are to create better outcomes in the US it would require a better system (such as one of the many proportional representation systems). Our system has been shown to create two-party dominance and shut out any further parties.

As for what we can really do, absolutely nothing. Those in power won't change the system because the system benefits them. America will just have to run it's course until something huge happens to destroy or drastically alter it; just like every other society throughout history.

Re:Very dissapointing

[Nadaka]

You don't even need a second stage with instant runoff voting. The thing is, neither of the parties in power WANT to allow third parties to gain any power at all, they might have to consider their views instead of the money they get from the wealthy.

Re:Very dissapointing

[Chakra5]

Probably the single most powerful change we can make, right there. Please mode up

Re:Very dissapointing

[TheLink]

"eternaldoctorwho" is correct that voting for a third party is throwing your vote away in a two-party first past the post system.

It is only throwing your vote away if there is only ever one election, and there will be no other elections in the future.

Otherwise if there will be future elections, it can be a signal to other voters and also the candidates. If the 3rd party gets a significant number of votes, the rest of the voters might start to consider that the 3rd party might actually have a chance in the _next_ election.

The other candidates may consider that too and start changing their behaviour. If the behaviour is closer to what those voters want, even if the 3rd party never wins, their goals are better served.

In contrast if 98% of the voters just kept voting for one of the two, why should either change?

If the voters have consistently not been getting candidates they like then obviously their "game theory" and strategies are not working. Whereas the winning candidates are doing better.

Re:Very dissapointing

[shutdown -p now]

There's no reason why it should preclude the member states of the federation to provide representation according to the proportion of people supporting such and such viewpoint, rather than winner-takes-all. Indeed, some states do just that.

Also, U.S. was a weak federation when it was born, but reality is much different today. There has been a very big power shift toward Federal government, which was not reflected in the way said government is elected.

Re:Very dissapointing

[Em Adespoton]

It is only throwing your vote away if there is only ever one election, and there will be no other elections in the future.

Otherwise if there will be future elections, it can be a signal to other voters and also the candidates. If the 3rd party gets a significant number of votes, the rest of the voters might start to consider that the 3rd party might actually have a chance in the _next_ election.

The other candidates may consider that too and start changing their behaviour. If the behaviour is closer to what those voters want, even if the 3rd party never wins, their goals are better served.

In contrast if 98% of the voters just kept voting for one of the two, why should either change?

If the voters have consistently not been getting candidates they like then obviously their "game theory" and strategies are not working. Whereas the winning candidates are doing better.

It goes even further than this... these days, many politicians don't really have party loyalty. If a third centrist party looked like it was gaining the popular vote, you can bet your electoral donations that quite a few dems and pubs would switch parties in a hurry to be part of the winning team.

But for this, three things need to happen.
1) People need to actually vote
2) Some groups with a large pool of money need to invest it in a third party
3) People need to vote for what they want, not what they want to prevent.

I propose a new party be formed called the Gray Party -- because politics is not always black and white.

Re:Very dissapointing

[Anonymous Coward]

Banning mp3s and dvr's is a "conservative" thing to do? Yea, sure, and usin PC's makes you a liberal. Follow the money, asswipe. Conservatives are the 1%, Apple is more expensive, hence, Apple is for conservatives.

Your logic is atrocious.

Re:Very dissapointing

[91degrees]

To be fair, There's a certain amount of choice in the primaries. Apparently this is where all the dirty tricks actually go on. In 2008, the effective choice was between Barrack Obama and Hilary Clinton.

Not a brilliant choice but it's not quite as narrow a field as it might appear.

Re:Very dissapointing

[91degrees]

Voting for a third part isn't totally useless. It's a little indirect, but the mere fact that some people will vote for a third party means that there's an incentive for the other candidates to adopt some of their policies in order to get some of those votes.

So it's basically a threat. One that only works if you can show you're willing to carry it out.

Double negative

[Anonymous Coward]

"no one of them no longer lives in Sweden" means they all live in Sweden.

Re:Double negative

[Saintwolf]

Not if you say it in Spanish ;)

WTF ?

[BlueParrot]

The supreme court in Sweden is supposed to hear important test cases and cases where there is presently ambiguity in law. As encouraging copyright infringement has never before been tested in court, refusing to hear this case just shows how little spine our justice system has.

Re:WTF ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats the difference between Norwegians and Swedes????

Swedes have nice neighbors.

Re:WTF ?

[mister_playboy]

Sweden and Norway both border Finland, but it's still funny. :)

Triple negative

[Rik Sweeney]

Since no one of them no longer lives in Sweden, they won't go to jail.

I'm so confused, I think they're saying that because they don't not no longer live in Sweden, they won't not be going to jail?

My head hurts :(

Re:Triple negative

[VortexCortex]

Since no one of them no longer lives in Sweden, they won't go to jail.

I'm so confused, I think they're saying that because they don't not no longer live in Sweden, they won't not be going to jail?

My head hurts :(

Minor correction: They're not trying to say they won't go to jail if they no longer don't live in Sweden.

I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted!

[ciaran_o_riordan]

I've never been affected first-hand by government censorship of websites, but when I clicked on the piratebay.se link to read his blog entry, I just got:

The access to this website is blocked in conformity with a decision of the Antwerp Court of Appeal dated 26 September 2011.

For any additional information, you can contact the Belgian Anti-piracy Federation (BAF), at Almaplein 3 P.O. Box 10, 1200 Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe - http://www.anti-piracy.be/en/.

I'm currently in Belgium.

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted!

[Anonymous Coward]

Try this IP. They actually changed the .se to stop the US from taking their domain from them (which I assume the will do now?)

Schengen agreement.

[Bigfield]

This is true they don't need to show passports due to the Schengen agreement. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement .

And it is not even clear that they reside in Europe at all.

Re:Schengen agreement.

[Ash Vince]

This is true they don't need to show passports due to the Schengen agreement. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement .

And it is not even clear that they reside in Europe at all.

If they do reside anywhere in Europe then they are liable to be arrested under a european arrest warrant and sent back to Sweden to serve their time. They must have left Europe and never come back to the entire continent to be safe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant

Re:Schengen agreement.

[Fritz T. Coyote]

Also, they should decline any invitations to be Guest of Honor at any film festivals 'just across the border' ...

 

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted!

[think_nix]

I've never been affected first-hand by government censorship of websites, but when I clicked on the piratebay.se link to read his blog entry, I just got:

For those who are behind censored networks, here is original blos post from this taken from http://thepiratebay.se/blog/204

Year of the storm

2012 is the year of the storm.

The Pirate Bay will reach an age of 9 years. Experiencing raids, espionage and death threats, we're still here. We've been through hell and back and it has made us tougher than ever.

The people running the site has changed during the years. No sane human being would put up with this kind of pressure for 8 years in a row. An insane hobby that takes time from our families, our work (sorry boss) and our studies.

What binds us all together is a strong belief that what we do is good. That it is something we one day can tell our grandchildren about with pride. People from all over the world confirm this. We read testimonials from people in Syria longing for freedom, thanking us for what we provide. We receive more than 100 visits daily from North Korea and we sure know that they need it. If there's something that will bring peace to this world it is the understanding and appreciation of your fellow man. What better way to do that than with this vast library of culture?

With this said, we hear news from our old admins that they have received a verdict in Sweden. Our 3 friends and blood brothers have been sentenced to prison. This might sound worse than it is. Since no one of them no longer lives in Sweden, they won't go to jail. They are as free today as they were yesterday.

But what enrages us to our inner core is that the system, the empire, the governments, are still allowed to try to boss you and us around with one law crazier than the other. Do you think they will stop with SOPA/ACTA/PIPA? They will not. Because you won't stop sharing those files. Because we will not stay down. Because no one can turn back time. Together, we are the iron that hardens with each strike.

In this year of the storm, the winners will build windmills and the losers will raise shelters. So flex your muscles, fellow pirates, and give power to us all! Build more sites! More nets! More protocols! Scream louder than ever and take it to the next level!

Posted Today 09:11 by The Pirate Bay

Best regards,

The 'free' internet

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted!

[GaryOlson]

Cached copy for all the unfortunates.

Although your post is informative on the state of Belgium government idiocy, a little effort on your part is suggested. If you don't know how to search for cached copies of web pages, perhaps you should turn in your /. account.

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted!

[ciaran_o_riordan]

Didn't work for me. I get redirected to the blocked page (thepiratebay.se/blog/204).

BTW, if there's a working IP address, is there an easy way to configure my GNU/Linux box to automatically go to that IP address when an application makes a request to "thepiratebay.se"? (I did this before but don't remember the file)

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted!

[Anonymous Coward]

/etc/hosts

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted!

[ciaran_o_riordan]

If you don't know how to search for cached copies of web pages

Us nerds being able to circumvent these measures isn't the point.

Most people (non-techs - think of your family and friends) *don't* know about cached copies, and we don't know when courts will get smarter and propose dynamic lists for "equivalent" pages/urls that also have to be blocked to comply with whatever law or court decision.

There will always be ways for the nerdiest 1% to access these pages, but that doesn't change that for most people in Belgium, this blog entry doesn't exist.

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted!

[Anonymous Coward]

surf to http://depiraatbaai.be (dutch for the pirate bay)

There is a DNS/Domain name block in effect with some providers in Belgium due to a court order
It is basically ineffective if you use openDNS/googleDNS servers

Quid Pro Quo?

[alreaud]

So has anybody heard any news lately about DOJ and IRS investigations of banks in Switzerland being used as tax havens?

Just a thought to get the rabble thinking deeper. Realpolitik is sometimes like that 3D Star Trek chess game combined with submarine warfare.

not a good answer

[waterbear]

We can have:
The tree-hugging hippie party
The financial, corporate, and industry party
The religious extremist (pardon me, I mean evangelical) party
The backwoods-montana survival-oriented libertarian party
The inner-city violence and drugs party
The suburbia party
The illuminati
Every one of those hates every other, and nothing would ever get done since any coalition would dissolve within days. From where I sit, that'd be a better situation than the one we're in now.

Yes but just think, as soon as two of them suss it out (like maybe the evangelicals and the suburbanites ....) then their coalition would be in power for ever .....

-wb-

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted!

[Nadaka]

Please turn in your geek card.

You are running linux, and don't know what a hosts file is?

What is this is?

Canadian party system (was:Very dissapointing)

[Anonymous Coward]

We used to have four parties, equally spaced:

• New Democrats on the left
• Liberals in the left center (roughly equivalent to the Democrats)
• Progressive Conservatives in the right center (ditto the Republicans)
• Reform on the right

Reform did an "unfriendly takeover" of the PCs (full disclosure: I was a PC at the time), with the slogan "unite the right"
They then renamed the party to just "Conservative" and retained enough members to be able to defeat the NDP and Liberals, who were still splitting the center and left between themselves.

Now it's skewed, and the parties don't line up with the U.S. parties, even approximately... Liberals seem to be the centrists, NDP has become the left-moving-towards-the-center and Conservatives are moving back right to align with the old Reform position.

I seem to be living in exciting times (;-))

--dave

Re:Canadian party system (was:Very dissapointing)

[Anonymous Coward]

and retained enough members to be able to defeat the NDP and Liberals, who were still splitting the center and left between themselves.

The Liberals also for years had Big Business/Bay Street on their side, but much of that behind-the-scenes support jumped to the Conservatives once they got elected. Also most of the Canadian media spouts the pro-corp and pro-finance line which seems to be favouring the Conservatives.

Now this new Conservative PR juggernaut seems to have dug out its own space they don't believe they need the Progressive Conservatives anymore. All the old PCs and also some old Reformers have been made to leave the party. Those MPs still had some measure of honour and responsibility to their constituents, or at least to what they campaigned on in the election. The new Conservative MPs are at best trained seals performing for their authoritarian master who is more and more secretive, controlling and far-right every day.

no one of them no longer lives in Sweden

[residieu]

"no one of them no longer lives in Sweden"

So they do all still live in Sweden?

Re: no one of them no longer lives in Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Hop on the earlier thread instead of avoiding to not start a new one.

Re: no one of them no longer lives in Sweden

[TheLink]

Yeah right.

Brilliant idea

[Arancaytar]

no longer lives in Sweden

That worked out well for Assange, too.

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted!

[HopefulIntern]

/etc/hosts file allows you to manually assign domain names to IPs.

Call To Action

[Anonymous Coward]

In this year of the storm, the winners will build windmills and the losers will raise shelters. So flex your muscles, fellow pirates, and give power to us all! Build more sites! More nets! More protocols! Scream louder than ever and take it to the next level!

No, why hide? Why go underground if you believe you're doing nothing wrong? If laws are unjust, move to change them. In order to do so, you will need to rally the troops. Votes are the only things that trump bribery/campaign donations. MegaUpload did one thing right: enlist the help of popular artists and make a video go viral. Use it for a Call To Action. They'd be wise not to do it under their own name but create a foundation with Copyright Reform being one of their main goals.

The awkward bit is that everyone KNOWS...

[couchslug]

...that the purpose of sites like PB is purely to spread content without paying the producers. There are some tiny percentage of legal files more by accident than intent. They don't affect the business model.

What such sites do is help "chum the market" with content people should not want in the first place.

Want to fight the power? Don't run free Windows either or avoid it as much as possible. Ditto all other shit corporate content.

Free crack is still crack.

Re:The awkward bit is that everyone KNOWS...

[TheCarp]

I really am no fan of copyright, or even government for that matter, so whether people break the law or not is one to me. Unless the crime involves violence, the threat of it, fraud, that sort of thing.... then I really don't care, at all, whether the law even exists, much less gets followed, by anyone. In fact, I don't even see why such laws are seen as legitimate at all....no group of people has any more right over others than an individual has. They may have more might, and more power to force their will, but, no more right to do so in my eyes.

Anyway... I digress.... I agree totally with your sentiment. Now, I have money, I can afford this "content". I don't pirate it hardly ever (only a few circumstances, if I was testing file sharing software to see how accessible stuff really is, if its something I can't find elsewhere for any price, if its something I already bought and paid for but can't otherwise access (scratched dvd, game whose company is out of business) ). I see no morality to it, I just like to support content producers and, don't need the hassle.

That said.... my consumption of that media has dropped. I maybe watch the equivalent of an hour of TV/Movies a week...and let me tell you, I feel better for it. Its all so much crap. It is crack. Its a waste of time. Fine to unwind now and again.... but its pretty clear how bad it can be to make it a habbit.

Its like I always say when people mention drugs.... drugs don't make you stupid. They don't make you lazy. Doing nothing but drugs makes you stupid and lazy. You can substitute nearly any single activity for drugs in that. Its a simple deduction from how the mind works.... the mental activities that you do often, you get good at, the ones you don't, don't get maintained as well. If all you do is consume entertaining media... you are asking for atrophy.

Soon enough

[Anonymous Coward]

People will start showing their allegiance to organized crime outfits that ARENT the government... frankly because they can be trusted more than most country governments

Payback time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rove helped Swedish President in election.

There are lots of scratchy backs in politico land.

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted!

[core_tripper]

I've never been affected first-hand by government censorship of websites>

That you are aware of. Most censoring will not show a "this has been blocked" page but just a server not found / page not found error.

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is what it is is.

They SHOULD go to jail...

[cpghost]

The should go to jail, not for the silly point of facilitating copyright infringement, but to publicly make a point. Somewhat like Gandhi, who submitted to beatings by the British on his own will, showing the public the whole blatant injustice of their behavior... and finally winning the PR war. That's exactly the same TPB guys should be doing, instead of hiding in some jungle out there and looking like criminals on the run. Besides, living conditions in jails in Sweden and in most other northern European countries aren't as bad as in the US or other third world countries: it shouldn't be too inconveniencing for them... and they could spend the time to study. Really, they should go to jail, instead of hiding... and being forced to go there anyway later.

Re:They SHOULD go to jail...

[Anonymous Coward]

... like all internet warriors, when he talked of prices worth paying, you could be sure of one thing.

        Someone else was paying.

Re:They SHOULD go to jail...

[mhelander]

According to the Swedish newspaper Expressen, at least one of the founders (Mr Neij), currently living in Bangkok, does not intend to evade his sentence.

http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/1.2696506/hovrattens-pirate-bay-domar-star-fast

Google translate:

"Fredrik Neij now lives in Bangkok and he is disappointed with the HD's ruling. But he will not stay out of the sentence.
- But I'll probably try to get the punishment commuted, perhaps to electronic tagging or so, says Neij told TT."

Re:They SHOULD go to jail...

[russotto]

The should go to jail, not for the silly point of facilitating copyright infringement, but to publicly make a point. Somewhat like Gandhi, who submitted to beatings by the British on his own will, showing the public the whole blatant injustice of their behavior.

That doesn't work any more. The general attitude of the public is that anyone who is being punished by the state had it coming because they broke the law (even if they're facing life in prison for walking on the grass). And the media will either ignore the prisoner entirely or promote that attitude -- the media being one and the same with the copyright cartel.

Response?

[Anonymous Coward]

I purchase all my software, but then I download and install a pirated copy. It's not about the money, it's aboyut my personal information which I refuse to give out. It's about me maintaining my rights and I will not go along with any EULA that says contrary to that.

The price tag did not mention it and stores will not take the products back.

So if the US is behind the actions in this case, then perhaps a response on them is called for.

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted!

[ciaran_o_riordan]

This doesn't work for me. I get redirected to the blocked page (and get the blocked page message).