TPB Files Police Complaint Against CPIAC for Copying Website

Last week, a Finnish anti-piracy agency copied the CSS and HTML of The Pirate Bay. Today, TPB announced that they have filed a police report and are preparing to sue for copyright infringement: "The Pirate Bay, the world’s largest site for cultural diversity and file sharing, has today (Monday 2013-02-18) reported a suspected crime to the Finnish police. The suspected criminals are the Finnish anti-piracy organization CIAPC (locally known as TTVK). The reason is that CIAPC have copied files from which The Pirate Bay is built, to produce a fraudulent parody site. While The Pirate Bay may have a positive view on copying, it will not stand by and watch copyright enforcing organizations disrespect copyright." The Pirate Bay is also arguing that parody laws do not apply thanks to recent legal precedent.

Comments

Oh this will go well.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the Pirate Bay won't come out of this looking like dicks.

Re:Oh this will go well.

[amicusNYCL]

The Pirate Bay, the world’s largest site for cultural diversity

Is there some sort of citation for that, or do they just think it sounds good?

Re:Oh this will go well.

[terbeaux]

Being a very large site they often make outrageous and unfounded claims like "The Galaxy's Largest BitTorrent Site."

I think it is hilarious if not true as well.

Did you see the documentary? http://youtu.be/eTOKXCEwo_8

Re:Oh this will go well.

[Entropius]

They'll come out of it looking like giant trolls, which they are, and which some folks will find hilarious.

mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Mirror, for those who cannot access thepiratebay.se.

http://malaysiabay.org/blog/227

Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this right... TPB are suing, cause someone pirated their design??

Right...

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot if you don't understand the whole statement they are making by this. In particular, it's important to note that the webcode in question IS copyrighted by TPB. Furthermore, TPB does not host anything which they do not have the copyright for.

It is not like TPB is suing to make money - it is simply a political statement, and a very good one at that. I hope they go far with this, because it really is completely legit and fair.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Beardo the Bearded]

Exactly.

TPB (which does not host any pirated material whatsoever) had their copyrighted site design stolen by a group that has been lobbying the government to put people in jail (for longer terms than rape or murder) for copying copyright material.

The copyright lobby group is now trying to say "no no, it's parody" but they've been lobbying hard to get parody removed from the list of exemptions and have recently succeeded.

Thus, TPB is attempting to hoist them on their own petard.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[gnasher719]

The copyright lobby group is now trying to say "no no, it's parody" but they've been lobbying hard to get parody removed from the list of exemptions and have recently succeeded.

Microsoft wouldn't be happy if you used a pirated copy of Microsoft Word to write a parody of Harry Potter. These guys try to create a parody of a website, not a parody of someone's CSS code.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[dragon-file]

Actually, Bill gates doesn't mind a little piracy. "Although the world's largest software maker spends millions of dollars annually to combat illegal copying and distribution of its products, critics allege -- and Microsoft acknowledges -- that piracy sometimes helps the company establish itself in emerging markets and fend off threats from free open-source programs." http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropiracy9

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

From http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130218/10364722017/pirate-bays-lawsuit-against-anti-piracy-group-more-about-exposing-double-standards-enforcement.shtml

TPB has now said that it has reported the parody CIAPC site to the Economic Crime Unit. Why? Well, it appears the whole thing is really about exposing the double standard by Finnish law enforcement. You see, recently, Finnish prosecutors went after a parody site by Finnish "software developer, researcher and internet activist" Matti Nikki. So, TPB, is noting that it just wants to see the law applied equally (by which it means, showing how farcical the law is, knowing that law enforcement will never prosecute this):

        “In a similar case, the prosecution and the Helsinki Court of Appeals have found that a parody site can violate the moral rights of the original author. Changing the logo or making slight edits to the text are not enough to remove this liability,” they informed the police.

The Finnish EFF supported this claim, explaining to TorrentFreak (in the link above) that seeing how prosecutors reacted would be quite telling:

        “It’s interesting to see, how the police reacts to Pirate Bay’s demands. On facts the case is indeed very similar to Matti Nikki’s case, in which the prosecutor decided to bring the charges on behalf of Save the Children.

        “The law should be the same for everyone so now the objectivity of the Finnish police is going to be tested. Anyway as others have already pointed out, even if Pirate Bay loses the case, it’s a victory for their cause.”

So, while others were mocking, it appears there was a much more serious thought process going on here. One of the following possibilities are likely to occur:

        Finnish prosecutors do absolutely nothing, thus exposing their complete double standard in enforcing the law.
        A lawsuit happens, and TPB "loses" the case, as it's an obvious parody situation which should be allowed -- and thus, TPB reinforces the protections for parody.
        A lawsuit happens TPB actually wins the case, which most people would equally recognize as preposterous after seeing the initial press coverage of the story.

It's looking like this was, yet again, a more clever move than many gave them credit for initially.

Re: Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an asshat. Check out the little 'copy me icon' (whatever the hell it's called) on the bottom of TPB's site. That pretty much is a free lunch. What the CIAPC is stupid and ironic, but I don't think it's a crime with a "go ahead, take one" sign plastered on TBP.

Re: Pirate a pirate

[thaylin]

It could be said that they want you to copy the look feel and what they do, no steal the source code.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Luckyo]

The site doesn't belong to law enforcement. It's just a regular "registered organisation". Anyone can register one, it costs about 100EUR to do so.

What happened is that this organisation filed a crime report with police alongside evidence which police (that is actually law enforcement organisation) investigated.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hoist them with their own petard. A petard is a device similar to a hand grenade so the explosion could propel the bearer into the air if the bearer dropped it or the target threw it back at the original bearer.

Re: Pirate a pirate

[cheater512]

Its not technically a legal licence unlike say Creative Commons.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

'Stolen'? Nonsense.

Reality requires a transfer of possession for theft to have occurred. Copying a site design is not theft. It is simply a copy of an idea which is something that does not exist in reality and thus is not property, but instead is an abstraction that describes something in reality(in this case an arrangement of data on a server). To steal the design of a site, they would have to deprive the owner of the actual thing which the idea of the site design describes. This would require taking actual property(be it the server itself or somehow messing with the data arrangement on the server but then it wouldn't be so much a matter of transfer of property so much as destruction of it).

Whatever the moral implications, let us at least speak correctly and precisely about the immediate actions, the facts. In doing so, perhaps it will help us draw more truthful conclusions. I would never defend government institutions(all of which by definition steal and worse on a daily basis) but I do not tolerate misidentification and conflation of ethical actions; that leads to acceptance of evil(or condemnation of virtue).

Re:Pirate a pirate

[NotQuiteReal]

Calling yourself a pirate does not make you a pirate.

Pirating from one who calls themselves a pirate, does make you a pirate.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[FlyingGuy]

FUCK those asshats.

It must suck really hard when karma comes around to fuck you in the ass.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[um... Lucas]

this is a great big fuckup on piratebays part... they're high on confidence or what not. WHat do they want to prove? That copying copyrighted material is illegal? Do they really want to go there?

Very silly idea, and not at all thought through. Unless they did think it through and still determine that this was something worth pretending to pursue.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

Look it up before you educate others. You're not exactly right. A petard is an explosive but it's not like a hand grenade at all.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[um... Lucas]

what if the court finds that there is actual infringement going on and orders damages not be paid until piratebay ceases providing magnet links to other infringing material on their website?

I'm sorry, I have no sympathy for piratebay. It's piracy plain and simple. People ought to own up to what they're doing, stealing, not saying information wants to be free or what not. And enjoy it while it lasts. Which will be a much shorter period of time if piratebay instists on instead of trying to stay one step ahead of the law and technology, instead decides they want to fight out such trivial cases in the courtrooms...

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy hell, if you're that stupid, why are you broadcasting it?

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to hit anti piracy group where it hurts.
How can antipiracy group look good when THEY break laws they are supposed to protect on behalf of their clients.
WIn/Win TPB, good job!

Re:Pirate a pirate

[gmhowell]

It's hoist them with their own petard. A petard is a device similar to a hand grenade so the explosion could propel the bearer into the air if the bearer dropped it or the target threw it back at the original bearer.

Old school rocket jumping. Got it.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

:I'm sorry, I have no sympathy for piratebay. It's piracy plain and simple.

Congratulations, you're a hipocrite!

People ought to own up to what they're doing,

You can lead the way by owning up to being a hipocrite.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Engeekneer]

WHat do they want to prove? That copying copyrighted material is illegal? Do they really want to go there?

I don't thing that's even a question? Isn't intellectual property infriction pretty conclusively illegal without having to prove it

Very silly idea, and not at all thought through. Unless they did think it through and still determine that this was something worth pretending to pursue.

I disagee. They are calling out the hypocricy of the copyright group when they do the one thing they are agaist. It's like PETA having an annual moose hunt. In addition I think this calls into attention the state of currect copyright law. If the group claims it was a mistake, it clearly shows that even the "experts" have no clue how to stay withing the law.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[sjames]

TPB doesn't copy copyrighted material that doesn't belong to them. Apparently, CPIAC does though.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[sjames]

Exactly. And now it is up to prosecutors to either charge CPIAC like they have done to others and show CPAIC to be hypocrites OR ignore the matter and prove that not all are equal under the law as implemented.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[jones_supa]

Furthermore, TPB does not host anything which they do not have the copyright for.

Maybe, but they certainly are serious partners in crime. Torrenting would be helluvalot harder if there was not an indexing service like TPB available, even if you had all the decentralized magnet links in the world.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

What has P/B ever copied.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to prove that even the copyright "police" is copying, that those copyright organisations are there just for the money and not for protecting copyright as they claim.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

"what if the court finds that there is actual infringement going on and orders damages not be paid until piratebay ceases providing magnet links to other infringing material on their website?"

I don't think that's possible. It would be different case against pirate bay, and this case is not against pirate bay, so the judge can't just order the damages not to be paid. This is not USA.

So you don't think the copyright organisation needs to obey the law, but pirate bay should?

Re:Pirate a pirate

[MMC Monster]

The Finnish EFF supported this claim, explaining to TorrentFreak (in the link above) that seeing how prosecutors reacted would be quite telling:

Well, I guess it's time to give more money to the EFF.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[sirlark]

No! This is win-win for TPB. If they win the case they get to publically point out the hypocracy of the anti-piracy lobby, as well as solidly discredit their 'expertise' (as pointed out by engeekner below). If they lose, presumably because of fair use/parody being used as a defense, they have a precedent set that is actually supportive of their larger goals, i.e. that parody and fair use are applicable defences in cases of copyright infringement. The only other ways it could go are, in the worst case the case is thrown out, and TPB get to say "We aren't even given fair access to the justice system anymore", or they lose because the situation isn't considered infringement, i.e. that their claims are false. If this is the case, then there's a precedent that a direct digital copy does not constitute infrigment.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you haven't been to see a movie in the last few years then? As they keep telling me over and over again before they let me watch what I've paid to see - copyright infringement is theft.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they just make pretty buck out of providing means to others to do so.

And they are protecting their revenue stream.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a great big fuckup on piratebays part... they're high on confidence or what not. WHat do they want to prove? That copying copyrighted material is illegal? Do they really want to go there?

That nobody respects copyright, not even the pro-copyright organizations themselves.

And thus, copyright law is simply a tool for the wealthy to hit the not so wealthy with. The pro-copyright organizations are not defending copyright because they want illegal copying stopped, they want it to continue (especially when doing it themselves), and just be able to collect money from the not so wealthy for doing what everybody does (including themselves).

Re:Pirate a pirate

[wonkey_monkey]

Look it up before you educate others.

Calm down a bit before you got mental at others. The GP's statement that

A petard is an explosive but it's not like a hand grenade at all.

Except for them both being portable explosives? Sure, the GP could've picked a closer match from the modern arsenal, but not one that most people would be more familiar with than hand grenades.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[wertigon]

Hardly. Google is also such an indexing service. Just google for whatever with the name torrent behind it. I can assure you it will be at least as effective as TPB.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Anonymous Coward]

The site doesn't belong to law enforcement. It's just a regular "registered organisation". Anyone can register one, it costs about 100EUR to do so.

It's interesting to note that the organization in question has chosen to call itself with a name that sounds like an bureau of the government. They are intentionally trying to get people believe confused about their role and the extent of their powers.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Luckyo]

This isn't really unusual in the West. Take a look at US Chamber of Commerce for a much more flagrant case.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Luckyo]

Finnish law allows police to exercise its power to search without a warrant for any crime that has potential sentence of more then 6 months in prison. It's usually used in cases where someone gets caught with significant amount of drugs on their persona > search his/her house.

They're really careful about not abusing this right, as it's generally understood that this is a gentleman's agreement (common in our culture) that such rights are granted with assumption that they will not be abused.

This is why it raised to much critique when they used it to search the girl's house. Considering the fallout, I find it likely that those on top learned the lesson and will not be conducting similar searches.

As another example of similar cases, we have "lex nokia", which is the right of employer to search private information such as email of the employer. In the end, law had a caveat of "company must inform privacy watchdog before any search". Result: zero searches because of fear of stigma from privacy watchdog publicizing the case.

However it's pretty clear that police won't need to do searches here. Organisation in question openly admits to using the code, so this will likely go straight to the court with minimal investigation required.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[cbhacking]

Bullshit. If that were true (i.e. if you could get the .torrent files from Google directly), there would be no need for sites like TPB. What you suggest works only because of TPB and its multitude of clones. It wasn't that long ago that it effectively worked *only* because of TPB. Claiming that because you can find illegal torrent using Google makes it the same as the sites hosting illegal torrents is stupid. The one takes manual human effort and intentional action to create, with the blatantly obvious intention of facilitating copyright infringement (it's in their name...). The other is an automated process that operates on a scope vastly larger than any organization like TPB, or even Google themselves, could ever manage to control.

Yes, Google could (and sometimes has) fail to return any TPB links, but that doesn't mean TPB's entire raison d'etre isn't to enable copyright infringement on a grand scale, and by now they're well enough known that using a search engine to find them is almost a pure waste of time.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Beardo the Bearded]

I did look it up before I posted. Did you?

Re:Pirate a pirate

[HappyPsycho]

There never was a need for sites like TPB, just look at pretty much all the P2P software that preceeded it. eMule, Kazaa, etc never needed a central server to host the equivalent of a torrent. Bittorrent itself is also moving away from the torrent site structure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent#Distributed_trackers . The reason I believe these features are only now being developed in Bittorrent is most likely because a simpler / easier way existed and the demand for such a feature was not there.

The reason I think people use TPB, et all instead of google is simply the fact that Google is a general purpose search engine. Search for Ironman in Google you get a bunch of different results including wikipedia pages, links to the movie theatres, stuff completely unrelated to the movies / comics like the "Ironman Triathlon", etc. Do the same search in TPB the latest movie is going to be the #1 result the vast majority of the time. Add in little nice-to-haves like "only give me torrents that are being seeded" which is a very simple specialization based on knowledge of the protocol and its usage makes TPB the clear winner in terms of efficiently finding what the user wants.

This takes nothing away from google search as a tool, just that a better tool for this subset of tasks exists and users are simply following the mantra of "Using the best tool for the job".

Re:Pirate a pirate

[HappyPsycho]

I don't think thats a fair comparison, the parodied material is not what is being pirated.

The copy of MS Word is being pirated, no questions asked, so MS may have a claim but J. K. Rowling probably won't if you are making a parody off of her works.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[DarwinSurvivor]

Bullshit.

Bullshit bullshit.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[Yakasha]

No! This is win-win for TPB. If they win the case they get to publically point out the hypocracy of the anti-piracy lobby, as well as solidly discredit their 'expertise' (as pointed out by engeekner below). If they lose, presumably because of fair use/parody being used as a defense, they have a precedent set that is actually supportive of their larger goals, i.e. that parody and fair use are applicable defences in cases of copyright infringement. The only other ways it could go are, in the worst case the case is thrown out, and TPB get to say "We aren't even given fair access to the justice system anymore", or they lose because the situation isn't considered infringement, i.e. that their claims are false. If this is the case, then there's a precedent that a direct digital copy does not constitute infrigment.

Unless TPB loses because they have a kopimi logo on their site, giving anybody explicit permission to copy any aspect of their site, thus strengthening the entire pro-copyright lobby because "Hey, look, copyright law works!"

I'm really not sure why all the pro-TPB fans on here are completely ignoring that very important legal notice. You can bet CIAPC's lawyers won't. Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to prevent that argument from being brought up in court.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[jones_supa]

You are just meta-searching there. If there wasn't TPB and other torrent indexes, Google would not show up much results for pirated torrent queries.

Re:Pirate a pirate

[sirlark]

Okay, I didn't notice the kopimi logo before, but subsequent investigation turns up the following

• The kopimi logo only exists on the front page, and what it covers is not specified explicitly. Presumably, in source file licence notices would override the somewhat vague domain covered by a linked image. At most generous interpretation, it covers entire front page (html, css, js, images), more likely it could be argued that since the logo is only linked in the html, that's all it covers.
• That said, I can't find any licence notices in the html or css source either. It'll be interesting to see whether automatic assumed copyright will take precedence over the vague assertions of the kopimi logo or not. Are copyright (dis)claims automatically inherited by by derivative/associated works? Considering the language in the GPL probably not.
• Finally, the kopimi wording doesn't explicitly grant permission. Flimsy, I know, but also a posisble argument.

All in all, you raise a good point, but I don't think it'll sink TPB's case

Re:Pirate a pirate

[denmarkw00t]

Nonononono you're doing it wrong. They win - they either get their settlement from their lawsuit = $$$ & publicity. Or, they win - the court declares that such copyright claims on something that someone creates, promotes, and shares with the world (in one form or another), is not covered by copyright law. If the latter is the case, then the torrents they help distribute aren't any more in violation than the CPIAC.

Hah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant.

Re:Hah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad someone gets it. Do people really not understand that this is intentional irony? TPB is making a mockery of the system, not protecting IP...

Re:Hah.

[Synerg1y]

At this point in the game, it's throwing fuel in the fire, the only unique thing is it's coming from the other side of the fire for once. The copyright system is broken, and I'm sure at least part of tpb's meaningfulness is proving that.

Re:Hah.

[AK Marc]

The system has already made a mockery of itself. TPB is just pointing at the system and inviting us to laugh at it.

Could make for an interesting precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

If CIAPC uses the copyrighted material, wouldn't that legitimize what TPB is doing ;-)

Interesting.

Hypocrisy

[AmazingRuss]

... now from both sides.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

How? One side is hosting copyrighted content and the other is not. Furthermore, one is a commercial entity, and the other is only making a hilarious political statement. Sorry, but I only see hypocrisy from one side.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you ignore the part where TPB knowingly facilities millions of people to download illegal content. Even if what they're doing is legal, you have to be fucking retarded to not see the hypocrisy here.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but seeing as they already got some of tpb members in prison for long sentences its only fair.

Re:Hypocrisy

[fredprado]

They "facilitate" copyright infringement, which is not a crime in most countries unless it is done for money, about as much as Google or any search engine. The fact is copyright is an obsolete system that has to go, and it will go because people don't want it any more, and that is not Piratebay's fault or any entity's fault. The blame is on the system that cannot possibly work anymore.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Intentional, blatant hypocrisy, with a political motive, is properly called satire. TPB is not trying for subtle humor, it is going for mockery and using the courts to demonstrate the absurdity of the situation. This is truly popcorn munching worthy fun.

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

And who do you think will publish content in this idealist future copyright-free world? Or do you think that the general public will be truly satisfied with unending ads, unwanted porn popups, spam, and amateur cat videos?

Re:Hypocrisy

[sg_oneill]

Its not hypocrisy, its forcing them to live by the rules they themselves created. By doing this they expose the rotten double standard of copyright laws.

Imagine if the powerful had to live by the rules they created. No more police violence because the police could not mug people, no more wars Because murder would be illegal for the powerful too, no more bank shenanigans because the bankers could not burglarize people anymore. So many ills in society over.

So lets make the bastards follow their own rules I say.

Re:Hypocrisy

[AmazingRuss]

The pirate bay wants to make them follow the rules, when the TPB exists only because of the rules they don't follow?

It's hypocrisy. You can't see it because TPB is on "your" side.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

And who do you think will publish content in this idealist future copyright-free world?

I see what you did there. Well, news flash Mr Dinosaur. The services of you and your brethren of publishing companies are no longer required. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, it seems that the general public are not wholly satisfied with copyright law.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Dodgy G33za]

Where there is a market, someone will invent a mechanism.

Before copyright there were patrons of the arts for the high end stuff, and people throwing coins at traveling musicians and story tellers at the low end. The former can quite easily be replicated today, with governments and crowdsourced funding also playing a role. The latter still exists today, with bands doing gigs, book readings by the author etc.

And do not underestimate the power of user generated content. YouTube has grown very fat and happy on it.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Arguing for copyright and accusing GP is not seeing the bigger picture, while not seeing the bigger picture yourself.

Hypocrisy is right.

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

Self-publication is still publishing.

My question stands.

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

Before copyright, the time, expense, and effort involved in making copies of works tended to be adequate to provide a sufficient measure of exclusivity for the patrons who would commission the works. Now, copying can be done with a push of a button, so the same checks and balances no longer apply. As for user-generated content, sure... some big companies will probably make a living off of it, like youtube. At least with copyright intact, a smalltime content maker has an equal chance of being seen, and an assurance that nobody else is going to take credit for what they did (or do you think that plagiarism would even have any meaning without copyright?)

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's mainly hilarious to use the same laws these idiots lobbied for against them in an effort to show them how flawed their reasoning is. That won't work even if they did lose, of course, because these people are thick-headed freedom-haters.

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

The question stands. If current status self-published content is any indication, how in the world does anybody think that the absence of copyright will actually result in anything other than just an unending deluge of self-published shit?0

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Self-publication is still publishing.

My question stands.

Did anybody pay you to write the publication quoted here?

Re:Hypocrisy

[cffrost]

The pirate bay wants to make them follow the rules, when the TPB exists only because of the rules they don't follow?

Which rules is TPB not following?

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

The ones about intellectual property, that they are also suing about?

Re:Hypocrisy

[cffrost]

The ones about intellectual property, that they are also suing about?

TPB's isn't using another site's style sheets or HTML.

Re:Hypocrisy

[bzipitidoo]

Copyright is unnecessary. You forget it is only a means. The goal is "Progress of Science and useful Arts", but since when has copyright been the only way to achieve that? Never. You should ask whether copyright helps at all. With current capabilities, copyright is actually more of a hindrance than a help. The Internet is vastly more capable of handling the work of publication and distribution than antiquated businesses that insist on using far more expensive physical means for those same tasks. I quite agree with the GP. Publishers should do us all a favor and either adapt or die. Preferably die, like the horse and carriage. Let our public libraries go all digital. Publishers like to think they provide value in screening out crap, and editing the good stuff to make it better, but often what they do is more like censorship than editing. Who knows how many awesome stories were buried because publishers, who are notoriously conservative, didn't think it would sell. They've all but ruined music with their attempts to make it cheaper to produce by restricting the permitted range of expression. The community can screen much better than a bunch of crusty old paternalistic editors.

You already mentioned other ways, when you sneered at them all as if it's obvious they are worse or inadequate. Ads have worked for radio and TV for decades. Patrons have supported artists for centuries. Merchandising may be crass, but it also works. We can certainly expand and improve patronage greatly if we want more art.

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

No... but then my comment wasn't exactly something that many people would be interested in either... my original point stands. Most self-published content is of negligible interest to people outside of a closed group, and if that was actually *all* that there was, there'd be a correspondingly smaller amount of content intake, leading to cultural stagnation. When civilizations get bored, they do crazy shit.

Re:Hypocrisy

[bzipitidoo]

Ah, I thought you would pull that one. When you say:

an assurance that nobody else is going to take credit for what they did (or do you think that plagiarism would even have any meaning without copyright?)

You confuse 2 separate issues. Plagiarism has meaning independent of copyright, and can be stopped just fine without it. Or do you think teachers use copyright law to detect cheating on essay assignments? Search engines are great at instantly discovering plagiarism, no need for copyright.

Re:Hypocrisy

[tibman]

Yeah, like art and local music.. oh wait

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

The only defense an artist has against plagiarism *IS* copyright.... I'm not talking about academic dishonesty, I'm talking about blatantly taking somebody else's content and publicly publishing it as your own. If some well-known person plagiarizes some sufficiently unknown person's content, the plagiarism might go completely unnoticed except by those who personally know the actual creator. Without copyright, however, any confrontation by the lesser known entity would be toothless.

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

Actually, it's not copyright that has been the only way to achieve that... it's exclusivity.

There has *ALWAYS* been exclusivity on content distribution... even before copyright.

Exclusivity used to be implicit because copying works was so difficult and error prone that it was typically not worth anyone's time or effort to try to copy somebody else's work without authorization.

Copyright is supposed to be the modern equivalent... except it doesn't work when people disrespect it. When publishers lose confidence in copyright to protect their interests of exclusivity, they can and will resort to other means, which will ultimately reduce the availability of content for the general public.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

What they're specifically doing is not illegal there. Again, what rules are they breaking?

Re:Hypocrisy

[cheesybagel]

Not really. There are written rules and unwritten rules. Sometimes the unwritten rules have more power and that is the case regarding plagiarism.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

This is utter apologist bullshit.

People have always been able to copy - some by ear, others by writing.

This is nothing new. A whole class of monks was dedicated to copying religious texts, centuries ago, both in the East and the West.

Then you come out with this gem:

...which will ultimately reduce the availability of content for the general public.

What the hell is wrong with you? Your argument for copyright protection is based around the idea that only the people who distribute stuff produce it! They don't!! They distribute it on behalf of others, who are just people like you and me. They have no monopoly on production of song and music, TV, film, the written word. I can go out and write a song right now - it'd be a great learning experience for me. (I'm a bass player.)

But here's the real killer - if I wrote a song and distributed it, the odds are fairly good that I would be sued by a copyright holder. This - and this alone - is precisely the reason I haven't bothered learning to write songs.

Oh look. Copyright is suppressing the production of material.

Re:Hypocrisy

[jones_supa]

They "facilitate" copyright infringement, which is not a crime in most countries unless it is done for money, about as much as Google or any search engine.

Maybe it should be crime. I would understand if facilitating copyright infringement was a crime.

Now, as you mentioned Google, they don't directly facilitate copyright infringement. See, there's this little difference that TPB deliberately indexes only pirated content. There's quite a difference.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Altrag]

I would hazard to suggest that copyright needs to be fixed, not dismantled entirely.

I'm not versed enough in legalese to know what all the ins and outs of a fixed copyright would look like, but I can say that it would not include (nearly) perpetual terms. Of all the faults of copyright, the fact that works effectively never enter the public domain under current copyright law is by far the worst.

Some anti-fishing laws would help a lot too. Its one thing to go after an infringer based on strong evidence. Its quite another to send out 100,000 C&D letters with settlement offers (before even filing a suit probably) based on a vague correlation. Spamming the legal system should NOT be allowed to remain a valid (if immoral) business method (wonder if someone's patented it.. Maybe someone should. It would be amusing to watch the RIAA stumble over something silly like that, even if it wouldn't really slow them much.)

Re:Hypocrisy

[AK Marc]

France separates author's right from copyright. one does not depend on the other.

Re:Hypocrisy

[sFurbo]

Or do you think that the general public will be truly satisfied with unending ads, unwanted porn popups, spam, and amateur cat videos?

We have at least three industries that, de facto, work without copyright today: Fashion, food and magic shows. There seems to be no shortcoming of cookbooks, even though anybody can copy all of the receipts. Fashion is more innovative than either books or films, simply because they have to, as anybody can copy them. Magic shows is a bit of a corner case, as professional courtesy helps reduce copying.

Based on those examples, I would argue that removing copyright in a industry is in no way certain to reduce innovation, and might even spur it.

Re:Hypocrisy

[we3]

Actually they don't only index pirated content.
Look for open source and you'll find it there.
Look for Creative Commons licensed works and you'll find it there.

And don't forget "the promo bay".

Re:Hypocrisy

[jones_supa]

Majority of the content there is still pirated and that is the main agenda of the site. A little bit of legal content there does not make much difference.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the police going act and perform just like the CIA director, oops I meant the CEO of General Motors? I bet the police will all act as if they are highly trained psychologists as well. Are you on any medications, the police ask... Then they will think for a moment and give you a very professional psyciatric diagnosis. I had no idea that every policeman went through several years of ivy league college courses to obtain their diplomas in psychiatry. And that's in addition to the regular police training they have to take, too! I wonder if the police carry their college diplomas in their pockets with them... hahahhahahahahhahah

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

One side is hosting copyrighted content and the other is not.

You don't really understand what TPB does, do you?

Re:Hypocrisy

[pantaril]

Maybe exclusivity was the only way which drove creation of IP in the past, but it is certainly not the only posibility and it is pretty bad choice. With exclusivity, you have same problems as with copyright: you cannot effectively share, archive, catalogue, remix and build upon the IP.

We must think of a way of supporting creators without the need to artificaly limit distribution. There certainly are many ways how to do that.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

TPB hosts links to the content it's users make available. Period.

You can't blame the site for the actions of it's users.

Re:Hypocrisy

[wonkey_monkey]

We were managing just fine without a superhero movie every week for about 100,000 years.

Re:Hypocrisy

[jones_supa]

Yes you can, the core message of TPB being "bring your warez here".

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

One side is hosting copyrighted content and the other is not.

You don't really understand what TPB does, do you?

To me it appears like you believe TPB host copyrighted material - it does not. It provides magnet links, and in some cases torrent files, none of which in them contain copyrighted material. The links/files could be used to download copyrighted material from 3rd parties though.
It also used to have a tracker that assisted in the download of torrents.

The other party in this case, which is what I believe the GP was alluding to, do host (and use for the presentation of their site), a .css file copied from TPB...

Re:Hypocrisy

[fredprado]

As is the majority of the content linked by Google.

Re:Hypocrisy

[fredprado]

The same people who generated content in the thousands of years before copyright came to be. Most of the art developed by humankind came before copyright, my good sir, and it could be argued that the quality of art has dropped considerably as copyright became stronger.

Re:Hypocrisy

[fredprado]

Nope, when someone composed a song and sang it, it was immediately in public domain before copyright and copied to people's heart content. When someone made a theater play, it could and was copied by many. Only books had any exclusivity because of the difficulty to copy and the low number of people who could actually read them, but even those were hand copied by libraries, monasteries and the like.

Re:Hypocrisy

[fredprado]

In many countries there are laws against plagiarism that are independent from copyright, and in those they do not exist they could be easily created.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

To add one more example of the diversity of laws in different jurisdictions:
In Swedish law copyright doesn't technically exist but the same mechanism is covered under "right of origin".
A distinction is made between having the right of distribution and having the right of attribution. The former can be transferred, the latter can not.
I can purchase the right to be the distributor of a work of art but I'm not allowed to claim that I was the artist since this would be fraudulent and harm any customer that might be interested in work I have done specifically but aren't interested in work I have purchased.
Because of this it is not possible for a Swedish artist to donate work to public domain, even if the original artist can permit anyone to use the work in any way the right of attribution can't be waived. This is a right of the consumer just as much as it is a right of the author.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite - CPIAC has been demanding that TPB follow the 'rules' and TPB have said fuck-off.

CPIAC then broke the rules they have been demanding TPB follow - so now either CPIAC disagress with those rules and will help TPB get rid of them, or they are just being hypocritical fuckwits.

TPB responds to this hyprocrisy, ironically, by taking CPIAC's role and crying foul. As a technicality it is also hypocrisy, but since the intention is to lampoon CPIAC for not following their own rules, it's not hypocratical, it's poetic justice. TPB doesn't actually support the law we are talking about and has done nothing to indicate that they do, or that encourage its use - they merely expect it to be applied fairly to all people alike. Since the definition of hypocrisy requires lies or deception, this is not hypocrisy.

Of course you won't be looking for reasonable discussion - you just want to attack TPB becaue they're not on 'your side'...

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't write "only" in bold if you don't mean it. You are spreading incorrect information and that harms the argument you are trying to make.
"Why should I take anything you say by face value when you defend obvious lies?"

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Bankers don't burgle anybody, mate. Seriously think about it. At absolute worst what they do is fraud. Burglary is when you literally break into another person's physical property and take something.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa. Are you on any medications?

Re:Hypocrisy

[fuzznutz]

Most self-published content is of negligible interest to people outside of a closed group, and if that was actually *all* that there was, there'd be a correspondingly smaller amount of content intake, leading to cultural stagnation. When civilizations get bored, they do crazy shit.

That has got to be the funniest justification for copyright I have ever heard. "We need copyright, for our own safety." LOL

Re:Hypocrisy

[chilvence]

'When civilizations get bored, they do crazy shit.'

So essentially what you are trying to assert is, that if we do not keep JK Rowling fed well enough to make Harry Potter novels, then WWIII?

I think you have overestimated the entertainment value of copyrighted material... and underestimated the will of the public to support creative work. You might have pirate bay/napster/THE BLANK CASSETTE TAPE in one hand, but on the other hand, how do you explain the sudden emergence of kickstarter? Conversely, the industry may support talented people now, but it also manages to spew out an endless stream of obnoxious filthy rich crackheads who would enjoy nothing less than to shit all over the people who put them there. Why is there no regulation for that? Where is THEIR moral high ground when they are publicly executing[sorry, LEGALLY FINING] a member of the proles to send a message to the rest of us?

If I have an idea I want to develop today, I can advertise it to the people that would care about it, I can create it with the people that care about it, and I can have it distributed the world over by people that care about it, without having to suck any corporate cock whatsoever! The only barrier I have to cross is having an idea people find worth caring about.

The self centred industry of yesterday lacks the imagination to capitalise on any of those things just as much as it lacked the initiative to develop them, because it is obnoxiously stuck in the ways that worked well enough AT THE TIME. It became so self satisfied, it did not notice the world was happening around it! It simply has not occurred to them that in light of the immense power we have at our fingertips in this era, they have become PITIFULLY REDUNDANT, like a red top newspaper trying to compete with Wikipedia. They had a chance, they chose to make war with the people instead of examine the reasons for their frustration. When you become a grumpy old pensioner who chases the kids off the lawn with a shotgun, you reap what you SOW.

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

If a work isn't distributed, then nobody else other than its creator gets to enjoy it. A fat lot of good that does. It's self-censorship, even at best.

But it's still exclusivity.

Your argument that people would just publish and put stuff into public domain is not a strong position, because if that were really the case, then for stuff that some people *DO* currently release for free, there would be at least *SOME* propensity to put into public domain already. Take the GPL or BSD license for instance... neither license commits the accompanying work to public domain. They both *EXPLICITLY* state that the work is actually copyrighted. If the notion that people would be willing to put stuff into public domain were actually true, there would at least be some already existing propensity to do that. But there isn't. The inescapable fact is that content makers genuinely do like exclusivity.

So please. Enlighten me as to where you get this notion that destruction of copyright is going to bring out a whole new generation of self-publishers that somehow wouldn't have existed otherwise.

Because if the current status of society is any indication, if we take away copyright, the only thing that's going to go away is the production of formally published works... Printed books, movie theaters, music and video stores, etc. And the *ONLY* thing that will be left over is self-published works and the publication of stuff by people or organizations that have an agenda in their distribution. The net result is still going to be a decrease in cultural content.

This would lead to stagnation, and, as I said... bored societies do crazy shit.

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

I'm not suggesting that nobody will publish without copyright... I'm just suggesting that a whole lot less will. And that if the current state of the world is any indication, there's absolutely *NO* reason to think that the decrease in commercially published content would somehow result in an any sort of significant increase in the amount of content that is self-published that is of any appreciable quality. If anything, that will probably suffer as well.

Re:Hypocrisy

[fredprado]

That is utter bullshit again. Copyleft exists exclusively because copyright exists, basically to defend against it. There would be no reason for copyleft to exist if there was no copyright. Actually most who defend copyleft would much rather prefer a world where neither copyright than copyleft existed.

And no copyright does not maintain publication. Most musicians, for example, earn from performance, by actually working daily, as everybody else. Publication is more of an advertisement for them than a true income source, Only the extremely popular can live from song sells and even them earn a very small fraction of these sells, most of the money goes to the parasites that "publish" their work.

It is past time for this idea that work once earn forever to go away. There are several means for artists to earn money with their work. There is no motive for society to artificially provide another that causes far more problems than it tries to solve.

Now, to answer your question. When you take copyright from the picture, you make massification of art more difficult and allow space for small publishers. We would actually be far better without mainstream art, because most of it is utter trash that suffocates much better works because of the weight and power of corporations behind it.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

but you're wrong. There's trademarks for taste, fashion companies going after copycats, etc.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Talderas]

They function as an accessory to a criminal act which may, in some jurisdictions, cause them to be charged with the crime they are an accomplice to.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Talderas]

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

Slashdot has a problem of seeing the forest through the trees. They get so wrapped up on the piracy and copyright infringement parts that they completely ignore the aiding and abetting.

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

Actually most who defend copyleft would much rather prefer a world where neither copyright than copyleft existed.

This assertion is an interesting one, and one I had already considered, but it is not substantiated by reality. If it were the case, there'd be considerably more people who just explicitly state that they are putting their project is put into public domain, instead of bothering with a lengthy copyright license.

We would actually be far better without mainstream art, because most of it is utter trash that suffocates much better works because of the weight and power of corporations behind it.

Most NON-mainstream art that is self-published is utter rubbish and suffocates much better self-published works too. For crying out loud, how many cat videos do people need to watch?

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

Great idea.

Thought of anything yet?

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

Copying audible and theatrical works by ear and memory was always sufficiently inconvenient and error prone, coupled with the limited audience that such reproductions would typically receive before the modern age, that it did not typically present any threat to content creators. The latter aspect of it is probably best likened to the modern notion of "fair use".

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

News flash for you.... people haven't changed since yesterday. They still have the same lack of imagination. The loss of copyright is probably inevitable, but given the universal quality of human greed, the resulting world is *NOT* going to be one where information is going to be as free as what you seem to believe.

Re:Hypocrisy

[fredprado]

This assertion is an interesting one, and one I had already considered, but it is not substantiated by reality. If it were the case, there'd be considerably more people who just explicitly state that they are putting their project is put into public domain, instead of bothering with a lengthy copyright license.

GPL licenses and other types of similar licenses exist because the people who make these works available do not want big corporations using their work as part of their proprietary projects and profiting from them, sometimes even taking over the idea and copyrighting it through legal absurdities. That is the only true distinction between copyleft and public domain: copyleft forces copyleft. Copyleft is used to battle copyright and big copyright holders. If there was no copyright all works would fit GPL licenses terms, for example and there would be no need to make a license forcing what would already be the only possible way to publish anything.

Most NON-mainstream art that is self-published is utter rubbish and suffocates much better self-published works too. For crying out loud, how many cat videos do people need to watch?

As many as they please. This is a non argument. Mainstream art suffocates because it is backed up with millions of dollars in propaganda and paid space. This money is used to alienate competition and to make harder for small people to publish on their own. If there was no big publishers what is good would automatically come to evidence and it would be much easier for capable artists trying to live from their own work.

Re:Hypocrisy

[bzipitidoo]

Yes, and one way to do this is to popularize automatic digital notary services. Before artists release work, they would use these services to date stamp everything. Use a one way hash algorithm such as md5 or sha256 on their work which must of course include their names and whatever other information is needed to uniquely identify them, then send the hash to the notary which would add the current date and digitally sign it.) For extra security, ought to do it several times at different notaries. Also, there are several critical precautions to take. Absolutely must do the hash on one's own, uncompromised computers, cannot use an online service for that. Then, really need to wait a short while before public release, perhaps a day, or perhaps just an hour or less, however often the notary services can practically generate new signatures for new dates.

Whit that in place, if we could get the courts to accept these digital signatures from these notaries as proof of who created it and when, and actively ask for digital signatures from recognized digital notary services whenever a claim of plagiarism is made, we'd have it. No more wondering who is lying: the alleged plagiarist, or the accuser.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

I never said it was illegal, I don't know why you're bringing that up. And yes, obviously I meant facilitate.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but you can blame them for making it excessively easy for users to do questionable things. Or are you one of those morons who think the law defines what is right or wrong, so we can only blame TPB for something if they are guilty of it?

Re:Hypocrisy

[AK Marc]

Then you don't understand the Public Domain. All of Shakespeare is in the Public Domain. Yet, nobody is confused about the author, and re-printing his work as your own would be plagiarism. Public Domain is about the ownership of the content, not the authorship of it (unless Public Domain is defined differently in Sweden as well). The US inherited the idea that authorship is separate from copyright, but did not explicitly state it, so many Americans are confused on the point.

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

If there was no big publishers what is good would automatically come to evidence and it would be much easier for capable artists trying to live from their own work.

You assert that without any basis in actuality.... and you seem to completely ignore the human factor of greed... which would not disappear, even if copyright did.

Re:Hypocrisy

[fredprado]

I assert based on History. You assert based on nothing but wishful thinking. You desperately want to believe copyright is a positive force, which it is obviously not.

Greed is a strong incentive to produce anything but it is far from being the only incentive to create art and it is not and never was the most significant one. The truth is, the perspective to hold copyrights over anything created mostly moves big publishers and the minority of canned blockbusters they artificially create today, because they are the only ones who have huge returns and can actually live from copyright. What is published by them is a very small part of what is produced at large.

That said greed, in the sense of the need for monetary compensation will always be in place. Musicians and actors, for example, need money to live, as everybody else, and they earn their money by performing, as they all did throughout human History before copyright came to be, and as most still do today as their primary source of income today.

Neither art or greed would disappear with copyright. Actually I argue that the positive effects of banishing copyright on both would be by far greater than the negative ones.

Re:Hypocrisy

[JurgenThor]

Actually, a lot of people have a lot of debate about who exactly the author of Shakespeare's works were.

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

Actually I argue that the positive effects of banishing copyright on both would be by far greater than the negative ones.

This premise is unsubstantiated. Sure there's lots of trash out there that is corporately distributed, but the percentage of low-quality works that is self-published is even highe than that. High quality self-published works in absence of copyright would have an even *MORE* difficult time of getting noticed.

And when copyright cannot protect corporate interests, other means will be employed, and those means are certain to result in a reduced availability of content overall. We are already starting to see it with publishers resorting to DRM to protect their interests, which ends up limiting the availability of the content for consumers. If copyright ever completely fails to satisfy content makers interests, it is certain that they will be resorting to even more elaborate measures, lobbying for laws to protect them, and getting them passed, thanks to the omnipotent power of the dollar to manipulate the lawmakers into passing whatever laws most please the people with the most money. Of course, the highly highly technically competent will remain fine, because they can reverse engineer the mechanisms involved, but in the presence of laws forbidding the distribution of technologies which might allow everybody to freely utilize such works, such technically competent people will be faced with going far enough underground that their activities are not noticed by law enforcement, which would similarly reduce public visibility, and in turn reduce the number of people that would benefit, or else simply grudgingly following the law.

And again... this is something that has already started to happen. And it's only going to get a whole lot worse as long as widespread disrespect for copyright continues. You can go right on ahead and believe that it's somehow going to get better if you want... but I can't help but think that in suggesting that my impressions are somehow based on wishful thinking, that you may be accusing me of something you are actually doing yourself.

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

But here's the real killer - if I wrote a song and distributed it, the odds are fairly good that I would be sued by a copyright holder.

Only if you copied somebody. People create new songs all the time that aren't copies of pre-existing works. Are you saying you are not imaginative enough to come up with something original?

Re:Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

When publishers lose confidence in copyright to protect their interests of exclusivity, they can and will resort to other means, which will ultimately reduce the availability of content for the general public.

Which may be a great argument for PUBLISHERS to go the way of the dodo, instead of mantaining a system that resembles an "artistic maquila".

Re:Hypocrisy

[fredprado]

There is no limit for what corporate interests will try with copyright on their side. Without it at least absurdities like outlawing measures to work around DRM won't exist anymore, and the law would be again at the customer side. Those laws you talk about only exists because there is copyright to protect. Copyright is the legal concept corporations use as the root of their legislation efforts and propaganda, and the results of those efforts would simply collapse without it.

Copyright does absolute nothing to restrain corporations hunger for power and control. On the contrary, it only helps them to achieve that.

And I don't know what you are drinking, but quality self-published works would have a much easier time getting noticed, and the authors would have a much easier time without being sued because they "copied" parts of something owned by a big corporation in their work.

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

Without it at least absurdities like outlawing measures to work around DRM won't exist

You really believe that, don't you?

DRM will continue to exist long after copyright has dissolved. The only thing that won't exist is that it won't be illegal to distribute the work if it's not protecteded. Of course, getting at the unprotected content may prove to be a bit of a bitch and a half, and probably beyond the ability of most people other than the highly technically competent. Even more restrictive laws than the DMCA will be drafted to govern so-called "authorized decryption", and people engaging in it without authorization would probably be heavily fined and have all of their home computer equipment destroyed, necessitating starting over... possibly even being prohibited from utilizing such technology entirely (which they sometimes do to people who have been found guilty of certain computer crimes). Taking pains to ensure that you never lost all your data while knowingly defying such laws would amount to playing a high-stakes game of hide and seek with the corporate powers and the governments which has been bought to serve them for the rest of your life. You can move to another country, but it's unlikely to be significantly different. The only permanent escape from such governments would be to get in a spaceship and find another planet you could live on.

Re:Hypocrisy

[fredprado]

Your whole theory makes no sense at all. You argue that by taking down laws that give big corporations power we will give them more power. The idea is so absurd it makes me doubt of your sanity.

Corporations are fighting right now for " even more restrictive laws than the DMCA will be drafted to govern so-called "authorized decryption"" , with the legal support copyright gives them. Copyright does nothing to prevent it. Taking copyright from the picture will only weaken their position, not strengthen it, and their resources to buy laws and politicians.

Big media is not the only corporate interest that exists, and sharks tend to devour each other when one shows signs of weakness. Once they start to lose their grip they will just collapse as happened to every other anachronistic cartel that tried to sustain business models that could not be sustained.

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

I'm suggesting that taking down the laws that give corporations power will only make them create *MORE* laws that give them more power. If you think they need copyright to shove shit down the general public's throat, think again. Oh... and of course, the public will happily swallow it.

Re:Hypocrisy

[fredprado]

And I am telling you that you are delusional. Corporations will always try and create more laws to increase their power and control any time they can get away with it. Taking down laws that empower them do nothing to increase this. It only weakens them. And neither the public nor other corporations with conflicting interests will happily swallow anything. It is a silly exaggeration and if that was true we would be much worse shape than we are today.

Re:Hypocrisy

[mark-t]

Fine... whatever. Believe what you want. Tell me I'm wrong again once copyright is gone and things are all magically better for everybody. I'm done.

Re:Hypocrisy

[AK Marc]

Does that in any way diminish the problem if someone were to today claim them? They are obviously not the true author.

Re:Hypocrisy

[fredprado]

A lot of speculation you certainly mean, but officially it was err... Shakespeare, at least until someone can prove it was someone else.

Re:Hypocrisy

[pantaril]

I'm advocating for cultural tax.

- first we should find out how much money are we spending on IP today.
- set the cultural tax so the total amount of money poured into the IP creation remains roughly the same as today. (In fact, it will mean more money for IP creators, because we will save quite significiant amount which is today wasted on IP related litigation, reduntant network technology instalations etc.)
- there should be slight progression in cultural tax, so low income people pay less, high income people pay more. Tax deductible coupons and similar mechanisms could be also introduced.

When we have the money, the remaining problem is, how to distribute them. The best and most fair solution would be imo goverment and/or privately run kickstarter-like websites. IP creators would post their creations for sale there. Every tax-paying citizen would automaticaly get some credit on those sites (equal to te tax he payed) and he could then distribute the credit between the IP works he likes. When the credit assigned to some work by various users reaches the ammount the submitter requested, the work is purchuased. Works purchuased in this way are automaticaly released into public domain and are free to share.
When some passive users refuse to use the site and distribute their credit, it is distributed automaticaly (based on the active users prefferences).
Also, IP could be divided into categories and there could be some minimum mandatory amount which each user must spent on specific category of IP. That's because we want some unpopular but important segments of IP to be still funded. This way, we can ensure that the spectrum of IP works funded remains roughly the same as today, if we wish so.

That would be the outline of my idea of copyright reform. I'm of course open for discussion about this. Sure there is a room for coruption when large amounts of money are redistributed via goverment, but the problem is IMO far smaller then the problems of current copyright. Unfortunately it looks like utopy today, because current copyright it supported by many international threaties and i don't see any way it will change in near future. Fortunately piracy exist so the more internet-savy users can ignore copyright completely.

Moooom~ she hit me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully commentors will understand it isn't TPB which is being hypocritical here.

"Well did you hit her first?"

Re:Moooom~ she hit me!

[Anonymous Coward]

You just described the origin of every war we've ever had.

Re:Moooom~ she hit me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Further, TPB is actually innocent where CIAPC actually committed a crime. TPB does not now, nor have they ever hosted or distributed anything illegally. They are no more guilty of copyright infringement than Google. CIAPC blatantly took code that they didn't have a right to and used it as their own.

Re:Moooom~ she hit me!

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it a parody makes fun of the content not the organization it's self, and does not do so in a way that purposefully attempts to shut down the organization.

  I'm sure if anyone else copied and used it they would be fine, but the way they did this is a flat out assault. It's more like shooting a guy to near death, then posting a photo of you shitting on his dyeing corpse on Facebook, all while claiming that your the good guy. Besides after everything they cost them this might be their only way to pay for their legal fees.

Re:Moooom~ she hit me!

[Anonymous Coward]

They are being hypocritical ...

They should be yelling "Hey look everyone, they copied our stuff ... and we're 100% okay with that, because it's fair use!"

Kopimi

[master5o1]

Problem, Kopimi?

Re:Kopimi

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kopimi

Re:Kopimi

[Anonymous Coward]

let's try a definition from the site tpb links to...

kopimi (copyme), symbol showing that you want to be copied.

(emphasis theirs)

Re:Kopimi

[thaylin]

Coppied, as in taking the look feel and other aspects, or have your code stolen?

Re:Kopimi

[swilde23]

I can't figure out what they mean by putting the kopimi link on their pages.

Is it only supposed to apply to the data that the torrents contain (in the sense that a torrent contains actual torrenty data, and the instructions for how to get other data)?

Re:Kopimi

[viperidaenz]

or in the literal sense: taking an exact copy of the hosted files.

Re:Kopimi

[Anonymous Coward]

They may just be playing a PR game here. Even if the CPAIC guys can legally claim the Kopimi symbol gave them permission to copy the files from TPBs website, TPB making this Police complaint will most likely generate lots of media attention and highlight the CPAICs hypocracy in their actions.

Re:Kopimi

[GameboyRMH]

This was my first thought, with the site's kopimist license I don't see how they could win in court.

Re:Kopimi

[suutar]

I haven't been able to find the actual license associated with kopimi. Do you have a pointer?

Re:Kopimi

[GameboyRMH]

There's no formal kopimi license, nothing beyond specifying that it "wants to be copied."

Re:Kopimi

[suutar]

ah, okay. so it will boil down to a battle of opinion about what aspects of the site TPB could reasonably be expected to want copied.

Win-Win

[Niterios]

If they lose, they prove a point: copyright laws are only in favor of a few. If they win, they expand their list of successful trolling.

Re:Win-Win

[Fluffeh]

Either way, it makes for an interesting play. It will be interesting to see how this plays out - is it really the same set of rules that everyone has to play by, or do those rules only apply if a big corp says they do...

Re:Win-Win

[MoronGames]

If they lose, they prove a point: copyright laws are only in favor of a few. If they win, they expand their list of successful trolling.

Exactly this. I'd be willing to bet that everyone on TPB side of this complaint knows that it is ridiculous, but, win or lose, they will prove a point.

Re:Win-Win

[Omnifarious]

Yes, the people complaining about the hypocrisy of TPB here are really missing the point. This isn't hypocrisy, it's high satire with the legal system playing the straight man. It's brilliant.

Re:Win-Win

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what I got.

If you play the game interestingly it can make for an interesting game. Will the game be interesting? that's up to the players. Some players think they can play by their own rules but can they? We'll have to play to find out.

Interesting.

Re:Win-Win

[viperidaenz]

If they lose, they may just show that putting a link on your website saying you want to be copied makes it legal to copy it.

Re:Win-Win

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, this has no chance of getting interesting. Finnish justice system is a parody in itself.

Re:Win-Win

[AcidPenguin9873]

I guess I don't see how this can possibly be a win for TPB. The copyright on the CSS will get enforced, the parody site will come down or change, and the other copyright infringement cases against TPB will proceed. TPB will have themselves a good laugh for about a day and then continue facing the existing lawsuits. The parody site is really, really small potatoes compared to the massive amounts of copyright infringement occurring via trackers that TPB distributes that media corps have a vested interest in prosecuting.

Re:Win-Win

[Omnifarious]

If TPB wins, the copyright maximalists end up with egg on their face over a law even they can't seem to follow. I will admit that the TPB winning this case is actually the worst outcome. Though the hay they can make while it's going on is almost worth it. I'm imagining the copyright maximalists are going to have some pretty interesting defenses.

But, if they lose, it's really clear that this is all about making sure the rules apply to the 'right' people. And it will done in a really public way that tells the people who vote that they don't count. And, of course, the people who vote still do count in Finland, and maybe they'll get off their collective behinds and do something about it.

Re:Win-Win

[AcidPenguin9873]

Like I said, everyone will have a laugh for about a day when this parody site gets taken down or whatever, but things will continue as they are. It's not like the copyright people are going to drop all of their claims because they don't want to look like hypocrites on this one parody site. They'll enforce copyright against the parody site (which will require admitting that they were in the wrong and TPB has a legitimate copyright claim), but who gives a shit about that parody site? And then they will continue enforcing all the other ones too.

Re:Win-Win

[Anonymous Coward]

Like I said, everyone will have a laugh for about a day when this parody site gets taken down or whatever, but things will continue as they are.

Things would have "continued as they are" even if TPB just decided to sit down and play nice so I don't really see what you point is? At least this gives them an opportunity to point out the hypocrisy.

Re:Win-Win

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about getting them to drop their claims, it will set a legal precedent one way or the other that other cases will then be able to incorporate into their defenses.

TPB wins - case shows that even anti-piracy groups can't follow the law, and begs the question "if they can't follow the law, then how can they prosecute others that also don't?"

TPB loses - precedent is established that directly copying files from a publisher does not constitute copyright violation

Re:Win-Win

[AcidPenguin9873]

TPB wins - case shows that even anti-piracy groups can't follow the law, and begs the question "if they can't follow the law, then how can they prosecute others that also don't?"

This is not a legal precedent, and that question will be answered by saying "they didn't follow the law and that claim/law was upheld, and now we're going to prosecute others that also don't follow the law".

But bits are bits

[alen]

No one stole anything from tpb and information wants to be free

It's just bits on a hard drive and just math and physics

Re:But bits are bits

[flimflammer]

Who said a single thing about "stole"? No one said this was theft. This is a matter of copyright infringement, brought against an organization which lobbies against the exact thing they've just been caught doing.

Re:But bits are bits

[jones_supa]

You cannot simplify it that far. It makes a very important difference what those particular bits are.

And all said....

[Anonymous Coward]

And all said, HAHA! ( in a Nelson voice, pointing at CPICA)

Missed opportunity to take the high road

[poity]

Now they've sunk to the level they've worked to raise others above.
Should have just release a statement saying "We're glad they've had a change of heart and have come to embrace our perspective of sharing, and hope others will follow."

Re:Missed opportunity to take the high road

[Anonymous Coward]

That statement would have had no effect whatsoever except amongst the minority of readers of sites like slashdot. The CPIAC would simply have ignored them and gone on with business as usual.

Filing a formal police complaint forces the organisation to show up to court and explain themselves in front of a judge. There are now legal consequences to their ignoring the statement; up to and including jail. Their responses will be on public court records where they can be used against them in future cases; their hypocrisy will be on display for all to see.

Moreover, a potential court case draws more widespread attention as it will be covered by a much greater spread of media outlets.

They are taking this opportunity to publicly embaress the organisation and expose the hypocrisy they represent. They are grabbing this opportunity with both hands and running with it. Releasing a smug, toothless statement that makes nerds feel good but does nothing to advance their cause would have been the real missed opportunity here.

Re:Missed opportunity to take the high road

[PRMan]

Where are my mod points? MOD this guy up as Insightful!

Re:Missed opportunity to take the high road

[I'm New Around Here]

Damn PR Man, you're good!

Your mod fu is far greater than mine.

Re:Missed opportunity to take the high road

[Type44Q]

That statement would have had no effect whatsoever except amongst the minority of readers of sites like slashdot.

Me thinks you greatly underestimate the size of the "tech aware" community...

Re:Missed opportunity to take the high road

[Type44Q]

Oops, I misunderstood; apologies! :)

Couldn't be better

[folderol]

I'm astonished at how many people right across the technology forums don't seem to get what an amazing opportunity has been handed to The Pirate Bay... on a plate! They would be absolute fools to not make the most of this, and really rub the copyright lobby's noses in their own poo.

Talking about them being hypocritical is nonsense. They are rolling on the floor laughing while they poke at CPIAC with the very laws that were being used against them. I reckon this will just run and run, and I'll thoroughly enjoy it.

Re:Couldn't be better

[Billly Gates]

So they win and courts use it as a reference for stronger copyright and trademark protection which will then be used agaisn't them later on. Nice

Re:Couldn't be better

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the joy here is that, off hand, I can't think of any argument that CPIAC could raise in their defense which will not later weaken their own efforts/assertions.

Furthemore, should the try to defend themselves against this, it will provide AMPLE opportunity to use the things that they've already said in court against them, which is pretty substantially amusing from a purely kharmic perspective.

Short of CPIAC saying, "you're absolutely right, we're guilty as hell, please fine the ever-living-shit out of us!", any statement/argument that they make can only weaken them when they attempt to prosecute their agenda against others down the road.

-AC

Re:Couldn't be better

[c0lo]

They are rolling on the floor laughing

[Citation needed].
No, it's not trolling, just a terse way to suggest there could be massive +Informative mods for any links to pages in which TPB actually mocks CPIAC.

Re:Couldn't be better

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's one defense: "We accept that an individual or organization can choose to forgo the copyright on their works by openly referencing a digital mark like 'Kopimi' in regards to their entire website, and we do not believe that anyone that chooses to use such an abandoned copyright should be subject to litigation. Furthermore, we intentionally chose to use TPB's site code as the basis for a parody site to show their own flaws in their repeated defense of illegal copying, and now they have become hypocrites that choose to litigate against a group that is using what they themselves claim is not copyrighted."

The Pirate Bay will not necessarily come out of this smelling like roses. It is the minority of people who use the Pirate Bay, but it is the majority that only knows of them through these lawsuits. CPIAC can easily play the victim card here, using the exact same argument that TPB wants to use against them.

Missing the point

[Agent.Nihilist]

If you first though is hypocrisy, you've missed the point.
If you believe a tool or process is broken, and have advocated about how it needs to change, then using said tool to directly illustrate how broken something is is far from hypocrisy. In this case they are using it to highlight the hypocrisy of the groups promoting high levels/draconian enforcement of copyright.

There is also the issue of actual content theft. Not the MPAA/RIAA's so called theft, where a distribution control is being breached, but taking content developed by another and claiming it as your own. You know, the thing copyright was actually invented for.
Remember, even the Pirate Party doesn't call for a total abolition of copyright, just a reform to more reasonable terms instead of multiple lifetimes.

Re:Missing the point

[fustakrakich]

Copyright was invented to control distribution and restrict "unauthorized" use of the printing press. The issue of plagiarism was the bait and hook. Some copyright laws of the past ignored the issue of authorship entirely. The law is designed to protect publishers, not the creators.

Re:Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright was invented to control distribution and restrict "unauthorized" use of the printing press. The issue of plagiarism was the bait and hook. Some copyright laws of the past ignored the issue of authorship entirely. The law is designed to protect publishers, not the creators.

Were not publishers and creators the same folks when copyright started?

Sure, a creator / author wouldn't necessary own the presses themselves, and so would not literally be the publisher, but they would in the sense that they would pay (usually out of their own pocket) someone to put ink-on-paper.

Re:Missing the point

[fustakrakich]

Were not publishers and creators the same folks when copyright started?

No, before the printing press there were writers guilds. It was they who wanted copyright to protect their business model from some chump with a press. Even though they were merely transcribers, they would claim or demand all rights to a work.

Re:Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

The law is designed to protect publishers, not the creators.

And that is why copyright laws need reforming!

Re:Missing the point

[Agent.Nihilist]

Copyright wasn't "Invented" to restrict the printing press. Yes, the first copyright laws on the books(that we have records of) were due to the printing press, but the idea of ownership over ones own creations is a much older idea.
The printing press is only relevant because prior to it's existence there was no economic advantage to mass copying. You couldn't sell books in quantity at the costs it took to produce them. Only once that became possible did you see laws start to pop up around them.

Remember laws don't have to follow their purposes or original intents. However the concepts and issues they are built around can be used to rebuild them in a way that does.

Re:Missing the point

[alexo]

And that is why copyright laws need reforming!

Before you clamour for a reform, spend a moment to think who will do the reforming[1] and whose interest they have in mind[2].

[1] Hint: not your ilk.
[2] Hint: not your ilk's.

Re:Missing the point

[Pfhorrest]

I'm not doubting this claim, but do you have a link to more information? Sounds like an interesting secret history of copyright. I had no idea there were "writer's guilds" of mere transcribers, much less that they were behind copyright.

Brilliant!

[Anonymous Coward]

If TPB does nothing, TTVK can claim that TPB doesn't care about copyright, thus showing some form of guilt. If TPB complains, it shows their hypocrisy, and TTVK can claim innocence just as TPB did.

What TTVK doesn't consider, is that TPB really has nothing of value to lose. Not even face. Honestly, their reputation can only improve if anything. By going through with the complaint, TPB is really just getting more media coverage and keeping their name persistent in the mainstream media. TTVK is still pushing its same agenda, which TPB can continue to highlight as morons, and point out the flaws in their existence.

It's win-win for TPB any way you slice this, and TTVK should have known better.

Re:Lose-Lose

[Billly Gates]

If they win the case can be used as a reference agaisnt them in hollywood as lawyers quote rulings from other cases as laws of God. If they lose they lose enforcement of tradement and copyright.

All I have to say is karma got them back. I find it personally hypocritical for a slashdotter to pirate software while getting paid writting software from paying customers and then getting angry at GPL copyright violations.

You can't have it both ways? If people decided to pay for Photoshop then Gimp would be more powerfull and used and same is true iwth LibreOffice. We only create monopolies on standards in the process and I bet Aldus Photostyler and Paint shop pro would still exist if piracy was not there as well as WordPefect.

Don't you need physical presence to sue?

[Hentes]

AFAIK the people behind Piratebay have escaped to avoid prison, how can they sue when they aren't there?

Re:Don't you need physical presence to sue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, You know quite wrong. Carl Lundström has served his sentence and Gottfrid Swartholm is serving his. Gottfrid, maybe better known as anakata is the man who has written the TPB software. The other two are as far as I know still at large however.
Besides, I think it is perfectly legal for a legal entity like TPB to sue and only have lawyers or other representatives appear i court.

Re:Don't you need physical presence to sue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like the Coorp that just stole data from them? Pepsico, Coke, GM, Ford are coorps where no one will go to jail (Just ask the Firestone victims families)...now go steal some they're company secrets and attempt to sell them!!!

Like we say in the hoooood...it's not WHAT you steal; but WHOM you steal it from...LOL

Re:Don't you need physical presence to sue?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, here is a link about Anakata being moved from solitary confinement to regular prison.
Here is another one.

Congratulations, "as far as you know" is know slightly more correct.

Re:Don't you need physical presence to sue?

[TFAFalcon]

Hasn't TPB changed ownership since then?

Security for Costs

[Turminder Xuss]

If Finnish procedure is anything like Australian procedure then TTVK might apply to require TPB to provide security for costs. TPB would have to disclose its financials, there could be interesting argument over the sustainability of its business model.

Re:Security for Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how this ends up working out but there are some interesting prior cases against file sharers in Finland that might or might not apply.

In general, Finnish courts have accepted the inflated "theoretical loss of income" figures from content providers in the past lawsuits. There have been couple of larger cases with a BitTorrent site and a DirectConnect hub where the administrators of those services had to pay 800 000 and 680 000 euros for damages for "making available" copyrighted works and distributing them. The administrators were held accountable for all the distribution of files in those cases.

So how many copies of those files has TTVK distributed already? Just multiply that with some suitable number of euros for damages.

Re:Security for Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Finnish procedure is nothing like Australian procedure. Finland uses a Civil Law system, roughly derived from the Napoleonic Code. Australia uses a Common Law system inherited from England.

Re:Security for Costs

[Turminder Xuss]

Yup, you're quite correct and this multijurisdictional costs report published by Lovells in 2010 says you can't seek security for costs or get interim costs awards in Finland.

Slight problem

[Anonymous Coward]

One slight problem with this complaint is that here in Finland the law is actually pretty sane. If TPB sues someone for copying their css files, what they can win is the value of those files. We are not the USA, you can't win zillions of dollars in damages due to the simple fact that those damages do not exist. You can only win actual real world damages. For some css files you might get a hundred bucks. When TPB's lawyers explain the facts of life to their clients this silliness goes away in a heartbeat. The end result is that the TBP kiddies get to pay a couple of thousand bucks to their lawyers for explaining this to them. Great job shooting yourselves in the foot, idiots.

Re:Slight problem

[TENTH SHOW JAM]

-$1000 in lawyer costs.
+$100,000 in free publicity across the tech media.
Balance sheet still looking good...

Re:Slight problem

[flimflammer]

You clearly don't know the reason they're doing this, which you could have easily gleaned if you read the damn article. This isn't about money. The message from TPB itself states that any money CIAPC may have to pay will no go towards TPB. The whole point is to very publicly shame the organization for doing exactly what it fights and lobbies against others for doing.

Kopimi... no?

[The Raven]

I don't understand, actually. TPB proudly displays the anti-copyright symbol (Kopimi), so are they not explicitly granting permission to use their HTML and CSS? While the CIAPC are dicks, it seems hypocritical to grant permission to copy only when they like the person.

Re:Kopimi... no?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just checked .. yup... that could be a problem for TPB - it could be considered as granting permission for all content. Darn.

Re:Kopimi... no?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice job weakly supporting a position, almost as an attempt to discredit it...o wait, try again lolololololol

Re:Kopimi... no?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand, actually. TPB proudly displays the anti-copyright symbol (Kopimi), so are they not explicitly granting permission to use their HTML and CSS?

You were encouraged by Blizzard to spread the World of Warcraft binaries so that whoever you gave the free trial you got on purchase to were able to install and play the game.
The permission from the copyright holder didn't prevent them from using the copy available on The Pirate Bay against the founders during the trial.

So yes, it seems hypocritical to grant permission to copy only when they like the person.

Re:Kopimi... no?

[fatphil]

It also has as the leading paragraph on its "usage policy" page:
"""
Our site (and all of its contents) is free of charge for anyone for personal usage. Organisations (for instance, but not limited to, non-profit or companies) may use the system if they clear this with the system operators first. [...]
"""

TPB do still "want to be copied" (which is all the kopimi indicates, it's not a legal declaration that you are waiving your copyright), as long as it's the right people doing it for the right reasons.

I want to have sex, as long as it's with my g/f rather than Bubba from cell block H.

Re:Kopimi... no?

[Anonymous Coward]

Phil, is that you?

-- Bubs

GOOD

[Anonymous Coward]

Good for them. Turn about is fair play.

Fair Use

[wisnoskij]

"fraudulent parody site" -> sounds like fair use to me.

Re:Fair Use

[LilWolf]

There was recently a case in Finland where a person made a parody of a site that offered the opportunity to report childporn sites to an organisation that would then forward them to the police. The organisation sued said person and won. What the copyright organisation is doing here is no different from that so under Finnish law they could be in hot water.

Re:Fair Use

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be, but CPIAC has been pushing to remove "parody" from the idea of fair use. This is the irony.

Re:Fair Use

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if CPIAC hadn't (mostly successfully) sought to end Parody as a Fair-Use, they didn't parody the CSS, they parody'd the site. The unauthorized use/distribution of the separate, Copyrighted, CSS file is a blatant violation of several of the tenets of their religion^H^H^H^H^H^H^Haison d'etre... and, not co-incidently, also the law.

-AC

Re:Fair Use

[wisnoskij]

Except it does not contain child porn, so it is very different in practice.

Re:Fair Use

[LilWolf]

Neither did the parody site. All it did was mimic the layout of the organisations site and change some texts used there(Save the Children turned into Save the Paedophiles etc. Clear parodies and certainly no child porn.)

That's essentially what the copyright organisation is doing here. They mimicked TPB appearance, changed some graphics and texts and where links lead to.

Re:Fair Use

[Anonymous Coward]

I've looked and can't seem to find someone ranting about how parody is protected by U.S. law, ignoring the obvious point that it doesn't apply.

Slashdot has forsaken me. :(

Re:Fair Use

[Anonymous Coward]

"fraudulent parody site" -> sounds like fair use to me.

Did you check whether the Finnish copyright law agrees with your definition of "fair use"?

(Hint: it doesn't)

Re:Fair Use

[Anonymous Coward]

Not "essentially" the same, but much worse. The "Save the Paedophiles" site was not even copied from the parodied site (like TPB css was here), but written from scratch to look like it.

(It took a couple of iterations to get a charge to stick; they even tried trademark infringement, only to be told they had no trademark.)

You started it...

[Mister Liberty]

Miss Universe...
Tssk!

Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Value of your css file: $100.
Bill from your lawyers for explaining it's not worth paying $50,000 in legal fees to go to trial for a $100 dispute: $5,000.
Idiots.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they aren't filing in America (so it won't cost the soul of their first-born) and aren't doing it for financial reasons you myopic shit.

Re:Idiots

[TENTH SHOW JAM]

Free publicity :$BIGNUM
$BIGNUM - $LawyerlyChat = Nice dividend.

Cultural Diversity?

[Virtucon]

ROFLMAO

the world’s largest site for cultural diversity

How is hosting torrents for copyrighted material cultural diversity? I tried to download "Debbie Does Dallas" and the )(*@)(# file was subtitled in Swedish! What good is that? Is that what they mean by "cultural diversity?"

Re:Cultural Diversity?

[Anonymous Coward]

its one example dumbass

Re:Cultural Diversity?

[Turminder Xuss]

Well that sucks. Without the dialog in the subtitles you've got no chance of knowing whats going on.

Re:Cultural Diversity?

[viperidaenz]

So how was "Debbie gör Dallas"?

Re:Cultural Diversity?

[Virtucon]

Pretty good except everybody was grunting "Smergen" and "Bork" for some damn reason.

Re:Lose-Lose

[fustakrakich]

I find it personally hypocritical for a slashdotter to pirate software while getting paid writting software from paying customers and then getting angry at GPL copyright violations.

GPL deserves equal treatment under the law. If and when the law goes away, GPL will no longer need to exist.

TPB Claim of Infringement Against CIAPC is Valid

[cpaglee]

Making a parody site may be 'fair use', but actually copying CSS and HTML is infringement. If CIAPC wants to create a parody site they can write their own HTML and CSS to mimic TPB look and feel. Actually copying CSS and HTML is a violation of copyright which 'fair use' will technically not protect.

Re:Lose-Lose

[Pfhorrest]

If copyright went away, nobody could be required to distribute source code, of any of the other things the GPL requires for permission to use code thus licensed. (There wouldn't be much point in intentionally withholding things like source code without copyright, though). They would simply have no grounds to sue for copyright violation for their modifications to it. The GPL is not about restricting people from exercising legal powers they shouldn't have, it's about requiring people to do things to help the users of software, and it leverages those legal powers people shouldn't have to accomplish that.

A better viral copyleft license that would require people to behave exactly as if copyright didn't exist -- and consequently, would not lose any power if copyright really stopped existing -- would be one that said something like "you have permission to use, copy, modify and distribute copies of this software so long as you do not prosecute or litigate for copyright violations of any modifications you contribute". That would need a lot better wording of course, but the gist is "I'll pretend copyright doesn't exist and not sue you for copying this, so long as you do likewise and don't sue anyone else for copying your modifications of it. If you do sue anyone, then I'll sue you." If the grounds for such lawsuits went away, then it would simply become impossible to violate the license, and nothing would be lost.

Many people naively think that's all the GPL requires, but there's a lot of details that keep it from being quite so simple.

Re:Lose-Lose

[tibman]

It sounds like the precedent already exists and is the entire reason they are doing this. They want the new precedent applied to the very people who fought for it.

Like battle in sea

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of scene from pirates of caribean movie where all those pirate ships goes to battle and they are chearfull when they see frist enemy ship in sea... Just wait for rest of the fleet.... Law should be same for everyone, is it? Quite often not....

You have to laugh

[Loki_666]

But i think its a good move for the reasons many have already mentioned.

One point i think has been missed, is as i understand it, TPB is ok with people using their CSS and stuff, as long as they ask permission first.... which the CIAPC didn't.

I wonder if this was actually a bit of a sting job or an IT guy within the CIAPC having a laugh.

Boss: We want to make a parody of TPB Mr. IT Guy... whip us one up.
IT Guy: LOL... oh boy, i'm going to have some LULZ here.

Not sure where I stand on this

[runeghost]

On the one hand, yeah, pirate site complains about piracy, lol. On the other hand, TTVK Ry seem to be complete hypocrites and I can't really criticize TPB too much for exposing their hypocrisy. On the gripping hand, isn't there some better way to expose said hypocrisy than via the system that the Pirate Bay's very existence opposes? And, on a different tentacle completely how (if at all) is this different from Ron Paul, "Mr. Libertarian Free-Markets" trying to use the UN to seize a domain name he's unwilling to pay for? I disapproved of Representative Paul's actions, does that mean I'm logically/morally/ethically committed to seeing TPB as being in the wrong on this one? (FWIW, in general, I support TPB and am displeased with Ron Paul - I don't want to let either position color my thinking unduly.)

Re:Not sure where I stand on this

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, let me give you some information:

1) ronpaul wants the domainname with his name
2) that domain name is registered in australia
3) in case of domain name dispute that automatically means arbitration is done by a bureaucracy associated with the UN (not the UN itself)

In other words Ron Paul wasn't throwing his political weight around "calling on the UN", he was following the stated conflict resolution procedure for an international domain dispute .

Re:Not sure where I stand on this

[Anonymous Coward]

Because his only other alternative was - Oh Horrors - actually paying for it on his lauded Free Market (TM). Fuck Ron Paul, and fuck his corporation sucking "libertarian" cronies.

TPB does not have a case

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I respect them, pirating their website for a parody falls under fair use doctrine.

Re:TPB does not have a case

[gl4ss]

they lobbied it not to be the case(even without direct copying of css with zero attribution).

Pirate a hypocrite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, TPB does not host anything which they do not have the copyright for.

No, they're just accessories to a crime. It's not as bad as being the person who pulled the trigger, but isn't not that much better.

Re:Pirate a hypocrite.

[AK Marc]

They've never thrown the person who sold the ammo to a murderer in jail. Just because you are an enabler doesn't make it illegal.

Re:Pirate a hypocrite.

[Anonymous Coward]

They've never thrown the person who sold the ammo to a murderer in jail. Just because you are an enabler doesn't make it illegal.

Are you sure about that?
The specific case of selling ammo to a murderer is often brought up to clarify the distinction between being an accomplice and being an accessory to a crime.
Selling ammo to a calm person on his way to the shooting range is generally no illegal. Selling ammo to someone upset that proclaims "I'm going to f*cking murder that bitch!" makes you an accessory to the crime.
According to wikipedia you can in some cases even become an accessory to the crime by just failing to report it.

From what I have heard there are even places in the U.S. where the owner of a pub can be considered to be an accessory to drunk driving if they serve someone who is likely to drive home.

Re:Pirate a hypocrite.

[Politburo]

What you're referring to are called "dram shop laws". They do not prohibit serving someone who is likely to drive home. They prohibit (or establish liability from) serving someone who is intoxicated. And these laws exist because the general principle is that enabling a crime via a legal transaction is not a crime and does not establish liability.

Re:Pirate a hypocrite.

[cbhacking]

Are you off your rocker? They most certainly have thrown arms dealers in prison, both for providing weapons to those who are not allowed to own them (sometimes only known felons, other times anybody who is a civilian; usually somebody who doesn't have a license to own and operate a firearm), and for providing illegal weapons at all (which a working torrent for material under copyright licensing that doesn't permit redistribution would certainly qualify as).

Re:Pirate a hypocrite.

[AK Marc]

I'm sorry, where did I say "weapons" in my post?

It's always easier to dismiss someone else's argument when you deliberately misunderstand it.

Damages

[Engeekneer]

Now, while Finland has quite reasonable limitations for compensation (compared to the US), some of the cases have really had really unreasonable damages because the copyright holders demonstrated "how much revenue they have lost".

Piratebay should sue for lost income too, 5 million people, each could visit the site twice a day, and click on all banners. Then multiply that by days the site has been up, and that's a lot of ad revenue they have to pay back.

Getting around the block

[Anonymous Coward]

If you wish to read the blog post and live in fascist country that blocks The Pirate Bay (Yes Finland, I'm talking about you among others), you can always use one of the proxies. E.g.

http://tpb.piraten.lu/blog/227
http://www.pirateproxy.me/blog/227
http://malaysiabay.org/blog/227
https://piratereverse.info/blog/227 ...

A search will find a lot of more tbp proxies.

Now, mod this up.

Re:Lose-Lose

[AK Marc]

If there were no copyright, then having the source code is less important. You can distribute the original all you want, and reverse engineer it all you want. Yes, you lose the ability to "force" people to keep the source free after they contribute to it, but it becomes less important.

Re:Lose-Lose

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care shit about GPL, I use licenses that ensure that the source is free, not open. Let copyright fall.

You're forgetting: it's Europe. Moral rights.

[Anonymous Coward]

Over in USAland, there is no such thing as "moral rights" but they mean that if you write some bit of music and someone uses it to promote child sex slavery you can sue for abusing your work. Hell, if you support Garry Glitter and your work is used to demonise paedos, you can sue for abusing your work.

Doesn't matter if it's parody.

IT'S LIKE RAAAAAIN

[Anonymous Coward]

(on your wedding day)

Re:IT'S LIKE RAAAAAIN

[Anonymous Coward]

Dontcha mean RIAAin?

Re:Lose-Lose

[DarkOx]

I find it personally hypocritical for a slashdotter to pirate software while getting paid writting software from paying customers and then getting angry at GPL copyright violations.

What the grandparent does not understand is we live in a society; where you don't always get to make the rules. There is nothing wrong with things should be different and at the same time playing the current rules to your own maximized advantage. You don't get a choice about not following them when they are detrimental to you after all.

Sometimes you don't get your way all the ballot box or in the halls of the legislature. You must take your lumps when that happens, might as well enjoy the sugar too; you'll be paying for it anyway.

Re:Lose-Lose

[Hatta]

If and when the law goes away, GPL will no longer need to exist.

Not quite. Some form of law will be necessary to ensure we all benefit from the four software freedoms. Copyright is currently used as a means to that end, and if copyright was simply repealed it would mean the end of "free software". There would be no way to enforce the share-alike provisions. But that doesn't mean that copyright is necessary. Copyright should be repealed and our software freedoms enshrined in law directly.

Re:Lose-Lose

[Hatta]

What the grandparent does not understand is we live in a society; where you don't always get to make the rules.

What you don't understand is that we live in a society where we never get to make the rules. The rules are made by the rich and powerful, in order to benefit the rich and powerful. And when it doesn't suit them, they ignore those rules.

If you assume we had a functioning democracy, where the will of the people was accurately assayed and implemented, and weath and power was unable to bias or outright pervert justice, then you might have a point. But in this cesspool of corruption? No. I damn well do have a choice to not follow those rules, and I'm not going to play the chump.

go ahead, feed the troll, you hipocrite!

[Anonymous Coward]

...
hipocrite ...
hipocrite ...

goddamn it, what benighted piece of shit browser are you posting from that doesn't have spellcheck on text fields?!!
The word is hypocrite .
Your repeated monumental FAILURE at spelling invalidates your whole argument.

Fighting irony with irony...

[CCarrot]

...I love it!

Re:Lose-Lose

[Pfhorrest]

That was kind of my point. That GPL doesn't just do the same thing as lack of copyright, as the person I replied to claimed. GPL is more restrictive than no copyright would be.

Re:Lose-Lose

[Anonymous Coward]

You can already reverse engineer all you want for interoperability purposes and in many jurisdictions (that are less retarded than ours) you can reverse engineer for any purpose you like. It's not a copyright violation if I somebody reverse engineers software and makes a clone which from the users' POV is identical but the source is different. However, you should know that such cloning of anything even slightly more complicated than a single-threaded text editor is simply not feasible.

Re:Lose-Lose

[AK Marc]

Every time I bring this up, people (well, ACs) tell me how hard it is to reverse-engineer anything. And yet, piles of ACs come out to complain about China reverse-engineering everything so perfectly. Get the two groups of ACs together and figure out if it's trivial or nearly impossible. I can't always be wrong (except to my wife).

Re:Lose-Lose

[fustakrakich]

GPL is a response to copyright.

Re:Lose-Lose

[Pfhorrest]

Yes, obviously, but the point is that it uses copyright in response to other uses of copyright.

I've been trying to avoid making a political analogy, but I think that's the only way this can be made clear:

Say you've got an old aristocratic society where state power is being used to the benefit of a group of elites.

Classical liberals shout "That's not fair! Nobody should have that kind of power!"

Socialists shout "That's not fair! That power should be used to benefit the common people!"

Both have a problem with the traditional use of state power, but the latter would keep the power around and just redistribute its benefits, while the former would abolish the power completely. I'm saying the GPL is like the latter, while copyright abolition would be like the former. The GPL leverages copyright to the benefit of the users instead of just the usual benefit to the authors, but it does not replicate a situation in which copyright didn't exist at all.

Re:Lose-Lose

[fustakrakich]

Without copyright's protection of exclusivity, GPL's enforcement of distribution is not needed. In your instance, the classical liberals would be right. Nobody should have that kind of power, much less decide how it is distributed.

Re:Lose-Lose

[Pfhorrest]

You seem to be missing my original point which is that GPL doesn't just require that people act as though copyright didn't exist. I agree that the classical liberals are right, but I'm pointing out that the GPL is more like the socialists than them. They don't just say "I won't sue you for using this so long as you don't sue anyone for using your modifications". Something like that is the most publicized feature of it, but it's not the only feature; there are other requirements to the license besides just licensing your own modifications.

For an example that comes to mind: there's a GPL'd game engine out there. There are lots of people who make mods of a now-freeware game that use that engine. Those modders are largely not programmers but rather artists and designers and so wouldn't touch a line of source code in their lives; they just need the binary to run their modded game in content in. But they can't just bundle the binary with their mod. They also have to bundle the source, even if they themselves never downloaded the source and don't care to, and neither will most of their users. But they still have to, because the GPL is about benefiting end-users by making source code available to them (amongst other things), not about just not suing people for distributing copyrighted data.

If copyright didn't exist at all, that wouldn't be the case. If copyright didn't exist, everything would be licensed under the WTFPL: do whatever the fuck you want with it. GPL is more restrictive than that. It may be less restrictive than traditional proprietary licenses, but it's still more restrictive than doing away with copyright entirely. (Likewise, in socialist societies the people are generally more free than under an oppressive aristocracy, but that doesn't make it as free as a liberal society).