Slashdot Mirror
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.
Hopefully commentors will understand it isn't TPB which is being hypocritical here.
"Well did you hit her first?"
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.
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.
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...
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.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
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.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
It could be said that they want you to copy the look feel and what they do, no steal the source code.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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...
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)?
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
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.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
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.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
-$1000 in lawyer costs.
+$100,000 in free publicity across the tech media.
Balance sheet still looking good...
A sig is placed here
To display how futile
English Haiku is
Free publicity :$BIGNUM
$BIGNUM - $LawyerlyChat = Nice dividend.
A sig is placed here
To display how futile
English Haiku is
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.
'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).
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.
Calling yourself a pirate does not make you a pirate.
Pirating from one who calls themselves a pirate, does make you a pirate.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
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.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
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.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
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.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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!
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.)
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.
TPB doesn't copy copyrighted material that doesn't belong to them. Apparently, CPIAC does though.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
The system has already made a mockery of itself. TPB is just pointing at the system and inviting us to laugh at it.
Learn to love Alaska
France separates author's right from copyright. one does not depend on the other.
Learn to love Alaska
"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?
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.
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.
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.
systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
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.