Music Industry Suits Could Bankrupt Pirate Party Members

An anonymous reader writes "Music industry group BPI has threatened legal action against six members of the UK Pirate Party, after the party refused to take its Pirate Bay proxy offline. BPI seems to want to hold the individual members of the party responsible for copyright infringements that may occur via the proxy, which puts them at risk of personal bankruptcy. Pirate Party leader Loz Kaye criticized the latest music industry threats and reiterated that blocking The Pirate Bay is a disproportionate measure."

Comments

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

NT

Re:Good

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

That's "The Suits" for you. Too many of 'em, and not enough MUSICIANS in the so-called "Music Industry".

"Hey! We're the leeches privileged to feed off this host! You file-sharers go away!"

Good riddance

[Anonymous Coward]

Down with piracy!

"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Right and wrong is an either/or thing, not a matter of degrees.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[scarboni888]

Is that why there's first, second, and third degree murder charges and convictions then - because it's not a matter of degree?

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Right and wrong is an either/or thing, not a matter of degrees.

No, it's all a matter of degree.
We don't punish a murderer tthe same way we punish someone who is shoplifting. Both things are wrong/illegal and yet one comes with a harsher punishment than the other. A matter of degree. So some things are more wrong than others.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Mashiki]

Is that why there's first, second, and third degree murder charges and convictions then - because it's not a matter of degree?

No, because of mens rea and culpability.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that why there's first, second, and third degree murder charges and convictions then - because it's not a matter of degree?

What a bunch of niggers.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[johnsnails]

Your new to Christianity aren't you...

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Runaway1956]

Theft is bad. It's never a good thing. But, you become a judge for a few minutes.

First case - you have a young man from a wealthy family who is charged with embezzling tens of thousands of (dollars, pounds, euros, whatever) from the local bank. The facts are all in, your jury has returned with a verdict, there is no doubt of his guilt, there is no doubt that he has caused tremendous harm to the community. It's time for you to sentence him.

Second case - a young parent has a kid or six at home, who are hungry all the time. The parent has a history of working hard, but work is scarce these days. (S)he is having a string of bad luck. (S)he is charged with stealing a couple dollars worth of food. The jury has returned it's verdict - guilty. Now, judge.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[johnsnails]

although im speaking holistically, not leviticus "with a cherry on top" punishment

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Genda]

If the world were fair, "Les Miserable" would be a comedy. As long as there are people who think the response to being barred from your pocket is nuclear war, you can't be surprised to see their paid minions (mostly legal or political) serving up humanity like chalupas from Taco Bell.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm golfing buddies with the first man's parents. He's a good kid, I'll let this one slide.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't kill someone for shoplifting, but the pirates are complaining that they are being stopped from piracy, which is wrong. The punishment cannot be disproportionate when it is directly a result of the wrong behavior. Saying it's "disproportionate" is a lie the pirates say so they can get away with doing bad things.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[ProPropertyRights]

The pirates are *willfully* violating the law - they are members of the Pirate Party. They are running into a sword, and we owe them no compassion.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[ProPropertyRights]

Either murder is wrong, or it isn't. The pirates in this article have called themselves "the Pirate Party," while engaging in contributory and vicarious copyright infringement to take the rights of creators away from them. They then they are complaining about first degree vs. second degree, when they shouldn't be engaged in criminal activity in the first place. The fact that there are degrees doesn't mean right vs. wrong doesn't exist, which is what the pirates want you to think, and is why they are trying to convert the issue into one of degrees when it's extremely clear they are in the wrong.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Runaway1956]

I disagree. The so called "rights holders" have twisted the law to their benefit, over the past several decades. People such as Walt Disney have wined and dined, and bribed the lawmakers to pass ridiculous laws, extending copyrights far beyond anything that is reasonable. Sonny Bonehead did the same.

The "rights holders" have even thrown a wet blanket over the use of "Happy Birthday" by little children at private parties.

I see the Pirate Party as a modern day Robin Hood, standing up to an unreasonable Sheriff of Nottanyfun.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing bad about what these 'pirates' are doing, in my opinion.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Your spelling proves it - Christianity makes you dumb.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong. More than others.

The reason for differences in punishments for different crimes isn't that one is "more wrong" than another, it's that it does more harm. In the United States, at least, something's illegal, or it's legal. There aren't any shades of grey here. Legal grey areas come into being because of the difficulty in nailing down what exactly words mean. If there's a loophole in the law, for example, that doesn't mean someone who can exploit the hole is breaking the law only a little... it means he's not breaking it AT ALL. Closing loopholes is about rewriting or adding language to existing law to remove ambiguity.

But it makes no sense to punish two people who both did things that are illegal, and "wrong" the same way when one's crime had much less impact than the other's. Hence why we do things the way we do here.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your" new to the English language, aren't you?

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

The pirates are *willfully* violating the law - they are members of the Pirate Party. They are running into a sword, and we owe them no compassion.

What a load of Bollocks

The BPI are the guilty party guilty of of trying to enforce an unenforceable idea that once something has ben released it is still private property .. You want to keep something private property then simple dont publish it dont show it dont play it keep it hidden in the cellar under lock and key .

Once you have published something you have handed ownership to anyone that fancies a copy simple as .

The BPI are Gulity of theft , fraud , Tax Evaision , False accounting and probably a few more ..

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Either murder is wrong, or it isn't.

Either abortion is wrong, or it isn't.
Either war is wrong, or it isn't.
Either depriving someone on their freedom is wrong, or it isn't.
etc.

In the real world, things are not always "black" or "white".

Well... to begin with, "copyright infringement" is not exactly the same as "murder", despite your silly fantasies.

Second, there ARE several degrees of "copyright infringement", from totally "fair use" cases, to "personal, non-commercial copyright infringement", to "large-scale, commercial copyright infringement". Also, most of these degrees of copyright infringement (apart from "commercial infringement") are NOT a crime in most places in the world.

Third, there ARE cases where a seemingly wrong thing (e.g. depriving someone of their freedom), might actually be the best thing to do (e.g. in the case that person is a psychopath murderer).

The pirates in this article have called themselves "the Pirate Party," while engaging in contributory and vicarious copyright infringement to take the rights of creators away from them.

What is this "contributory copyright infringement" concept you just made up? (Protip: US laws don't apply elsewhere. Kthnxbai.) Also, even the US, there is nothing codified in LAW regarding "contributory copyright infringement" (Protip: jurisprudence is not law). ALSO, you have yet to demonstrate that the people (not the legal entity, but the people) that are being threatened with a lawsuit have, in any way, knowingly contributed to copyright infringement.

One thing you have to take into account is that all metadata (including cryptographic hashes, checksums and torrent files) is, by definition, non-copyrighted information (even if they refer to copyrighted information), since it is mechanistic, non-creative information. Therefore, having and duplicating metadata CANNOT be considered copyright infringement, even if said metadata refers to an instance of a copyrighted work (otherwise, IMDB would be quite sparse, for instance).

Also, important to take into account that UK Pirate Party is not storing anything at all: not magnet links nor torrents nor anything. They are simply proxying a connection to some host (which apparently is allowed to still operate.... TPB) and, through that connection, information legally equivalent to consulting IMDB will be transmitted (not copyrighted information, but NON-copyrighted information). You cannot blame the UK Pirate Party if someone decides to take that (non-copyrighted) information and use it for "integrity checking" copyrighted files. AGAIN, it's important to note that the torrent file DOESN'T enable file sharing or trading, it only enables FILE INTEGRITY CHECK after file sharing or trading.

Selling knifes isn't a crime, killing people is. And the Pirate Party is not even selling knifes: they're just acting like UPS, transporting knifes from the knife shop (TPB) to the customer's home. If you want to prevent this all from happening, maybe you should either go to the knife shop itself (TPB) and close it, or go to the people actually doing the crimes (not TPB nor the UK Pirate Party). Because, otherwise, people just use something other than UPS to get their knifes (e.g. FedEx).

Even worse for you: nowadays, TPB is not even selling knifes (i.e. torrents), they just give you pictures of how a knife is supposed to look like (i.e. magnet-links) and you're just supposed to ask random people on the street until they hand you something which resembles what you have in the picture (i.e. the torrent you are looking for). This means that TPB nowadays actually transmits non-copyrighted metadata (i.e. magnet-link) regarding some other non-copyrighted piece of metadata (i.e. a torrent). Anything else that might actually involve transmitting copyrighted data between people NEVER involves TPB, by design.

They then they are complaining about first degree vs. second degree, when they should

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

They are providing a mirror of a website that has been censored by several ISPs in the UK. Which law are they violating?

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[xenobyte]

It appears you suffer from a severe mental dysfunction.

The funny name aside, the Pirates isn't out to steal or plunder. You would know this if you check out the various Pirate Party charters.

They argue that the business model where an organization - for a hefty fee - handles the rights of musicians and filmmakers, is not only obsolete but actually the very reason the creative people are locked into a structure where they cannot make a living.

Step back for a minute and think about this. You know when someone really like a new movie and goes to see it again and again? When someone love a record so much that he buys it again and again in different versions, different pressings, different formats etc.?

These are the people that don't mind paying for their entertainment - because it's that good.

So why are people downloading illegally? - Well, there are those people that can't or won't pay. You can't force them to pay. If they can't get it for free, they're not interested. So there's no loss there. Are they the majority? Nope. They are about 10% of the so-called pirates. The rest actually have one thing in common: They want something which isn't available where they live. Most would happily pay a decent price if they could. But due to the old and obsolete business model, entertainment is divided into regions and into sectors, strictly separated.

A movie usually get a monopoly in the local cinemas first. Then comes pay-per-view and subscription movie channels. Then rental. Finally it hits the shelves for general purchase. Along the way, other regions join in, usually in the same order, i.e. cinemas first etc. Now, if you happen to live in the wrong place, you'll have to wait. Maybe it will show up later, maybe not. But the movie is available illegally from day one. So instead of allowing people to pay for it, they push people into piracy. That's stupidity squared and that's why piracy works so well.

A model that would work is make everything available all at once globally in all formats. Then offer merchandise and enhanced experience in the cinemas. That way over 90% the piracy goes away and done right the merchandising extended to almost all titles could be a gold mine. Sure, there would still be some piracy here and there, mostly done by the people who can't or won't pay, so that's not worth fussing over as there's no sales to be gained.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Bert64]

The law itself is disproportionate...

Copyright in general has become corrupted totally corrupted such that it now exists solely to benefit big copyright holders to the detriment of everyone else. When first envisaged, it was an agreement between society and content creators to allow content creators to profit in the short term while providing their work to the public domain for the benefit of society as a whole long term.
A copyright term of 20 years made sense at the time, nowadays with modern distribution technology the copyright term should be shorter and yet it has been corrupted beyond belief - now it is extremely unlikely that anyone who was around when something was first released is going to still be alive when it falls into the public domain, and there might not even be any readable copies left by then either.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[elashish14]

Yikes... the MAFIAA are getting into hiring shills too now!

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[ProPropertyRights]

You have a utopian vision about how you could build the world so it would be more to your liking. You don't have that right. Also, your argument has ad hominem attacks. Try again.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[ProPropertyRights]

You like to insult my view as simplisitic[*] but your post contains a lot of thinking errors:

• Comcast is not the Pirate Bay. One is an ISP that respects DMCA takedown requests and has a lot of legitimate content, the other is a den of inequity. If TPB respected takedown requests they'd have to shut down the site and lose all the money they make on ads.
• Encrypting does not magically remove copyright protection.

The Pirate Bay's and the Pirate Party's actions are so willfully attacking property that they *should* go to prison, but that is not the case right now in any legal system I know of. Ordinary or accidental infringement though should not be criminal.

There is no reason why you should be able to copy movies, download art, or music which you didn't create and don't have permission to do so. My view is you should respect the wishes of other people and their property rights. You aren't allowed to go on someone else's lawn and do what you want: it's the same thing with creations of the mind as with ownership of physical property. I am right because people have a right to their property, intellectual and physical. You are wrong because you want to disrespect creative output of the mind and deny monetary support to those who use their minds creatively.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[ProPropertyRights]

Note: I don't think the Pirate Party should go to prison for *supporting* piracy: they have a right to do that. But proxying TPB turns them into active participants.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[ProPropertyRights]

You can compare how wrong different wrong acts. I'm not sure if there's a "spectrum" according to which you could classify all of them (is murdering your wife worse than murdering a child? is what Bernie Madoff did worse than both of those (many people died as a result)? I don't know. But something either is wrong, or it isn't. In order to be on your spectrum (if it's real), something has to be wrong. It either is, or isn't Copyright infringement is wrong.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this "contributory copyright infringement" concept you just made up? (Protip: US laws don't apply elsewhere. Kthnxbai.) Also, even the US, there is nothing codified in LAW regarding "contributory copyright infringement" (Protip: jurisprudence is not law). ALSO, you have yet to demonstrate that the people (not the legal entity, but the people) that are being threatened with a lawsuit have, in any way, knowingly contributed to copyright infringement.

In the UK, people have been convicted and/or found liable on the basis of conspiracy to defraud and/or encouraging or facilitating criminal copyright infringement. For what its worth, the PPUk is not a legal entity - it is an unincorporated association that can't be named as a party to a lawsuit.

Selling knifes isn't a crime, killing people is. And the Pirate Party is not even selling knifes: they're just acting like UPS, transporting knifes from the knife shop (TPB) to the customer's home. If you want to prevent this all from happening, maybe you should either go to the knife shop itself (TPB) and close it, or go to the people actually doing the crimes (not TPB nor the UK Pirate Party). Because, otherwise, people just use something other than UPS to get their knifes (e.g. FedEx).

Actually couriers get convicted all the time for helping with crimes if they know, or could reasonably be expected to know, that they are involved in and assisting crime rather than legitimate business. Sometimes they try to claim they weren't told, didn't ask and had no idea why they had to carry a heavy locked suitcase through Customs in order to collect thousands of pounds. This has never actually worked in court.

You should probably look up "non-commercial copyright infringement" in UK laws and then try to figure out if it's actually "criminal activity" or simply some civil issue. It might help.

Why don't you look it up here. You might find that actually, non-commercial copyright infringement can be a crime if you "distributes [the work] otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright"

Either murder is wrong, or it isn't. The pirates in this article have called themselves "Google" while engaging in contributory and vicarious copyright infringement to take the rights of creators away from them.

As you know, Google knowingly links to copyrighted information every single day. In fact, Google (like TPB) links to overwhelmingly more copyrighted information than non-copyrighted information (for the single fact that most information on the Internet is copyrighted by default). In either case, no copyrighted information is actually being transmitted to you through Google (or TPB), but actually through your ISP, which brings the next example:

This is even clearer... I mean... ISPs BOTH transmit copyrighted information for you AND do it knowingly (you can thank data-retention laws for that). I guess you are trying to tell me that all the ISPs in the world are engaging in "contributory copyright infringement". Cool.

What matters is not whether they transmit copyright information, but whether that transmittion is authorised. If my ISP helps me view the NYTimes website, I am view copyright material with authorisation. Of course, it is also possible that Google or my ISP could help me find resources to make unauthorised copies in violation of copyright. However that is not their main purpose, and there is no reason why the courts have to treat them the same way, any more then convicting a rioter for handing out bricks at a riot means they have to convict every building site foreman in the country.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[ProPropertyRights]

Nope, I'm not a shill. I feel very strongly about this issue. I used to think like 99% of slashdot does, but now I'm 100% convinced you're all wrong on these issues. Just trying to help show the way to the right path.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is unenforceable, all contracts are unenforceable as well. If we have to throw out all contracts a very large amount of our society will be reduced to barter level.

When a creator produces something, he could keep that to himself. But he gives you the copy with the automatic contract of copyright. The contract is what ensures that he can sustain himself with further creation.

You can pretend that you have a right to violate contracts, but then there is no one who will make contracts with you, and your life will be a lot less well off.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

* Comcast is not the Pirate Bay. One is an ISP that respects DMCA takedown requests and has a lot of legitimate content, the other is a den of inequity. If TPB respected takedown requests they'd have to shut down the site and lose all the money they make on ads.

*sigh*

Protip: the DMCA only applies to the US. the DMCA only applies to the US. the DMCA only applies to the US.

Should I repeat again?

-> The DMCA only applies to the US!

Ok. Now that I got *that* through your thick skull...

Encrypting does not magically remove copyright protection.

Nice strawman. Where exactly did I made this claim? Learn how to read.

The Pirate Bay's and the Pirate Party's actions are so willfully attacking property that they *should* go to prison, but that is not the case right now in any legal system I know of.

..because? Again, you make a bold claim with nothing to back it up: "PP and TPB actions are criminal and whatever, because.... (justification omitted)". In fact, you even admit that most legal systems DO NOT EVEN AGREE WITH YOU. Maybe you should sit down for a second and try to understand why the law doesn't agree with you. I already gave you a few hints.

But, since I'm so helpful, I'll explain it to you again: TPB and the UK PP are NOT "willfully attacking property" (except ideologically, of course), THEIR USERS ARE. Or maybe they aren't? YMMV.

There is no reason why you should be able to copy movies, download art, or music which you didn't create and don't have permission to do so.

[citation needed]

My view is you should respect the wishes of other people and their property rights.

Yes, we already know what's the position of copyright maximalists, thank you very much. What you should have into account is that actual "(natural) property rights" are not the same as "intellectual property right", despite the misleading similar name. Which is why they aren't enforced to the same extent. Like I said, one day you'll figure it out.

(Hint: I assume you have already, at least once, performed an unauthorized rendition of "Happy Birthday". In fact, I'm 100% sure of it. But feel free to deny it, you criminal pirate scum.)

You aren't allowed to go on someone else's lawn and do what you want: it's the same thing with creations of the mind as with ownership of physical property.

See... here lies your problem. You confuse "intellectual property" with, you know, actual physical property... and that just leads you to erroneous conclusions about how the world works. I guess you'll have to figure out that part by yourself...

I am right because people have a right to their property, intellectual and physical.

...but not at ANY cost, unlike what you might desire.

You are wrong because you want to disrespect creative output of the mind and deny monetary support to those who use their minds creatively.

See... here lies another one of your problems... just because I disagree with your over simplistic characterization of the problem (i.e. "copyright infringement is like murder", "copyright infringement is like theft", "copyright infringement is like rape") doesn't mean

1) That my goal in live is to ideologically support undermining the monetary support of artists;

2) That I actually participate in copyright infringement.

Which is what you immediately seem to suggest, without even knowing me. ...which brings us, finally, to your sidenote:

Note: I don't think the Pirate Party should go to prison for *supporting* piracy: they have a right to do that. But proxying TPB turns them into active participants.

No, it doesn't and I already explained to you why. The reason you think they should go to prison, as you already showed, is *precisely*

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for your reply. I am, in fact, not an expert in UK law (because UK law, like US law, is irrelevant to me), but I was assuming that non-commercial copyright infringement was not criminal in the UK. As you pointed out, it's possible I might be wrong.

Still... neither TPB nor the UKPP know which files are selected by the users (due to the nature of magnet-links), so they REALLY have no way of knowing which users are downloading which files (unless they go actively scraping the DHT for peers, which they don't). As far as they know, all the users could be downloading Linux ISOs. They really DO NOT (and cannot) know. Unlike your ISP. Which, unless you encrypt everything, does have all the data to know in which BT swarms you are participating in (and they could probably even figure it out, EVEN WITH ENCRYPTION).

So... yeah, if TPB or PP are guilty of knowing that I use their service for copyright infringement, then my ISP is EVEN MORE GUILTY (because they have even more evidence of such, and they do nothing... in fact... THEY EVEN PROFIT FROM IT! What a bunch of scumbags!).

As for the rest...

What matters is not whether they transmit copyright information, but whether that transmittion is authorised. If my ISP helps me view the NYTimes website, I am view copyright material with authorisation.

The same way your ISP does not KNOW if NYTimes website has a license to distribute the copyrighted content it distributes (it just blindly assumes it does), the Pirate Bay (and the UKPP) also do not know if the peers in the swarms have (or not) a license to distribute the (possibly) copyrighted content (it just blindly assumes it does). You should probably know that TPB doesn't track the explicit copyright-status of the digital objects it refers to, so you can't claim that they know. (And, please no DMCA talk... DMCA doesn't apply wherever-the-fuck-TPB-is.)

Of course, it is also possible that Google or my ISP could help me find resources to make unauthorised copies in violation of copyright.

No, no, no. It's not just "possible". GOOGLE LITERALLY, EVERY SINGLE SECOND, IS DIRECTING PEOPLE TO PLACES WHERE THEY CAN FIND "UNAUTHORIZED" COPIES OF WHATEVER. If TPB can't claim that they don't know that people are using TPB to infringe on copyright, then NEITHER CAN GOOGLE. Are they stupid or what? Is there a bigger cache of copyrighted media than YouTube? You can find ALMOST EVERY SINGLE FULL-LENGTH MOVIE ON YOUTUBE! I rest my case.

However that is not their main purpose

Yes, it is (using the same logic that people use for TPB). If people use overwhelmingly Google to reach unauthorized information, then that's Google main purpose. And they know it is (come on, they're Google... they definitely have all sorts of tasty analytics on _everything_).

...and there is no reason why the courts have to treat them the same way, any more then convicting a rioter for handing out bricks at a riot means they have to convict every building site foreman in the country.

...because? Have you any doubts that Google (or any given ISP, really) profits from copyright infringement HUNDRENDS if not THOUSANDS of times more than TPB? Then you are incredibly naive.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[next_ghost]

The pirates in this article have called themselves "the Pirate Party," while engaging in contributory and vicarious copyright infringement to take the monopolies of creators away from them.

FTFY

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[next_ghost]

You aren't allowed to go on someone else's lawn and do what you want: it's the same thing with creations of the mind as with ownership of physical property.

My computer is not MAFIAA's lawn. Neither are the bajillion other computers, devices and wires that together form the Internet. When I create copies of content under MAFIAA monopoly, I don't go to MAFIAA's lawn to do it, I stay on my own lawn and use tools from my own house. But apparently the law allows MAFIAA to come to my lawn and tell me what I'm not allowed to do with the stuff I own. Copyright is legal violation of physical property rights.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really feel that it is possible for a reasonable person to look at the Pirate Bay, and conclude that (unlike my ISP) the primary purpose of the website is - and was - anything other than helping people who want to download music and movies for free, without permission from the copyright holders. That's not a legal judgement, just an observation. The presence of a few Linux ISO magnet files on the site doesn't change that.

Claiming that the Pirate Bay 'does not know' that the great majority of its users are not on the site to download Linux ISOs or do not hold licenses to download H264 cam versions of films that have only just hit the cinemas is absurd sophistry. I don't care how many 'protip's or ' kthxbye's or BLOCK CAPITALS you use, this sort of argument is about as convincing as buying a smartphone for £40 from a dodgy guy in a pub car-park and then claiming that you though he might be an eccentric philanthropist. Valid arguments for copyright reform get lost in this sort of nonsense, making it harder to reach out to the public and politicians.

Youtube does have a lot of legally questionable content but it does now have licenses from some major content producers for some things (such as music videos) and for the rest it at least acknowledges its responsibility to remove videos following complaints. It is also operating under a definite legal safe harbour. It's worth noting that Youtube has been sued several times over the material on its site and many of the major content producers are unhappy with it. Looking at the Google group as a whole, incidentally, I don't actually believe your claim that most people use their services to find copyright material they are not authorised to copy.

On the other hand the Pirate Bay doesn't put up even the pretence of caring about or respecting any version of copyright law, and responds to legal letters with the sort of sarcastic comments you find so convincing but the courts tend not to.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[maxwell demon]

In either case, no copyrighted information is actually being transmitted to you through Google

That's actually not true: The short excerpts Google shows are definitely copyrighted. Not to mention Google cache.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Grumbleduke]

The short excerpts Google shows are definitely copyrighted

They might be, they might not. Hence there is an increasing amount of case law on this (particularly the Infopaq case in the EU) as to what can actually be covered by copyright. There's certainly nothing "definite" about it.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Grumbleduke]

The pirates are *wilfully* violating the law - they are members of the Pirate Party

Are you suggesting that being a member of a political party is illegal?

As for whether or not the Party (or its officers) are breaking the law; the BPI seem to think they are, but they don't. Hence they may be going to court over it. It's far from simple.

[Disclaimer: I am a member of, and work for the Party, but am not directly involved in this business.]

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really feel that it is possible for a reasonable person to look at the Pirate Bay, and conclude that (unlike my ISP) the primary purpose of the website blah blah

Translation: I have no actual objective reason for why TPB is unlike my ISP, but I "feel" like they are not the same. And, well, if you don't feel the same, you're not "reasonable".

Right.

...primary purpose of the website is - and was - anything other than helping people who want to download music and movies for free, without permission from the copyright holders.

Nope. The primary purpose of the website is NOT to infringe or help infringe on people's copyrights. The primary purpose of the website is for people to be able to find the information they want REGARDLESS of eventual copyright monopolies being claimed over it. Small (yet important) difference.

But, the same can be said of Google or your ISP: their purpose is to help you find the information you want (they are almost totally copyright-agnostic). Google might make small token gestures to make it seem like they are trying to prevent people from engaging in copyright infringement, but it's not really anything meaningful.

Fact: The first place anyone goes to find any "unauthorized" copies of whatever is GOOGLE. Not TPB, but GOOGLE.

Claiming that the Pirate Bay 'does not know' that the great majority of its users are not on the site to download Linux ISOs or do not hold licenses to download H264 cam versions of films that have only just hit the cinemas is absurd sophistry.

Like I already explained to you, they KNOW that their service is eventually used for copyright infringement because that's what people overwhelmingly use their service for.

But, again, the same can be said of any ISP or Google, so... I fail to see your point.

Is your point that Google or you ISP can be used for something other than copyright infringement? Well, so can TPB. You can claim "oh, but Linux ISOs don't count", but.. again, just your empty opinion with nothing meaningful to back it up.

Point is: there are non-infringing cases of using TPB. Deal with it.

I don't care how many 'protip's or ' kthxbye's or BLOCK CAPITALS you use, this sort of argument is about as convincing as buying a smartphone for £40 from a dodgy guy in a pub car-park and then claiming that you though he might be an eccentric philanthropist

Bad analogy. TPB never provided anyone with "copyrighted goods" nor "stolen goods". Please try again.

Valid arguments for copyright reform get lost in this sort of nonsense, making it harder to reach out to the public and politicians.

Cool. But you have yet to show why my arguments are invalid, apart from "I feel that...". Please, tell me more about your feelings...

Youtube does have a lot of legally questionable content but it does now have licenses from some major content producers for some things (such as music videos) and for the rest it at least acknowledges its responsibility to remove videos following complaints.

Yes, it's called "token gestures". See how far that got Megaupload. Thing is... TPB is under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to reply to DMCA takedown requests. Deal with it.

It is also operating under a definite legal safe harbour.

Yes, the safe harbour of "having shitloads of money and lawyers". Again, see how far those "DMCA safe harbours" got Megaupload.

Looking at the Google group as a whole, incidentally, I don't actually believe your claim that most people use their services to find copyright material they are not authorised to copy.

Of course they do! I'd say pretty much 99,999999% of the time, people ARE looking for something which is copyrighted. You might have a point in the sense that SOME of these copyrighted digital me

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, if you are trolling, I must hand it to you, you really seem like the real deal.

>The Pirate Bay's and the Pirate Party's actions are so willfully attacking property

Neither are they attacking[1] nor is what you are alluding to even property[2] to begin with, their funny newspeak nonwithstanding.

[1] to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.
[2] ownership; right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything, especially of something tangible: to have property in land.

>that they *should* go to prison

It's a civil issue since it's victimless and in my opinion the court should just throw any such case out for wasting the court's time with nonsense.

>There is no reason why you should be able to copy movies, download art, or music

There is in that art is the culture of mankind, where the creator, if you asked him, even would agree he drew on everything else. Hell, ask Picasso. So they did and we may not or what?

>which you didn't create and don't have permission to do so.

We don't need "permission".

>My view is you should respect the wishes of other people and their property rights.

My respect of wishes of other people end where they want to destroy my freedom and institute a police state, thank you VERY much.

>You aren't allowed to go on someone else's lawn and do what you want: it's the same thing with creations of the mind as with ownership of physical property.

I'm not on their lawn. In fact they sold the disc to me, so it's mine.

>I am right because people have a right to their property, intellectual and physical.

Intellectual property is a misnomer and makes it seem that it and "physical" property (note: they definition of "property" already says that it is tangible) have anything to do with each other, which they don't.

>You are wrong because you want to disrespect creative output of the mind and deny monetary support to those who use their minds creatively.

I respect creative output. Otherwise I'd ignore them completely (which I'm contemplating doing) and get on with my life.

I don't deny monetary support either, whoever wants to pay, pay, pay to your heart's content.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Nostromo21]

> There is no reason why you should be able to copy movies, download art, or music which you didn't create and don't have permission to do so.

That is because the world is run by greedy, evil men who have created a paradigm out of the oxymoron "Intellectual Property", when the two are entirely mutually exclusive. They have grossly perverted patents & copyrights by buying out politicians and lawyers over the past 100 years. And then other greedy vultures (presumably like yourself) have created entire make-believe industries & careers out of the strangleholds on what should never have come into existence in a healthy, prolific species in the first place. Plain & simple enough for you?
To put it another way, if the only reason you write books, or poetry, or make music or movies is to suck up a fat profit, then you should kindly fuck off with the rest of the cartels & dinosaurs, the sooner the better. Viva le revolucion! :)

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I use my mind creatively.
I write computer programs.
I sell my programs to people who want to pay me money for them.
I make a decent wage.

If perhaps there was another 300 million people who could write programs like me (and know who wants the programs I write!!), and would do it for cheese and biscuits, I too (like musicians) would be poor as hell. Good thing there isn't (or more importantly good thing they haven't found my clients!).

Just because you make music; doesn't mean you deserve money. If there are too many musicians, the cost of music goes down. And the amount any individual musician will make will go down. Here's some insight for you: There are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of musicians willing to play music for 0 dollars an hour.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[rioki]

THEY ARE NOT PIRATING ANYTHING BY RUNNING A PROXY!!!! If you must go after the pirates; oh yea I forgot, that is hard...

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[rioki]

Actually even now I think 20 years is OK for copyright. If you where not able to make money off your "property" in 20 years then it was not worth much. But now we have 70 years after the death of author, that is ridiculous. Especially when that number rises, let's see if Mickey Mouse is public domain, when that 70 years number hits or if they will extend it further.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[johnsnails]

I just got to Australia you insensitive clod

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no actual arguments at all, while the post you "responded" to does. Try again, and this time try a lot harder. Unless you're simply trolling...

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[RaceProUK]

Note: I don't think the Pirate Party should go to prison for *supporting* piracy: they have a right to do that. But proxying TPB turns them into active participants.

Wrong on two counts:

1. The Pirate Party does not condone piracy - it's focus is copyright reform and freedom of speech.

2. Being a website proxy doesn't imply participation at any level. The reason the proxy exists is in protest at the BPI's overzealous legal action against ISPs.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[ProPropertyRights]

No. In this case, the only purpose of the proxied website is to link to pirated content. So linking to TPB is supporting piracy. Morally it's the same case as if the purpose of the website were to host or aggregate links to stolen personal files.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[ProPropertyRights]

You are a hypocrite. You are the one arguing so that you can get free stuff without paying for it and then you call me greedy. What could be more greedy than wanting free stuff without having to work for it?

I don't think anyone who creates great works of art does so for the money, because it is very very hard. But if I made one and people want to pay me for it, what's wrong with that?

Nothing. I shouldn't have to give it away for free because you demand I do so. If you don't like that, you should learn to make things yourself.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Bert64]

20 years is too long given modern technology... You can distribute worldwide in a matter of minutes, most media makes the vast majority of its profit in the first year and a lot stops being sold not long after that, especially if it sold on physical media as it's no longer economical to continue producing the media anymore.
Unless something became massively popular, it can often be extremely difficult to obtain copies of software/movies/music/games/etc which are more than a few years old, and in some cases companies will actively pursue anyone who distributes copies even when the original distributors refuse to provide copies even to those who are willing to pay for them.

No copyright terms should be short, society should receive something in return for enforcing copyright... Why should society as a whole suffer to create an artificial market for media producers while receiving nothing in return? By the time any of today's copyrighted works fall into the public domain the vast majority of us will be dead.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Grumbleduke]

In the UK, people have been convicted and/or found liable on the basis of conspiracy to defraud and/or encouraging or facilitating criminal copyright infringement.

At trial, one person has been convicted on the basis of conspiracy to defraud. There is no "facilitating copyright infringement" law per se. That case was a private prosecution and is pending appeal (something like 20-30 different grounds), which will hopefully be heard before FACT Ltd can do too much bullying on the basis of it (it was a very dodgy conviction; the judge instructed the jury that what he was doing was illegal because what he was doing was illegal, basically). The only other criminal cases that have gone to trial resulted in acquittals or dismissal of charges.

As for civil cases, there's really only the Newzbin 1 case, which found a company running a website was liable for copyright infringement mainly due to the extra steps they took to help their premium members. In any case, "contributory copyright infringement" isn't the right term; you're looking at either direct (or secondary, but that usually involves businesses) copyright infringement, or joint liability for someone else's infringement. There is no blanket "you were somehow involved in someone else's infringement therefore you must be liable!!" thing.

The s107(2A) offence is an interesting one - to my knowledge it has never gone to trial. While there have been a couple of summary convictions under it, they don't really count (and, to be blunt, neither do un-appealed cases at trial). It's only been in the last couple of years that the police (or rather, FACT Ltd / the BPI) have realised this is the correct offence, and before that managed to get some summary convictions under s107(1)(e) - despite it not applying.

However that is not their main purpose, and there is no reason why the courts have to treat them the same way, any more then convicting a rioter for handing out bricks at a riot means they have to convict every building site foreman in the country.

But that's not quite the way the law works; the key thing here is the "mere conduit" (and similar) principles found in the e-commerce regulations (regs 17-19). This one provides an absolute defence to a damages claim for anything done through a mere service provider - such as someone hosting a proxy.

What matters is not whether they transmit copyright information, but whether that transmittion is authorised. If my ISP helps me view the NYTimes website, I am view copyright material with authorisation.

As an aside, this isn't how the law works either. Currently you would need a licence to view the content on the NYTimes website. If you didn't have a licence, you would be liable for copyright infringement (as would oyur ISP, but for the above limitation). Fortunately, the NYTimes website includes a term saying that "You may download or copy the Content and other downloadable items displayed on the Services for personal use only, provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein." However, go beyond that - such as by viewing it at work - (and not within the scope of a statutory limitation to copyright) and you're breaking the law. There's case law on that (which, hopefully, the Supreme Court will be overturning in the next couple of months). Interestingly, this also means that were I (or someone else) to email you some content from the NYTimes website while at work, *you* would be liable for copyright infringement as soon as you download the email to read it.

Of course, if the website doesn't have an explicit licence, you have to rely on implied licences. But that can be overridden by an express one -so if you're in the UK (or England or Wales, at least) and see the phrase "All Rights Reserved"

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Gen_Music]

Your name is 'ProPropertyRights' yet you have no idea what you;re talking about.

The Pirate Party have not proxied TPB to help TPB, they proxied it because they are against the fact that the BPI lobbied the government to blanket ban TPB's URL across the country in the first place. If your ISP is British Telecom or any other major UK provider like Virgin, 'http://www.thepiratebay willl not work, yet 'http://tpb/' now will thanks to a mirror.

This was not about allowing people to pirate content, it was in protest to the bullying tactics that the BPI used on ISPs, which lets not forget are content providers so should not be liable to punishment for the data that goes down their 'tubes'.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Gen_Music]

If you are a 'content creator' as they now lovingly refer to you, then even you must know that copyright is not designed for you, its designed for your publishers. If you are your own publisher, then it's designed to destroy you.

My handle is Gen_Music for a reason, I'm a producer that has worked with Mercury award winning artists and have done more than many people in my industry that are twice my age, and I will tell you now that nobody who makes the music makes the real money unless they have the initial capital and experience to front the business side themselves at the financial level of a company that has been churning out top 10s for nearly a century. After the publisher, label, PR and management company take their cut, an artist is lucky to be taking home 10% of gross and that's before they use that 10% to pay back they advance that they used as living costs during the making of their album.

So when iTunes arrived on the market and stated it would take 30% of the income on its store I realised quite simply that the paradigm of copyright in its current state has to die. When you think that Apple makes over 4 times the amount that the creators make per song sold on iTunes, and the industry itself is powerless to stop them because there is no alternative, then you hear about all the million $ studios in NY being shut down bar one due to the birth of 'the internet' and piracy you turn around and say to yourself, "Now it costs less to make, we can sell unlimited copies with no BOM, there are still archaic costs that labels charge for charging's sake (like 'damages' = projected damages to CDs etc) and yet distribution is free and the cost to do the same amount of promotion and distribution has fallen through the floor. Why the hell is the seller of this stuff making billions of $ whilst the makers are shutting down shop because they can't afford to stay open."

Piracy kills the industry, sure, but it doesn't kill the artist, the industry itself has been killing the artist for a long long time. It needs to in the pop arena so it can lower the public standard of what 'good' music represents and therefore make its workforce expendable. Believe me, I can take just about any cookie cutter singer and make them a hit, but that's just it; 'I... the producer' made the hit, not the singer, so she deserves near nothing.

And just to remind you, everyone in business follows the leader. The leader in music is obviously Pop, so music business will acutely try and make everyone replaceable to rid itself of prima donnas.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Gen_Music]

And how many times have you used Google images to find a picture. I bet 9 out of 10 times that picture wasn't just for viewing.... and where was your permit to store local copies of said content? ohh... fair use?

Fair use of a picture is not the downloading of that picture unless that picture is a snapshot of a larger media (e.g movie) else photographers wouldn't have a job. Therefore you breached copyright, and Google helped you do it.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Gen_Music]

'Your' completely missing the point to complain about spelling... how strange of someone unopposed to the people controlling something that they themselves created.

Those words exist to be understood, unless you have a problem comprehending what he was trying to say then get over the lack of an 'e' and apostrophe. You are not a machine, you are a human being blessed with the ability to detect simple errors and correct them on the fly, use that ability and stop protesting because you cannot be lazy and ignore your natural ability.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Gen_Music]

The problem here is not that you do not understand what we are saying, its that you do not understand the internet, let alone The Pirate Bay.

Your comment about TPB's illegal 'encryption' is prime evidence of that. You need to do your homework before you come on /. and try to tell us right from wrong on a subject you know nothing about.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[Gen_Music]

The pirates are *willfully* violating the law - they are members of the Pirate Party.

You are definitely trolling. So, by your analysis, all members of The Pirate Party are pirates.

  Now, I wouldn't be surprised if they were sailors, but calling them pirates... that's a bit harsh isn't it, especially without evidence!

So I'm guessing by your account, Google, The Conservatives, and everyone else getting away with fraud are 'Privateers' and I am a pirate because I support free speech without an authorised license?

Course I'm not... Arr, me' hearties!

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[ProPropertyRights]

It doesn't matter what their intentions are. I can think of some cases of linking to TPB for documentary or scholarly purposes where it isn't actually infringement, but in almost every other case it is. TPB shouldn't exist in the first place. TPP is not Voltaire. Their name literally shows what their actions actually support and demonstrates their actions are not one of the marginal cases of linking . If there was a newspaper that did nothing but publish information stolen through underhanded means, the government would have a right to shut it down, and that isn't a violation of freedom of the press.

I can't start and maintain any criminal organization, attach a website to it, and then claim the government can't shut me down because of freedom. The purpose of government is to protect rights. TPB violates rights and should be shut down. Anyone who goes against a government doing that is also violating the property rights of the creators whose rights are violated by TPB.

Re:"Disproportionate?"

[ProPropertyRights]

This is an argument from authority, and invalid because you didn't specify what knowledge I am missing and how that lack of knowledge means my arguments are wrong. Also, you are wrong that I don't understand the internet. I obviously know enough to make an informed judgment about TPP and TPB, but in any case the primary issues are moral and legal. You're attempting this argument from authority by saying that you understand the internet, and because I don't obviously my argument is invalid. Please stop the argumentative tactics and point out specifically what I do not understand and how that lack of understanding means that I am wrong. If you can't come up with real arguments against me, then either admit that I'm right or leave a note of support. Thanks.

Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[dgatwood]

If so, the money they get from the SLAPP-back lawsuits could fill the Pirate Party's campaign coffers for the next century. This is a very stupid move for any large group of companies to pull. If BPI has even a mote of legal sense, they need to fire their lawyers now, pull out of the suit, and offer a settlement in exchange for the Pirate Party not countersuing.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[MightyYar]

IIRC, the UK has a rule where the winning party is paid their legal fees by the losing side.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: The music industry is tiny. The whole global revenue of the music industry (2011) is about as much as the profits of a single German construction company (Holzwinkel) were before they went bankrupt. It's insane. The whole German revenue of the music industry is as "big" as the revenue of the public transportation company (KVB) of one single 1 million people city (Cologne)!

That is nothing! If I were a big company, I would just buy the big three, fire them all, and be done with it. I could file the expenses under "bought new toilet brushes for the entire company", and nobody would even blink. I'm surprised Google and Apple haven't already done it. I mean the cartel watchdogs won't complain. It already is a cartel.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Grumbleduke]

Yes, but they tend to only recover 60% of their costs, and that's only after they win. But to get to that point, they have to spend £100,000 plus in costs, which the Party doesn't have right now.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Grumbleduke]

The UK doesn't have SLAPP laws. In theory, frivolous lawsuits are supposed to be shut down by the judges before they get that far. While there's no real way to counter-sue, this sort of behaviour is usually dealt with through costs orders (making the side wasting the other's time pay all the other's costs).

Of course, if the BPI win (or the Party runs out of funds first), that's another matter...

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Charliemopps]

And if 20 different companies file major lawsuits with rooms full of lawyers each, all at the same time? It's hard to win a court case when you can't show up to court because you can't afford to put gas in your car.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole global revenue of the music industry (2011) is about as much as the profits of a single German construction company (Holzwinkel) were before they went bankrupt.

Based on the numbers listed for tax purposes.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[fostware]

+1

Remember their imaginative lawyers are second only to their imaginative accountants - just ask the artists...

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are stupid - nothing to see here, move along

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone mod the 2 parents up a trillion :D

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[westlake]

That is nothing! If I were a big company, I would just buy the big three, fire them all, and be done with it.

The big three are Universal Music Group Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group.

UMG in turn is a division of Vivendi and WMG a division of Access Industries.

Access Industries is one those blandly named, incredibly rich --- and all-but-invisible --- privately held conglomerates that seem to have a hand in almost everything: Russian oil, petrochemicals, aluminum, broadcasting, mobile communications, hotels, real estate and so on.

Vivendi's assets, which include 61% of Activision Blizzard, are worth about 56 billion euros, which is by no means pocket change.

It may have escaped the geek's attention, but companies that actually make big investments in popular entertainment --- not fantasy buy-outs on Slashdot --- tend to be very protective of their IP.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[wild_quinine]

Remember their imaginative lawyers are second only to their imaginative accountants - just ask the artists...

Everybody imagines accountancy and the legal professions to be dry, bookish jobs dealing in facts, history and obscurae.

But the truth is that those jobs are just as creative as writers, painters or musicians.

If anything, we should be paying them more!

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Xest]

The UK does however also have a list of vexatious litigants:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/vexatious-litigants

These are people who can no longer bring civil suits because they have taken the piss too much. If the BPI files too many frivolous lawsuits it's staff (likely it's lawyers) will find themselves no longer able to practice in civil suits because they will become named on this list.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if they are as tiny as you suggest (taken with a pinch of salt) then Google could buy them all at no loss to them whatsoever and kill off the parasites with one master stroke, genius.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole global revenue of the music industry (2011) is about as much as the profits of a single German construction company (Holzwinkel) were before they went bankrupt.

Based on the numbers listed for tax purposes.

Good, then those same numbers can be used when making claims about "damages".

I grow tired of hearing claims of damages equal to GDPs of countries. Perhaps after they win next time, an anonymous tip to the IRS is in order. I mean after all, companies like that love anonymous tips.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the BPI files too many frivolous lawsuits it's staff (likely it's lawyers) will find themselves no longer able to practice in civil suits because they will become named on this list.

They successfully won a court order against the Pirate Bay, and the UK Pirate Party are deliberately trying to frustrate that court order. Now you may dislike the original court order, but I can't see what is frivolous about attempting to sue people who are circumventing it. As the UKPP appears to be an unincorporated association, it is not a legal person and can't be sued directly so any lawsuits have to name some of the members 'in respect of the UKPP'.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Grumbleduke]

Yes, but to get on that list you have to be a vexatious litigant; and bringing (or threatening to bring) one case against a few people in what is a fairly grey legal area probably won't cover that.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Grumbleduke]

They successfully won a court order against the Pirate Bay, and the UK Pirate Party are deliberately trying to frustrate that court order.

Minor corrections: They haven't won any court order against The Pirate Bay or its operators - they never took it to court (not that you can take a website to court). The won several (uncontested) orders against the 6 major UK ISPs.

Secondly, PPUk was running the proxy before the court orders were issued, so it wasn't that it was trying to frustrate the order - simply provide a service.

The issue of it being frivolous or in bad faith could come from the fact that it is trivially easy for the BPI to effectively shut down the PPUk proxy; from my understanding of the text of the court orders (which I tried to get hold of, but would have costed £95), they simply need to write a letter to the ISPs asking them to add the proxy to the existing block. But instead they've decided to go after the officers of the Party.

[Disclaimer: I work for PPUk, but am not involved in this mess any more, and don't know much more that what has been published.]

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[drinkypoo]

The whole global revenue of the music industry (2011) is about as much as the profits of a single German construction company (Holzwinkel) were before they went bankrupt.

Based on the numbers listed for tax purposes.

If someone with racks and stacks of cash wanted to salt their ground they could initiate hostile takeovers against them, and then laugh and laugh as they had to admit how badly they're cheesing the numbers in order to prove their financial solvency and their ability to operate without being bought out.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue of it being frivolous or in bad faith could come from the fact that it is trivially easy for the BPI to effectively shut down the PPUk proxy; from my understanding of the text of the court orders (which I tried to get hold of, but would have costed £95), they simply need to write a letter to the ISPs asking them to add the proxy to the existing block. But instead they've decided to go after the officers of the Party.

Sure, but how did they get the court order against the ISPs in relation to TPB? Evidently the court was convinced that the activities of TPB were causing signficant damage to the BPI member's legal rights. Therefore, if PPUk is facilitating this damage it would seem at least plausible that they could also be liable for this damage, or at any rate that there may be a case for it. Arguing that a person whose legally protected rights are being damaged should only be able to take out an injunction, even where the people responsible are clearly identifiable and accessible to the UK courts, seems odd.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to lie about revenues. The scams you're thinking of are about profits: by going through various legal entities, a company can show losses in one entity (to which the artist's bonus is tied, presumably) and massive profits in another, even though functionally they're the same company.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

They need to start tagging copyright reform to every bill that goes thru the EU.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[hairyfeet]

You are forgetting about Hollywood Accounting which allows them to make record profits WHILE not paying the artists shit AND in some cases actually getting rebates from Uncle Sam! After all this is the same bunch of scum that had the big brass balls to say "Bat Out Of Hell I", an album that just FYI has the RECORD for the longest time for an album on the Billboard Top 200, didn't make a cent and which caused Meatloaf to go bankrupt not once but twice trying to get paid anything for his record setting album. This is also the same group of pricks that say "If your album came out before iTunes we don't owe you shit on digital sales" which is why Cheap trick and Styx and several other big 70s acts are now suing because they haven't seen a single PENNY from iTunes sales, they kept every cent!

So excuse me if I say "Please snatch every damned song you can" to everybody out there, between their bribery to get copyrights turned into Valenti's "Forever minus a single day" (if there is a hell may he rot) and fucking the artists out of the mere pittance they were due in the first place? These cocksuckers complaining about people ripping them off is like a mugger having the gall to bitch about how while he was busy mugging your ass somebody broke into his place and stold his stereo! Boo fucking hoo, please go DIAF you worthless leeches on the ass of society. All you do is rob kids by paying them a pittance and then find ways to make sure they don't even get that while you lock the music they worked so hard to create behind a paywall and demand they pay you every time they play their own song. Fuck off and die, you rich old pieces of human waste.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember their imaginative lawyers are second only to their imaginative accountants - just ask the artists...

Everybody imagines accountancy and the legal professions to be dry, bookish jobs dealing in facts, history and obscurae.

But the truth is that those jobs are just as creative as writers, painters or musicians.

If anything, we should be paying them more!

We do.
Look at what the average writer/painter/musician earns and compare that to the average lawyer/accountant.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ahc-oEFQ7k

This fits your post perfectly.

+1

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Grumbleduke]

Sure, but how did they get the court order against the ISPs in relation to TPB?

Well for starters, there was no one present to argue the case. So no defence, no cross-examination of evidence, the court relied entirely on the BPI's numbers and claims. [There is a provably wrong statistic used in one of the Newzbin2 judgments, so it is possible for them to lie, either through accident or deliberately.] An adversarial legal system (like England's) only works when you have two sides present in the court, with equal strength. Judicial oversight alone isn't enough.

Therefore, if PPUk is facilitating this damage it would seem at least plausible that they could also be liable for this damage, or at any rate that there may be a case for it.

It is plausible and arguable, but the law (imho) doesn't quite work that way;running a neutral proxy, to aid access to a site, which allows third parties to post links, which people can follow to be able to share content, which they may be doing contrary to copyright law - is a little too remote for liability. Then there's the issue of the "mere conduit" limitation in the eCommerce Directive.

Then, even if you do get liability, there's the issue of damage. Traditionally under tort laws, damages are based on the loss - so the BPI's members would need to show that the actions of the officers actually caused some real (non-trivial) loss. Which might be rather hard.

Arguing that a person whose legally protected rights are being damaged should only be able to take out an injunction, even where the people responsible are clearly identifiable and accessible to the UK courts, seems odd.

But who is responsible? The Pirate Party? It's officers? It's members? Their ISP? The operators of the Pirate Bay? TBP's ISP? The users of TPB? The people actually sharing files? There's a reason there are limitations on liability in English law... sometimes it just isn't appropriate. As for the injunction-only approach, that comes down to both proportionality and preventing neutral "mere conduits" etc. from being liable for damages.

The Pirate Party (or rather, some of its officers) because they are "clearly identifiable and accessible" while the people doing the actual sharing are less easy to identifiable (and much harder to demonstrate damage against) but that's no reason to make them legally liable or responsible. Under that logic; it is hard to identify and get to people who graffiti walls, but as most of them use paint, and we know who makes paint, let's pursue them instead - allowing people who's property is graffitied sue paint manufacturers for their loss.

As for whether either an injunction itself is possible to obtain, that's a further complication (I would argue that it isn't as it would be disproportionate and easily frustrated). However, unless the Pirate Party manages to raise the few hundred thousand pounds necessary to defend the case, we'll probably never find out.

[Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (yet), and am a member of, and work for, the Party. I am not directly involved in this business.]

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Xest]

Yes, it fundamentally depends on how many. If they're talking about a large number of members including some who have merely given financial contribution to the party then that would almost certainly be construed as vexatious litigation as it would be a clear attempt to subdue the party by going after it's funding source- it's members.

If it's just going after the members who actually setup, and maintained the proxy, then you're probably right, it wouldn't be enough.

This said, the vexatious litigant list is arguably under used anyway, Andrew Crossley of ACS law for example who brought suits merely to try and worry people into paying (hence why he tried to exit the suit when it actually came to court) is a clear example of a vexatious litigant, yet for some reason he was never named so like a zombie, could potentially come back from the dead again some day.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[L4t3r4lu5]

I smell a Kickstarter / Indigogo project.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Vexatious litigation?

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

The is another tax con major UK music labels had (have???) where bands are signed up on long contracts, but are not promoted. These labels are used as tax losses and the artists end their careers.

Seems like...

[Anonymous Coward]

...BPI wants to create some martyrs and boost the UK pirate party right to the parliament.

Hmm

[meglon]

Bribing, threatening, or extorting, public officials should be a no-no. Perhaps Scotland Yard should crawl up BPI's ass with a microscope, and start tossing people in jail.

Re:Hmm

[wonkey_monkey]

Bribing, threatening, or extorting, public officials should be a no-no.

Well, yes, but what's that got to do with this? Being a member of a political party doesn't make you a public official, and the only thing being threatened here is legal action, which is perfectly, well, legal.

Re:Hmm

[TubeSteak]

Since when is a torrent/magnet link illegal or a copyright infringement?

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

oh please yes while it is all legal it is most definitely extortion

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Since US judges tried to say it was the same thing.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Bribing, threatening, or extorting, public officials should be a no-no.

Well, yes, but what's that got to do with this? Being a member of a political party doesn't make you a public official, and the only thing being threatened here is legal action, which is perfectly, well, legal.

On the contrary. Threatening legal action as a form of extortion is called "Barratry" and is illegal.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as soon as someone can buy that bit of legislation.

Re:Hmm

[wonkey_monkey]

Has anyone definitively ruled, in court, that it isn't?

Re:Hmm

[wonkey_monkey]

On the contrary. Threatening legal action as a form of extortion is called "Barratry" and is illegal.

What indications are there that this is what's happening here?

Re:Hmm

[Tom]

Exactly. They should've been more patient and waited until they had been elected MPs, who enjoy immunity.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

It shouldn't even have to be ruled in court: it's obvious.

Metadata is not copyrighted because it's not the result of a _creative_ process. Some digital object's size or checksum (or some other trivial to calculate property) is the result of a deterministic, non-creative process and, hence, it's un-copyrightable information.

Hence, replication of such information cannot constitute copyright infringement, BY DESIGN.

Also, everything is LEGAL unless there's explicit law and/or jurisprudence otherwise. So... no, it doesn't work like you state. Things are not illegal by default: things are LEGAL by default.

The burden of proof to show that it constitutes anything illegal is on YOU.

Re:Hmm

[matunos]

They have to be public officials first, and threatening to sue is not really extortion.

Re:Hmm

[Tuoqui]

Yeah threatening legal action is also called blackmail in some circles too... I guess it just depends on how much money you have whether it's 'legal action' or 'blackmail'.

Re:Hmm

[ConfusedVorlon]

failing to warn people that you have a problem with their actions, and just leaping straight to a court case is also bad.

I'm fairly sure that what you call 'threatening', the BPI would call 'fair warning'

Not that I support their case, just that if they are going to take it - I would absolutely require them to warn the pirate party, and attempt a settlement first.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this is how the british legal system encourages people to act.

LLC

[SpiralSpirit]

they should incorporate.

Re:LLC

[Tuoqui]

Well I would imagine PPUK has a LLC or non-profit company as their organization. It seems that the MAFIAA wants to pierce the corporate veil and expose those in charge of teh company and their personal assets to attack.

Personally I think if that is the case then the MAFIAA companies heads should have their own personal assets viable for a counter attack.

Re:LLC

[Grumbleduke]

LLC is a US term; the UK equivalents are Ltd, plc or LLP (perhaps). The Pirate Party hasn't already set up some sort of company, mainly because the legal/corporate status of political parties is a real mess in the UK and it could be a lot of hassle. But it's being looked into now...

[Disclaimer: I am a member of, and work for, the Party, but am not directly involved in the BPI threat.]

Re:LLC

[Tuoqui]

Well you should incorporate in some manner of speaking...

The Pirate Party of Canada operates as a NPO (Non-Profit Organization). Also whatever structure you use would have to make sense for your situation. Inc, LLC, Corp, Ltd, etc... are just ways organizations use to communicate that they are a legal corporate entity...

If you're a NPO or charity you can use terms like 'fund', 'charity', 'institute' or stuff like that.

And yes I'm part of the Pirate Party of Canada, glad to see you're getting that problem fixed :)

If only...

[Anonymous Coward]

BPI together with RIAA, MPAA, SIAE, SAGEM etc... are the scum of this earth.
Why oh why do people massacre kids insteads of these fucking cunts ? They'd do a service to humankind.

Re:If only...

[Anonymous Coward]

BPI together with RIAA, MPAA, SIAE, SAGEM etc... are the scum of this earth.
Why oh why do people massacre kids insteads of these fucking cunts ? They'd do a service to humankind.

If you add to that list the national government officials, both elected and non-elected, of the UK and US, I'd agree.

I pray every day to whatever deities or forces that may exist in the universe for meteors to simultaneously impact Washington, D.C. and London and turn them into huge smoking holes on a day when all the leaders of both nations are in their respective capitols, or for Iran or N. Korea to succeed in their nuclear programs and nuke them both.

Either way, it would be the best thing that's happened to the people of the US and England since WW2, maybe even farther back than that.

Re:If only...

[The Master Control P]

*the White House and 10 Downing Street are vaporized by terrorist nukes*

The CIA/NSA/MI6/etc: "My god, we brought this on ourselves by taking actions that made other people hate us! We have to immediately restore the bill of rights tenfold, dismantle the illegal spying programs, and recall our troops from around the world!"

Were you dropped on your head as a child, by any chance?

Re:If only...

[Entropius]

I have occasionally said only partially in jest that the best thing that could happen to Washington DC would be for the British to come back and finish the job they started in 1814.

Re:If only...

[Anonymous Coward]

You fail reading comprehension.

Were you dropped on YOUR head as a child, then ate lead-paint chips until you were 21?

This can be a good thing!

[Lisias]

This will open a precedent.

Just think : "Individuals are being charged for felonies committed by the organization".

Microsoft, Exxon, MPAA, RIAA et all !!!!

Man, I can't hold myself in the chair, this can be great!!!

Re:This can be a good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Operating a proxy is a felony in the UK?

Re:This can be a good thing!

[Lisias]

Does it matter?

The charging is the precedent, not the veracity if the charge!

Re:This can be a good thing!

[Grumbleduke]

Iirc the only felony left in the UK is the treason felony, which was last used in the UK in the 1880s.

As for the original question, this is a threatened lawsuit, not a crime. And the issue of holding individuals liable is due to the fact that political parties in the UK aren't automatically incorporated, so it is technically impossible to sue them.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[Cederic]

The term 'felony' isn't really used here. However, operating a proxy may or may not be illegal, depending on circumstances.

Offering a proxy to TPB shouldn't be illegal, but certain companies are obliged by court order not to provide direct access to that site. Whether the proxy can be deemed contempt of court (for subverting that order) would be an interesting challenge, but probably not.

Expansion of the court order to include the Pirate Party is more likely, but hasn't yet happened.

Suing the members of the party could have serious fallout, including within the more mainstream parties. Even so, it could be difficult to prove that there is a justification for that action, or that losses have resulted.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[sumdumass]

First, its civil so no charges being filed, just lawsuits for liability. Second, this happens all the time. A corporation does not shield someone from their own actions. It only shields those who took no part in the actions and those where the evidence isn't sufficient to show someone took part in an action. There is no precedent here other then you knowing about it. Most of the suits will likely be tossed because there won't be enough evidence to show they took any specific actions regarding the claims giving the appearance that no one in a corp gets busted when the corp does.

This is really a form of harassment and there will likely by some serious judicial blow back once it starts. That is if it is more then a bluff attempting to get party members to pressure the party to drop the proxy. There might even be some blow back if it's a bluff too.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

A corporation does not shield someone from their own actions. It only shields those who took no part in the actions and those where the evidence isn't sufficient to show someone took part in an action.

ROFL. Wealth and power shield their own. No one who is actually responsible is ever held to account in the corporate state. The buck stops at the 99%.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[martin-boundary]

It's a lot worse than that. A corporation acts as a shield for *personal liability*. Basically, even if you sue an individual and win, their liability for what they did is still limited.

It's like if you make up a character in an online game, and make the character commit crimes. What's the worst that can happen to you? A bit of inconvenience. If the character dies, you can just make a new one.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[sumdumass]

read the rest of what was written. the reason you think that is because there isn't evidence connecting people with the actions. Its not because they aren't held accountable. And BTW, they are. search for CEO goes to prison.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[slick7]

This will open a precedent.

Just think : "Individuals are being charged for felonies committed by the organization".

Microsoft, Exxon, MPAA, RIAA et all !!!!

Man, I can't hold myself in the chair, this can be great!!!

Just think, a morally bankrupt organization trying to financially bankrupt another. Neil Young may have something to say about that.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[sumdumass]

Wrong-- this is a misnomer that needs to stop. a corporation will not shield any personal liability for your own actions. It will only shield for liability due to not causes of yours-. In other words, if you fuck up, a corporation will not shield you from any liability but if your employee fucks up, it limits the liability to the corporate assets. The only personal assets that are shielded are the ones owned by owners and employees who did not participate in the act.

You will find no law saying "a corporation acts as a shield for *personal liability*" or even resembling it. What you will find is a legal doctrine "Respondeat superior" that allows the employer to be liable for the acts of employees. Most companies are sued in stead of the employee or officer of the company because the likelihood of collecting a judgement is way better. In some instances, you will see the employee sued as well as the company through vicarious liability but generally they attempt to not sue the employee so that it becomes easier to gain information from then to help in the suit.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[martin-boundary]

And that's why all the potentially risky or legally dubious activity is always performed by employees as part of their normal duties for the company. And that includes company directors, who are employees as well, even though they do the bidding of silent shareholders.

Your caveats mean very little in practice, they only apply when the corporate shield is being used by amateurs.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[sumdumass]

I'm not going to argue this with you. If you start a business and incorporate it, go out and you break the law or do something that makes you liable for damages, your personal financials are not shielded. Its the same for any corporation, those who break the law or do something that makes them liable, they are/can be liable personally too.

All you have to do is pay attention to detail and you would know this is true. The management of worldcom, tyco, and a few other big name mismanaged companies ended up getting criminal charges and some of them got sued for losses.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

This will open a precedent.

Just think : "Individuals are being charged for felonies committed by the organization".

Microsoft, Exxon, MPAA, RIAA et all !!!!

Man, I can't hold myself in the chair, this can be great!!!

And do the same thing to bank executives? Good idea - not a $1.9bn fine for HSBC ... a $1.9bn fine for the board and executive of HSBC ... personally.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost certainly not a contempt of court. The order was against ISPs to block access specifically to that site, not to any site on the *.pirateparty.or.uk domain. The ISPs aren't in breach, and the Pirate Party wouldn't be in breach either. The BPI would of had a far better chance of winning that case anyway if that were the case.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[professionalfurryele]

Just because the odd token CEO goes to prison to placate the masses doesn't mean justice is even, look at what HSBC just got away with doing. Every company should have an individual identified as having responsibility for all actions. If you cant identify who is responsible for an action then the person with general responsibility is held accountable. Network goes down costing someones life? CTO goes to jail. Pension fund fails due to neglect? Financial officer goes to jail. That would at least go some way towards justifying their absurd salaries.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[TFAFalcon]

So all the Pirate party needs to do is hold a secret ballot about shutting down a proxy? As long as at least one person votes Yes they will all be in the clear, since you can't prove it was their actions that 'broke' the law.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[sumdumass]

Just because the odd token CEO goes to prison to placate the masses doesn't mean justice is even, look at what HSBC just got away with doing.

No one said anything about justice, I said the myth that a corporation shields anyone from prosecution or personal liability is not true.

Every company should have an individual identified as having responsibility for all actions. If you cant identify who is responsible for an action then the person with general responsibility is held accountable.

That is the dumbest idea ever spouted off-- especially since you rambled about justice. Imagine if the law decided that because you were the oldest of your siblings that you are responsible for all the acts of your brothers and sisters. Then one day your brother gets drunk and steals a car, crashes it into on coming traffic killing someone, then leaves the scene and they can't prove it was him but they have evidence someone from your family was involved. You are hit for something you did not do. Why should anyone affiliated with a corporation be subject to this same problem? Only the people who participated in the act should be accountable for the act. The company is vicariously accountable and often it is easier to prove the company was involved when you cannot prove a specific employee or person was connected which is why the company gets charged or is liable when people are not. Either way, it is a serious injustice to charge someone with crimes or hold them liable when they are merely associated with those who committed the act. Is it justice if the cops lock you up because your best friend robbed a gas station.....

Network goes down costing someones life? CTO goes to jail. Pension fund fails due to neglect? Financial officer goes to jail. That would at least go some way towards justifying their absurd salaries.

I'm sensing that you are not concerned with justice, you are concerned with retribution. This is no different in the mechanics then a witch hunt where innocent people are killed because of events you do not understand and attribute to evil sorcery. You should spend a bit of time thinking about this more.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[sumdumass]

No, it doesn't work that way.

As a though experiment, lets vote to break into the white house and paint it pink with purple stripes. Now supposing the vote passes and we democratically agree to do this, does it automatically happen without anyone taking any further steps? Of course not, no matter how we organize ourselves, whether it be a corporation or political party, or even a club of geeks, it takes the actions of a specific person in order to make it happen.

So the reality is that someone has to specifically do the act. If they are directed to do so by others in charge, those who directed them is usually in the same if not more trouble as the person who does the act. Think of it like a mob boss ordering a hit on an enemy, we might know Tommy "two guns" killed the enemy, but we might not be able to show he did it because bugs malone ordered him to do it. If we could, then bugs would be just as culpable.

In your voting scenario, someone will have to act, someone can be completely accountable for their actions. While it is true that if they are acting at the direction of someone else, that other person can be held accountable too, like you suggest, a secret ballot might make it impossible to determine who directed them- giving the appearance of escaping accountability but there will always be the person or persons who specifically acted in order to implement what was voted on. Those people will always be in the line of fire when it comes to liability or prosecution.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[professionalfurryele]

"Imagine if the law decided that because you were the oldest of your siblings that you are responsible for all the acts of your brothers and sisters."

My brothers and sisters are not a corporation, I don't direct them, I have no authority over them. I'm talking about responsibility. If I run my family with a strong hierarchy and direct my brothers actions in a way which is likely to result in him doing something which harms others then you bet I'm responsible. If during the course of normal business activities your company creates a culture in which things like managing money for terrorist groups (as was the case with HSBC) occurs then yes, you are responsible.

If a gangster doesn't directly manage the money or drug running or protection rackets does that make them not responsible for the actions of the organisation?

All your examples have a theme in common, I'm not responsible for the actions of my friend and family. If your employee, acting within the incentives and controls you impose on them commits a crime and you neglect to keep records of it and benefit from it (directly or indirectly) then you are responsible. Do you have an example where you can direct another's actions then disavow yourself of the consequences in an area you have direct responsibility for?

Re:This can be a good thing!

[TFAFalcon]

But It would create a nice precedent for a counter suit. Go after the lawyer that filed the suit against the Pirate party. And after the guy who ordered him to do it, and so on. If the Pirate party members can be personally responsible, then why not their accusers. Sue them for slander, perjury,.... Then do the same thing the next time Pirate Bay receives a DMCA request for something that is clearly in the public domain - sue the lawyers.
MAD only works if the side that is attacked is willing to fire back.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[the eric conspiracy]

Hmmm generally to take advantage of the corporate veil requires that you uh incorporate first.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[the eric conspiracy]

Sorry. Just because I am employed by a corporation does not mean my actions fall under a corporate shield. The idea is preposterous really. Employees and officers of corporations get prosecuted for their individual acts all the time. If it weren't so you could not possibly have a working legal system in any way.

The corporate shield protects employees from actions of the corporation, for example if I am head of Exxon and an Exxon ship in Timbuktu sinks you can't sue me. You might be able to sue the captain of the ship for his part in the accident though.

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

Re:This can be a good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, if you do something illegal, a corporation will NOT shield you from that.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

What about a computer program that responds to the vote.
Have it entirely automated.
Oh I'd love to see the verdict on that one.

Even better, make sure the program actually *is* the proxy.

Do you sue the guy that wrote the program? (even though he may have voted no?)
Do you sue the guy that clicked "Start" on the program (even though he would perhaps later go to vote "No" to letting the program continue)
Do you sue the guy that bought the computer? (even though he may have gifted it, and also voted no)

Who do you sue?? Who is liable!?!?

There is no "Action" taken after the vote; the vote *Can be the action*.

I guess the answer is you sue everyone involved in the vote. By participating (even if they voted no) they are effectively voting yes (by validating it) but, since you can cast doubt on their intention (they may have - by the vote - had the *intention* to stop the program, but due to its nature as being a vote, been unable to stop it!!)

oh god.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[sumdumass]

My brothers and sisters are not a corporation, I don't direct them, I have no authority over them. I'm talking about responsibility. If I run my family with a strong hierarchy and direct my brothers actions in a way which is likely to result in him doing something which harms others then you bet I'm responsible. If during the course of normal business activities your company creates a culture in which things like managing money for terrorist groups (as was the case with HSBC) occurs then yes, you are responsible.

Sure, that's what you say. Your brother was acting at your direction, not on his own. Proof, oh wait, I have no proof that you told them to do something, but I'm going to accuse you in the same way that you would accuse a corporation. See what I did there, I held you to the same assumptions you want to hold corporations to. If the evidence is not there, you cannot convict in a society that presumes innocence until proven guilty.

If a gangster doesn't directly manage the money or drug running or protection rackets does that make them not responsible for the actions of the organisation?

Actually, no it does not. That is why gangs are such a problem for law enforcement. The front people or the people you meet who are in the gangs, usually aren't involved in the illegal activities making it necessary for special laws like the RICO statutes and so on. This problem had plagued us forever too. It's why Al Capone was sent to prison for tax evasion and not anything relating to his gang's illegal activities.

All your examples have a theme in common, I'm not responsible for the actions of my friend and family. If your employee, acting within the incentives and controls you impose on them commits a crime and you neglect to keep records of it and benefit from it (directly or indirectly) then you are responsible. Do you have an example where you can direct another's actions then disavow yourself of the consequences in an area you have direct responsibility for?

Your not responsible for your employees actions either, if they act independently. The corporation might be liable but no one who did not act will be. They certainly won't be held personally liable. But if they did participate by either directing the act or by ignoring it happening, they could be held personally liable.

My comments were about how stupid your idea of punishing someone in a corporation who did not participate in an act that is either criminal or civilly liable. You cannot disavow responsibility for an act you participated in, the best you can do is manipulate the evidence to hide your involvement. This is typically what happens when the CEO says do X where X is illegal, the peons who do it say Mr. Zen told us to do it but there is no proof it ever happened. Often there isn't even a paper trail if an authority can look. We do not arbitrarily punish someone for acts they did not participate in and we do need evidence to show they participated. Without that, justice will never be served.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[sumdumass]

There is no "Action" taken after the vote; the vote *Can be the action*.

A vote in and of itself cannot be the illegal action. If as you suggested, a computer program automatically does the action after the vote is tallied, then I would suggest the person running the program is the party you would be after. It's like bit torrent traffic, I can use it for legal activity and illegal activity, I can program a bot to run it for me too. I would be the one responsible for what the bot and the program does at my direction.

I guess the answer is you sue everyone involved in the vote. By participating (even if they voted no) they are effectively voting yes (by validating it) but, since you can cast doubt on their intention (they may have - by the vote - had the *intention* to stop the program, but due to its nature as being a vote, been unable to stop it!!)

It's not that complicated. Someone is allowing a program to run, a program that was created and installed and someone started. Someone owns the machines it is one, the internet connections and so on. They are the ones who should be looked at.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[professionalfurryele]

"See what I did there, I held you to the same assumptions you want to hold corporations to."

No, no you didn't. What you did was failed to appreciate the difference in context. Your next example does a perfect job of illustrating that because we have RICO laws to deal with gangsters but don't use them on corporate officers even when it is clearly appropriate. One rule for the black / latino / italian guy directing his employees to do illegal stuff and another for the white one because the white one hides behind a 'corporation'. Equal justice my arse.

As for not having responsibility. Corporations need to make collectively and individually acting ethically a priority. At the moment they do the exact opposite. I will make you a deal, you show me a company where an employee cannot be fired or downsized or have their contract renegotiated while being able to leave whenever they like after a reasonable notice period, who have never had a recorded instance of a constructive dismissal for the tenure of the current batch of executive officers and I will agree that the corporate officers of that company are not in part responsible for the rogue actions of their employees. Corporations agree to stop operating like gangs and I will start judging them like families and friends.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[sumdumass]

No, no you didn't. What you did was failed to appreciate the difference in context.

The context was completely the same and appropriate as you being convinced of something does not mean there is proof of it nor does it mean the evidence when viewed as evidence says anything close to what you believe or want to think is true. Note, what is true or not is independent of what the evidence shows. That is what is important when punishing someone- what the evidence shows, not what you want to believe.

Your next example does a perfect job of illustrating that because we have RICO laws to deal with gangsters but don't use them on corporate officers even when it is clearly appropriate. One rule for the black / latino / italian guy directing his employees to do illegal stuff and another for the white one because the white one hides behind a 'corporation'. Equal justice my arse.

lol.. How ignorant are you? The RICO laws are changes to normal laws. They are used all the time on corporations and other entities. The most important one is where an organization gets declared as a criminal gang in which a judge decides that the majority of their activities is either illegal or in the pursuit of illegal activities. This brings a whole slew of other laws into effect and you will likely not find a corporation that is declared a criminal gang or criminal organization.

As for not having responsibility. Corporations need to make collectively and individually acting ethically a priority.

I don't disagree with this. In fact, it is part of the fiduciary obligations assigned within a corporation and is actionable by share holders should there be proof of intentional unethical acting.

I will make you a deal, you show me a company where an employee cannot be fired or downsized or have their contract renegotiated while being able to leave whenever they like after a reasonable notice period, who have never had a recorded instance of a constructive dismissal for the tenure of the current batch of executive officers and I will agree that the corporate officers of that company are not in part responsible for the rogue actions of their employees. Corporations agree to stop operating like gangs and I will start judging them like families and friends.

Hogwash. Firing someone, negotiating their contracts and so on is not an unethical act. Im some cases unethical acts aren't even illegal nor will they create civil liabilities. You have some concocted notion of things that do not reflect reality or any sane interpretations of it. Corporations act like employers, if you don't think that is right, find a different one to work for or start your own. Otherwise get a grip on reality.

Re:This can be a good thing!

[professionalfurryele]

"This brings a whole slew of other laws into effect and you will likely not find a corporation that is declared a criminal gang or criminal organization."

This was precisely my point. A very large chunk of corporations have behaved like criminal gangs and are not treated as such. It may well be the correct application of the law, but it is again a classic example of one law for corporations and another for everyone else. HSBC have recently behaved like a criminal gang. They should be declared and treated like a criminal gang. If a small business owner had done what HSBC has done they would find themselves behind bars. If you would like to test your theory go set up an accountancy, have 90% of your customers be legit and 10% Mexican drug lords. I look forward to your treaties on how all business are treated the same from the wrong side of a jail cell.

"Firing someone, negotiating their contracts and so on is not an unethical act."

It is if you own the legal system. If corporations have to accept state representatives in court, if all donations to politicians are outlawed and our tax system is reformed so that providing a job is not artificially restricted then we can talk about agreements between employers and employee as though they were free agreements. You cant buy the legal system, buy the legislature and artificially inflate the price of labour to ensure employers have monopsony power then call the resulting labour market 'free'.

How about getting personal on the BPI

[Mister Liberty]

Take names, kick ass.

And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because by doing that, one supports this very organized crime that does shit like that to keep up their artificial delusion of scarcity of information, to make infinite money based on the works of artists they ripped off.

They are an outdated industry that nobody needs anymore, and they know it, but they refuse to give up their nice criminal get-money-but-do-no-work business model, because it finances their cocaine needs.

So do not ever give those criminals money ever again! Give it right to the artists! Especially those you discovered via file sharing and e.g. YouTube. E.g. by going to concerts or supporting them on Kickstarter.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[petsounds]

There certainly have been excesses in the recording industry's past, but these days the record industry -- record labels, recording studios, and most importantly music artists -- are just struggling to survive. This is not to say that the RIAA is an organization many people in the industry want, but there has been very real damage caused by a generation of people who grew up thinking copying music without paying for it is totally acceptable, or even worse, their "right" as the Pirate Party seems to believe.

You are incorrect that "nobody needs" record labels. They do many jobs that artists are not necessarily good at, especially promotion. There's also marketing, album design, physical copy distribution, legal representation. These things not only require some inherent talent or ability, but often require upfront money and lots of time. Some artists can successfully not only work on new material and organize tours, but also do all these other necessary things. But that is the rare minority. Artists that were already established prior to torrents are still doing alright, but new artists? Very difficult. The bands you see playing on Saturday Night Live? Most of them are not making money, many still have day jobs.

Oh, and "supporting them by going to concerts"? -- ha ha! Bands very rarely get a take from the door these days. Many places they have to PAY money to the club to play (for instance, I'd guess over 80% of the venues in Los Angeles are pay-to-play). Sure, if you buy a t-shirt from them or a CD, that's great. But when you tally up tour costs (club fees, gas, lodging, food) and the merch they sell, most bands barely make even. To some degree this was always the case with indie bands, but at least they got some money out of album sales if their record label cut them a good deal. Nowadays with file sharing even that income is gone. Maybe if they're really lucky they can sell out and get their song on a commercial or tv show.

So who do all of you file sharing proponents think you're 'sticking it to' exactly? Sure, there are a few major labels backing the RIAA who are still greedy and still treat the artists like shit. But most of you aren't listening to those bands/labels anyway.

And Kickstarter? KS typically only works if you're already an established artist, unless you have the talent/resources to make a clever video that goes viral. Promotion is not easy, it's very time-consuming, and most music artists aren't good at the dog-and-pony show. They're good at making music.

TL;DR -- Don't try to justify your selfishness with "zomg evil cocaine-snorting criminals". Don't vilify the whole recording industry because of the RIAA. You're hurting the artists you supposedly care about and listen to all day. Most of all, buy their music. Support indie record labels. Support your local, independent record stores. Support artist-focused online shops like Bandcamp.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[kiddygrinder]

from the way you're spinning it you might as well pirate all their shit, they're gonna get fucked anyway

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

but there has been very real damage caused by a generation of people who grew up thinking copying music without paying for it is totally acceptable

And just how much damage? Care to cite your facts and figures? Care to explain to me how copying certain data is objectively not acceptable?

Don't try to justify your selfishness with "zomg evil cocaine-snorting criminals".

I don't think they should try to do that, either; justifications are 100% unnecessary. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, copyright is failing. People will eventually have to find viable business models or die off like anyone else would rather than tell the government to give them monopolies.

You're hurting the artists you supposedly care about and listen to all day.

You have not hurt someone if the only thing you did was not give them money (i.e. they didn't perform a service for you, didn't lend you any resources, etc.).

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[kiddygrinder]

also: if you're saying the major labels aren't staffed by a bunch of blood thirsty cunts looking to steal every dollar they can from the artists they you're a dirty god damned liar.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

There certainly have been excesses in the recording industry's past, but these days the record industry -- record labels, recording studios, and most importantly music artists -- are just struggling to survive.

Good. Hopefully that won't last and the labels will all die. The artists... well they don't exactly have a RIGHT to make millions. If they can't even make enough to survive I guess they'll have to find a different business model or a job. It's funny how nobody cares that small time artists can barely make any money, but if some big name artist doesn't make as many millions as he wants that's somehow a problem and society as a whole must give him the money.

Back in reality, though, the music industry profits are still high. There's no chance they'll go under any time soon.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument is stupid. If an artist wants to sell copies of their work, you have three ethical options:

1) Decline to purchase a copy, and do without a copy of the music. You do not need a copy of Britney Spears' or Metallica's latest track.
2) Purchase a copy, and abide by the terms of the sale;
3) Negotiate directly with the artist (or their representatives) for mutually agreeable terms that you and the artist can both live with.

Anything else is pure rationalization for you initiating force against someone else and trampling their rights because you feel "entitled" to something they have not agreed to give you a copy of. It takes time, money, and effort to produce a piece of music. It takes planning, promotion, distribution, recording gear & expertise, mixing and a lot of "infrastructure" to sell it, and coordinate tours, and run a merchandise store - presently the labels do a lot of that work for the artists, and if you destroy labels today, *somebody* will still need to do that work.

If an artist is cool with distributing free copies of their work, then AWESOME - patronize the shit out of them. But if they're not cool with you taking a copy, you do not have an ethical argument for taking a copy without compensation. You can live without their music - so put your money where your mouth is, and refuse to do business with ANYBODY who runs their business in a manner you don't agree with.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[mSparks43]

So who do all of you file sharing proponents think you're 'sticking it to' exactly?

The sell outs in favor of local artists.

.

^ see that
It's the worlds smallest, quietest violin playing for the sell outs.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[Kjella]

There certainly have been excesses in the recording industry's past, but these days the record industry -- record labels, recording studios, and most importantly music artists -- are just struggling to survive.

I guess that's why Nielsen Soundscan is reporting that overall music sales were up 4% in first half of 2012 compared to same time last year. And the 2011 report said overall music sales were up 6.9% and: "For the first time, total music purchases reached the 1.6 Billion mark for the year." And there's still more than 75000 albums released per year so there's no mass death of artists, the rumors of the impending doom of the music industry are wildly exaggerated.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[mSparks43]

Actually, that's a bit of a naughty use of numbers.
Your link says:
Album sales ($15?) each are down 3.2%
and
and single track sales (99c) are up 5.6%

That is not the growth you purport it to be.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything else is pure rationalization

The word 'rationalization' is incredibly overused. I could just as easily claim that you're rationalizing because you made that comment. In reality, I have no idea what's going through your head.

That said, what is right and wrong is subjective, so for some people, there might be a fourth option: download it for free.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

OVERALL sales are up. Which is *what matters* in the end.
Album sales are practically the same at -0.6%, the increase in single track sales more than covers that.

and no where does it talk about concert sales, broadcast royalties etc.
So this report is a little bit incomprehensive and can be misleading. I'm quite certain that concert sales, broadcast royalties etc. are up quite significantly.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[mSparks43]

Nope, it quite clearly says overall album sales are down 3.6%.

That does not equate to growth. In any way shape or form. They may be selling 4% more "units" - but the average value of those units is down significantly.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[tlhIngan]

Nope, it quite clearly says overall album sales are down 3.6%.

That does not equate to growth. In any way shape or form. They may be selling 4% more "units" - but the average value of those units is down significantly.

Yeah, because people stop buying full 12-tracks bundles of music, preferring to go after the ONE song they want.

So instead of spending $15 for a CD or digital download of an album ($10), they're spending $0.99 to get the one song they want, and ignoring the 11 other pieces of crap they don't want. The album isn't dead - there's a lot of genres of music where the album is the preferred form (e.g., soundtrack scores), but for popular music, most people just want the song they heard on the radio. Perhaps they may want others, but they'll buy the one song they want rather than pay $9 or $14 more for a collection on them to get the one song they want. (And many people have complained of just this - having to buy a whole CD just for one song. And singles at $5?)

Obviously, the solution is to raise single track prices. Yeah, that'll fix it.

And yes, even the most reluctant of bands eventually caved into single track sales - deciding that the "integrity of the album" was costing them sales and better to sell the song the listener wants at 99 cents than have their $15 album downloaded for free just to get the one song.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

rationalization (noun) - to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

I wrote, "any other option you take is simply rationalization," and then proceeded to explain what was being rationalized pretty fucking clearly.

Rationalizing what? Why, if you look back, you'll see I said, "For initiating force against someone else and trampling their rights because you feel 'entitled' to something they have not agreed to give you a copy of."

I didn't stutter. Words have definitions. I used the word the way it's defined, and I explained quite clearly what I meant. The fourth option is a bullshit argument that has no business in a human society. You have no right to take something from someone else against their wishes - you can rationalize "download it for free" all you want, but it is a cheap, shoddy rationalization for misappropriation of something that is not yours to take. What's funny to me is that people rationalize taking something from someone else against that other person's wishes, but then get all indignant when the other person petitions the court for redress, and the court orders them to give something in return.

It's almost as if the pirates believe, "whats mine is mine, what's yours is mine, and you better just shut the fuck up and learn to live with it," and almost as if they believe that this is an ethical way to live. (And, guess what? If you want to play subjective word games and claim it's ethical for you to take something from someone else against their wishes, it's also ethical for the person you took something from to take something from YOU against YOUR wishes.)

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL9-esIM2CY

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[mSparks43]

Can't argue with that.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

So who do all of you file sharing proponents think you're 'sticking it to' exactly?

The sell outs in favor of local artists.

Oh right. So the reason the Pirate Bay is full of torrents of the latest Hollywood movies and RIAA artist's albums is because people don't want 'sell outs' and want to favor local artists.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are incorrect that "nobody needs" record labels. They do many jobs that artists are not necessarily good at, especially promotion. There's also marketing, album design, physical copy distribution, legal representation. These things not only require some inherent talent or ability, but often require upfront money and lots of time.

Nobody _needs_ commercial artists, or music. We really don't. Trust me, you'll live without hearing Justin Bieber songs. (You will actually live happy not hearing JB)

The bands you see playing on Saturday Night Live? Most of them are not making money, many still have day jobs.

Good for them. I guess they are having fun playing in SNL. I have hobbies also. One of them is playing guitar.

Artists should be gratefull we are granting them _any_ protections in the form of copyright and IP. If they are feeling bitchy about it how about we just abolish copyright for music alltogether? Lets go back to troubadours and rich music lovers supporting the creation of new masterpieces.

Could Bankrupt ...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that exactly what is intended?

Don't forget:

[archer, the]

Chew gum.

Re:Don't forget:

[Anonymous Coward]

And blow some bubbles while your at it.

Also Duke Nukem was about a badass kicking the lizard aliens off the planet and saving all the babes.

EU is not U$A.

[Anonymous Coward]

Su*k di*k u$tards.

Re:EU is not U$A.

[O('_')O_Bush]

Sorry this offends your kooky views that all bad things come from the U.S., and that the EU doesn't have a shitpile of problems of its own.

Re:EU is not U$A.

[Entropius]

The US has, in general, done a better job of protecting freedom of speech than the EU.

Just sayin'.

Re:EU is not U$A.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has, in general, done a better job of protecting freedom of speech than the EU.

Just sayin'.

The EU has done a better job of protecting individual freedoms than the US. Oh and it has a judicial system that is designed to protect the individual, rather than throw him in jail arbitrarily under some false excuse.

Re:EU is not U$A.

[Xest]

Yes, the problem is that the elements of speech the US has done a better job of protecting are things like being able to protest next to dead soldiers graves and call them and their families "fags". It does however still legislate against many types of speech which is pretty much the same as in Europe. See sections 4 and 5 for a decent overview:

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

I'm not really convinced that the US is any better off for protecting the speech it does protect that some individual European nations do not. Allowing everyone from the KKK, to the Phelps, to Neo Nazis to say what they want doesn't strike me as having improved the richness of discourse in the US. If anything US political discourse at least seems to be getting ever more populist, and ever more irrational.

i dont want to go to school

[Anonymous Coward]

with some nigger kids.

Re:i dont want to go to school

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Then move back to Sandy Hook, Casper.

Time to take up a collection, then.

[rastoboy29]

Shall we?  I'd be happy to organize it.

Re:Time to take up a collection, then.

[CanEHdian]

OK, so your comment is Funny...

...but here is how you can help

duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you shouldn't base your party around stealing other peoples products that they've invested millions in.

Re:duh

[Anonymous Coward]

stealing

Stupid misconceptions like this are one of the reasons why we need a Pirate Party.

Music industry could bankrupt every one of us

[jsepeta]

at $200,000 a song, and not being held to prove intent to distribute, the music industry could prosecute anyone into bankruptcy. fuck them. i paid piracy taxes on blank cd's and blank cassette tapes, taxes which go straight into the RIAA's coffers. yet i record my own music, and am blamed ahead of time for crimes i haven't committed. so yes, fuck the music industry, fuck them all the way.

Re:Music industry could bankrupt every one of us

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah here they collect those taxes too (Finland), and they tried to pursue adding that tax to *all* digital devices capable of playback. Including computers, phones etc. and they were quite close to succeed in the sense that the government actually spent time to look into this, and there was quite a bit of talk about making that happen!

One pays tax to be allowed to copy music - yet when you do that you are criminal. Such bullshit.
The very original intent of that tax was allowing individuals to copy music freely!!
Yet, just a little bit while ago they wanted to sue a little girl for downloading *single torrent file*, and not even the actual song!

With "Pirate" in the name, do they expect to win?

[109 97 116 116]

Do these people really think when a trial goes to jury or even just judgement, that the jurors or judge is going to catch the "too cute by half" nature of their name and let them off?

Vexatious litigation is nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really nothing special. They'll get their costs back from the BPI, their lawyer will hold off on bills as long as he thinks they can ultimately pay, or the case will be won. If the litigation is vexatious (the litigation process is designed to be the punitive, rather than the court decision), then they can do serious damage in return to the BPI.

As it is, this lawsuit is a good thing, since it will test whether a ban on a website that doesn't actually infringe copyright itself, is worth so much that you ban a *gateway* to a website that doesn't infringe copyright itself... I mean how far do we go with this?

See, EVERY proxy does this to the nth degree. EVERY proxy lets me access some sites that are banned somewhere for some reason.

So what they did was say "here's a proxy that lets you access pirate bay", but actually EVERY proxy outside the UK does that. What they're doing is nothing special and thus the consequence of this lawsuit succeeding would collapse the net.

Thus it won't succeed.

But then when it fails, it opens the doorway for everyone to introduce proxies to sites that also link to copyright infringements but don't infringe themselves*.

* See when we go down this road, it becomes difficult to even explain. Bob committed a murder, Anton runs a tour of the murder scene, Anton is prosecuted, because they can't get Bob and Anton is an easier target. Dave continues to sell tickets to Anton's gruesome tour. So they sue Dave for .... well.... Bob's murder. Having already prosecuted Anton for that murder.

Right idea, wrong follow through.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the Pirate Party needs to do, rather than run their own proxy, and thus invite this kind of attention, is educate people on how to use Tor, and how to route their TRACKER communications through Tor (NOT their p2p communications, as this breaks both the Tor network AND doesn't actually work very well at securing privacy simultaneously, due to the way Bittorrent works). Then watch the recording industry sit back and figure out how to threaten the Tor network itself.

Not to say there isn't merit in making a stand symbolically and publicly as they're doing, as frankly, they should prevail IF sanity is being adhered to by the legal system. But, back in reality, it's good to recognize that you can't always fix structures that engage in and protect bullying, and nor can you fix the ignorance by a system that is supposed to keep said structures/entities in check.

Re:Right idea, wrong follow through.

[Anonymous Coward]

The proxy was put in place to assist PPNL with bandwidth issues with their own proxy. The Party continued to run the UK proxy even after PPNL was forced to terminate theirs. The proxy was also in place prior to the court orders against TPB. That's the only reason it was there in the first place.

A new McLibel trial?

[Cassini2]

The McLibel trial was widely regarded as the biggest publicity disaster to every hit McDonalds.

This case is so peripherally connected with file sharing, that it could sour the public on the recording industry. Specifically, if England, if they go to trial, the can subpoena the record company executives to testify at trial. There is no end of embarassing documents that might come up.

Re:A new McLibel trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet McDonalds are still on every high street, doing extremely well for themselves, while the poor bastards they sued are probably living in poverty in a squat somewhere. Not much of a victory.

Re:A new McLibel trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

This case is so peripherally connected with file sharing, that it could sour the public on the recording industry. Specifically, if England, if they go to trial, the can subpoena the record company executives to testify at trial. There is no end of embarassing documents that might come up.

This case is about a group of people offering proxy access to a website, a website which exists to help people find torrents of films and albums so they can be downloaded in breach of copyright (in the vast majority of cases). That's hardly 'peripherally connected' to file sharing. And however the case goes, it is unlikely that any English judge would allow endless subpoenas for irrelevant testimony from record execs about things that the PPUk considers bad but don't relate to the actual lawsuit in question. It won't be possible to start demanding tax returns etc as they don't relate to the case.

Low voter turn out

[jago25_98]

If politics changed anything they'd ban it.
Can it be made any clearer to terrorists and extremists that there is no room for change within the system.

Purchasing music, movies, or paying for cable

[Sean]

Purchasing music, movies, or paying for cable TV is immoral. Just don't do it, and try your best to stop your friends and family from doing it.

Re:Purchasing music, movies, or paying for cable

[serviscope_minor]

Purchasing music, movies, or paying for cable TV is immoral.

I don't see why. Giving money to companies associated with these ass clowns is, sure. But there's a world of stuff out there. It's perfectly possible to acquite art, pay the artist and not involve these litigious bastards in any way whatsoever.

Re:Purchasing music, movies, or paying for cable

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it? Please tell me which cable TV company you use that is not associated with these ass clowns in any way or form NOR does it financially contribute to these ass clowns. I'm curious...

GP is right. If you are giving money to these litigious bastards, you are part of the PROBLEM, not of the solution.

Some things are more important than getting your quick fix of entertainment.

With that said, I agree with you... there are indie artists out there that actually deserve your money. Look for them, love them, support them.

Am I really that extreme?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't the idea that assisted assisted file sharing violates copyright law suggest a problem with the law?
Doesn't the fact that a political party is struggling to raise the funds it needs to protect itself from a copyright lawsuit hint at a problem with the justice system?
Perhaps I've been reading Slashdot too long but I have a hard time imagining a mentally healthy adult that sees no real problem here.

Torches and Pitchforks

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously.

Re:With "Pirate" in the name, do they expect to wi

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be no different to it being against the MRLP, it's an official party recognised by the UK Electoral Commission. The judge will rule on the basis of the law. I don't believe there is a jury for civil cases though.

You may be right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the solution is to change the name from "Pirate Party" to the "Totally Respect Other People's Stuff Party" or the TROPS Party.

Likewise, "The Pirate Bay" should change its name to "The We Totally Have Nothing That Belongs To Anyone Else Here Bay"

That'd fix it.

Re:You may be right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, seems like calling themselves a "pirate" (which, in itself, is a concept that has no legal definition) is now a crime, for some unstated reason.

Besides, if you go to Wikipedia and look up "Pirate" or "Piracy", what you get is:

  - Pirate: "A pirate is a person who commits warlike acts at sea without the authorization of any nation."

  - Piracy: "Piracy is typically an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea. The term can include acts committed on land, in the air, or in other major bodies of water or on a shore."

So... I guess GP is claiming (without any kind of proof) that TPB and/or the UK Pirate Party are engaging in warlike acts at sea without the authorization of any nation? That's odd.

Re:You may be right.

[Nostromo21]

I'm rather partial to using the more correct term "copyright (or IP) revolutionary". Viva la revolucion! :)

All Publicity...

[Martin S.]

The Pirate Party should consider the McLibel defence.

If most of the Music released today wasn't such...

[Anonymous Coward]

a pile of steaming dog poo then I might be interested in purchasing some.
I don't download but prefer physical media. 95% of my collection which includes 400+ Albums (vinyl) and 200+ CD's is of pre 1985 recordings. A lot of it is pre-1970 Jazz, Blues and Rock.
Pretty well all Musack that gets played on mainstream stations is IMHO total rubbish. The likes of the MPAA, BPI etc all know this. They need the sort of income from these cases just to survive.
The Ironic thing is that I actually work in part of the old EMI site at Hayes, West London. The block is called 'The Old Vinyl Factory'.

This lawsuit will do nothing more than increase membership and awareness of the Pirate Party.

Always wondered.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who owns the copyright?
Righthaven went bust because they didn't own the copyright of the materials that were infringed upon. Do the BPI, RIAA or MPAA actually own the copyrights? If not, in the U.S they aren't allowed to sue for copyright infringement. Aren't they Trade Associations that represent the Industries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_association./

Re:Always wondered.

[Grumbleduke]

The BPI is a private company, whose members include (iirc) various record labels. It will own copyrights, but not any in music. However, what they will do is get some of their record labels to act as claimants for them - the BPI runs the litigation, but the record labels sign the documents (and possibly the cheques). In the first Pirate Bay case, the claimants were 9 different record labels (which doesn't sound at all like anticompetitive collusion to me...).

disproportionate punishment

[Xicor]

in the US, where murder is held as the worst crime and should be given the worst punishment... it isnt. downloading an album of michael jackson's songs will give you a longer prison sentence than murdering michael jackson... yea... fuck the music industry.

Let's stop acting surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

The Pirate Bay is illegal. Just because you declare yourself a political party, doesn't mean you get excused from the law.

I know the law is stupid, but that's the entire point of forming the political party, to fight it. If this were the case, all NAMBLA would have to do to have sex with 6 year old boys was declare themselves a political party.

And before anyone argues that Pirate Bay was not built for infringement, it's named PIRATE BAY.

Re:Let's stop acting surprised

[Grumbleduke]

Which precise law is the Pirate Party (or rather, its officers) breaking? Please provide either case law or a statutory reference.

One big difference

[SmallFurryCreature]

The content industry has no reputation left to loose, the days people liked a record label as much as an artist is long gone.

Furthermore, the case would be fought by a proxy, not by a restaurant chain people have to physically enter to buy stuff from.

McDonald's has lots of competition for food pounds, the content industry controls ALL content, they are united. If people wanted to boycott McDonald's (and how many did that anyway?) they can still go to Burger King. If they want to boycott the record labels, they got to stop listening to music. Even just listening to the radio is supporting the record industry and all their evil. And people aren't going to stop doing that. Not because they entirely disagree, they might even think that SOMEONE has to do something but that someone is NOT them!

Want some proof? The Simspons and Futurama are usually shows that are quick to point out how evil business is, yet on copyright infringement, they tout the party line WITHOUT question. Liberal lefty show my ass not when the creators income is on the line. The show made light of outsourcing by showing the show being created under horrible conditions but have you seen a single scene were copyright infringement is shown as ANYTHING but evil stealing?

THAT is the big difference.

McDonald's relies on the media for its reputation. Big content IS the media. They will make certain the plebs are not disturbed by confusing ideas about right and wrong. They will tell them and the plebs will listen. They always have, they always will.

War of attrition

[nurb432]

That is all this is, no real 'escalation' has occurred. I dont think this 'war' will ever end anyway, much like the 'war on terror', so instead of getting all worked up about today's silliness, its better to just plan for the long term.

We need to go deeper

[beatsme]

Quick, someone set-up a proxy of their proxy.

It has to be ruled it is first.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike Germany, anything not forbidden by law is allowed.

You have to make a case it is illegal.

Then again, who can claim copyright against a torrent link?

If they try, the open themselves up to a plagiarism suite (plus copyright infringement and a full court case for fraud).

Piracy is only negative because

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though the entertainment industry downplay the glamorizing of gang and violence affecting real life one thing never glamorized anywhere is piracy as the last thing the entertainment industry wants to do is give some positive mainstream reference.

Re:With "Pirate" in the name, do they expect to wi

[Grumbleduke]

This will almost certainly not see a jury (it's not a criminal case at the moment). As for the judge being biased due to the name of the Party, I really hope our judges are above that sort of thing. Plus it's not the Party, but some of its officers, being threatened.

If you think the name is a bad thing, you might want to look up the history of the term "Tory." Names are just names, some people take 'bad' names as a badge of honour.

[Disclaimer: I am a member of, and work for, the Party, but an not directly involved in this BPI business.]

Would a disproportionate escalation not be

[Anonymous Coward]

For us, as consumers to boycott any and all shops that sells music from these record companies?

And where would that leave us? Where can we do our shopping?

Personal note, I have not bought any CDs or DVDs for xmas this year, neither do I plan to for as long as this battle goes on.

Do they really want to set this precedent?

[Anonymous Coward]

BPI member corporations knowingly supplied money to artists that can reasonably be expected to spend it on drugs and prostitutes. That's a crime. Would they like to be held personally liable?

Government party members voted for interventions that led to torture and murder. Please set a precedent that they can be held personally liable.