Swedish Pirate Party Threatened for Hosting the Pirate Bay

"The Rights Alliance" by crazyjj · 2013-02-20 02:41 · Score: 2, Funny

..or, as they're more commonly known: NINJAS!

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:"The Rights Alliance" by game+kid · 2013-02-20 02:56 · Score: 1

I don't recall "be a barely-retch-worthy litigious asshat" was the way of the shinobi.

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.

Re:You see... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 02:44 · Score: 5, Informative

Swedes have guns. Ranked 10th globally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
But they've got something better than guns.
They have human rights.

Isn't that political censorship? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 02:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

Since the pirate party is a political party in Sweden with seats in the European Parliament.

Or did TPB AFK lie?

Re:Isn't that political censorship? by 91degrees · 2013-02-20 02:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

I think that's the argument.

Actually it's not too bad an argument. The purpose here is not to infringe copyright - that's just a side effect - but to make a political statement. It's a protest against copyright, and the main thing they get out of it is political capital.
Re:Isn't that political censorship? by mumblestheclown · 2013-02-20 03:07 · Score: 0

By this logic, if i make a party whose primary platform is to be against bank security systems, I can legally just take whatever I want?
gettaddahere.
we all inherently know that "religious exemptions" for good laws are BS. Political excemptions should be no different. The correct answer is: build support, get into government, change the laws.
Re:Isn't that political censorship? by richie2000 · 2013-02-20 03:17 · Score: 2

No, it's true. Two seats.

--
Money for nothing, pix for free
Re:Isn't that political censorship? by ArhcAngel · 2013-02-20 03:56 · Score: 1

The correct answer is: build support, get into government, change the laws.
Yes, because that is exactly how we got the United States of America and civil rights...Oh wait!

--
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Re:Isn't that political censorship? by 91degrees · 2013-02-20 04:15 · Score: 1

It's not an out and out nullification, but it's an argument. Similar to the draft card burning opposition to the Vietnam War. There is little justification for robbing banks within the law, but protesting perceived infringement of free speech by repeating that "speech" is a well established political tactic.
Re:Isn't that political censorship? by viperidaenz · 2013-02-20 07:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

But while you're building support, before you get into government, you'll be censored or thrown in jail.
Re:Isn't that political censorship? by AmiMoJo · 2013-02-20 09:23 · Score: 1

I thought it was because political parties are granted certain immunity in order to ensure free and uncensored debate. We have a similar thing in the UK where a politician can say anything in parliament and can't be sued for libel or guilty of breaking an injunction.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Isn't that political censorship? by TapeCutter · 2013-02-20 11:09 · Score: 2

I agree it's a rough hiring process but nobody said it would be easy. The good thing about western democracy is that you're less likely to be assassinated or tortured for your political views than elsewhere. The problem with all revolutions is that they don't remove the establishment, they become it. Kinda sad to say but the current (western) establishment is quite likely "as good as it gets" by historical standards.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Isn't that political censorship? by TapeCutter · 2013-02-20 11:20 · Score: 1

Yep, same here in Oz. An MP can make false allegations and crude insults in parliament, however "misleading parliament" (supplying false answers), is an offense similar to perjury.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Isn't that political censorship? by viperidaenz · 2013-02-20 12:21 · Score: 1

Less likely to be tortured or assassinated? Sure. Not less likely to be censored or jailed.

Re:You see... by 91degrees · 2013-02-20 02:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Absolutely. Nothing gets people on the side of greater freedom, in the nuanced debate of freedom of speech versus copyright protection more than "I'll shoot you if you disagree".

Re:You see... by DHalcyon · 2013-02-20 02:48 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Clearly! Just go shoot up the Antipiratbyrån offices! That will solve the problem! I mean, that's how people in the US solve their problems all the time, right? That's why the United States are such a model of base democratic decision making: Because everyone has guns!

Small correction - not hosting by richie2000 · 2013-02-20 02:50 · Score: 5, Informative

We're not hosting TPB, we're just routing traffic to them. Just like an ISP. Serious Tubes routes traffic to the Pirate Party, so they're even more removed. But, last night, Portlane, one of the ISPs that routes traffic to Serious Tubes, was pressured into cutting their transit to ST, even if they were just a provider to a provider to a provider to TPB.

--
Money for nothing, pix for free

Re:Small correction - not hosting by Omnifarious · 2013-02-20 03:20 · Score: 2

but you still in principle are not against taking the movie or novel that my brother put his heart, soul, and financial future into making and giving it away to anybody who wants it, because in your theory he has no particular right to the fruits of such labor because it's bits on a disk instead of, say, a piece of hardware like your the expensive computers and smartphones middle-class users use to view the content, right?

If that's how it is, then your brother shouldn't make the movie or novel. Your brother has no right to make a profit on this.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 03:21 · Score: 0

Portlane should be seriously shamed for buckling like that. It definitely shows who's willing to stand up for what - and it's clearly not Portlane's customers.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by RaceProUK · 2013-02-20 03:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

By your logic, all ISPs are guilty of accessory to copyright infringement. Remind me never to employ you for legal advice.

--
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 03:28 · Score: 1

Whackjob conspiracy theories aside, your implication that every provider in the chain of custody leading to TBP should be held accountable is completely untenable. Since that includes the ISP which provides service to your brother, by which he initially transmitted his movie or novel, your brother will no longer have access. In fact, if we take the argument to its logical conclusion, since your brother facilitated the actions of TPB by providing content, in exactly the same way that ISP provided bandwidth, then he is as much responsible for the actions of TPB as anyone and should be held equally accountable.
Now, there is no content production whatsoever, and the entire internet has been disassembled. Congratulations.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by richie2000 · 2013-02-20 03:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, we're a party of civil rights.
We think it's wrong for private companies to spy on your Internet traffic and that copyright infringement should not render prison sentences. From this follows that it becomes impossible to enforce the copyright monopoly unless of course someone starts copying to sell - it's always much easier to follow the money. The obvious corollary to this is of course that it becomes legal to download songs and movies off the Internet. Like it already is in Spain, for example. And somehow, the Spanish movie industry flourishes. Coincidentally, a continued rise in file-sharing happens to correspond to increased sales of music and film in Sweden while movie theatres scored yet another record year. Obviously, they still get paid so your basic premise is flawed.
So, please tell me why we would give up our civil liberties because Hollywood wants to control how and when we watch movies?

--
Money for nothing, pix for free
Re:Small correction - not hosting by zwei2stein · 2013-02-20 03:43 · Score: 1, Interesting

And where did you get right to make use of his work without giving something in return to either him or society?
Breathing and being alive does not count.

--
-- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by ifiwereasculptor · 2013-02-20 03:45 · Score: 2

but you still in principle are not against taking the movie or novel that my brother put his heart, soul, and financial future into making and giving it away to anybody who wants it, because in your theory he has no particular right to the fruits of such labor because it's bits on a disk instead of, say, a piece of hardware like your the expensive computers and smartphones middle-class users use to view the content, right?
I can't speak for him, but I, particularly, have nothing agains that sort of distribution. For different reasons, though. Movies and novels aren't necessary. They're either entertainment or propaganda (by that I merely mean something that conveys a political message or social commentary). In the first case, it should be relegated to hobbyists, partly because I think profit is a lousy motive for quality writing (see: Dan Brown, Stephanie Meyer, a bunch of other crap) and partly because the Shire is a very comfortable environment for writing. In the second case, novels and movies (particularly documentaries) are socially useful to us, but they still should be done in the name of its message, not for profit. Otherwise you're tempted to distort your views for market acceptance, which is counterproductive for fomenting honest social debate.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Hatta · 2013-02-20 03:46 · Score: 2

but you still in principle are not against taking the movie or novel that my brother put his heart, soul, and financial future into making and giving it away to anybody who wants it, because in your theory he has no particular right to the fruits of such labor because it's bits on a disk instead of, say, a piece of hardware like your the expensive computers and smartphones middle-class users use to view the content, right?
Yes, exactly. Bits on a disk are not scarce. Hardware is scarce. The two are entirely different economic paradigms and it makes no sense to force one to be like the other. The real injustice is in the government trying to subvert basic laws of economics.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Small correction - not hosting by tepples · 2013-02-20 03:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

And where did you get right to make use of his work without giving something in return to either him or society?
I guess from the fact that he published it. Copyright is a state-sponsored way to have a cake (publication) and eat it too (exclusive rights).
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 03:50 · Score: 0

your brother shouldn't make the movie or novel. Your brother has no right to make a profit on this.
Why not?
Re:Small correction - not hosting by mumblestheclown · 2013-02-20 03:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

for as long as there has been law, a key tenet has been that intent matters. this is the difference between murder and and a regrettable accident.
your applying of a mechanistic rule "link, therefore guilty or innocent" is naive and excludes that intelligent people can judiciously come to a reasonable understanding of what the intent of any given action is.
and this is the problem on slashdot - you think that law and policy is a series of mechanistic rules - like computer code. but it's not and it shouldn't be for any number of good reasons, not the least of which is that it simply won't work.
but you know - mark me a 'troll' - go on - call any reasoned disagreement as 'flamebait.' i've been on slashdot long enough to know the drill.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by mumblestheclown · 2013-02-20 03:53 · Score: 1

Umm.
1. I made clear that my 'wackjob conspiracy theory' was tongue in cheek.
2. your 'chain' argument is nonsense. see my response to 'RaceProUK'
law and policy does not work by slippery slope reasoning or by rigid application of principles, old testament style. until you understand this "law and policy for beginners" fact, you simply do not engage the discussion meaningfully.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by zwei2stein · 2013-02-20 03:59 · Score: 0

I would like to word this bluntly:
(Sweedish) Pirate party is founded to get good publicity for business and to ensure it stays profitable and unhindered.
That business is basically making money of displaying advertizements (along with doing things like attempting users to download browser toolbar and other things that freedom loving geeks shound not event consider) when people are searching its index which is nearly 100% composed of pirated material. Should have there been "no more downloads of pirated content", it would go bankrupt and its owners would likely have to find real work other than being just middlemen.
Add to that arrogant behavior that would end up with them being punched in face, this does not make good image of them for me.
They are getting votes of:
a) FUD Populism - various privacy e-scares and first world problems.
b) Giving people free shit and promise that it will still be free. Good old bread & games.
c) Exploting underdog effect of brave folks fighting evil big bads and rebeling against authority.
Which sums to getting votes from naive and/or young.
They are exactly same as all politicians: using political capital to enable them to get money.
Turns out that I can not be bought for few free mp3s, avis and promises that are impossible to keep. What about you?

--
-- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-02-20 04:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

because in your theory he has no particular right to the fruits of such labor because it's bits on a disk instead of, say, a piece of hardware like your the expensive computers and smartphones middle-class users use to view the content, right?
Tell us about this computer of mine. Do I own the hard disk? If I own the hard disk, can I use it how I see fit? Can I arrange the bit patterns in any way that I want? If I own it, I surely can.
Now, then, it sounds like you'd like to use an armed gang to prevent me from arranging the bit pattern on my hard drive in a way that replicates a bit pattern that your bother came up with. In my country (the US), as an example, you'd like to use that armed gang to prevent 300 million people from using their property in that way, if they so choose.
You either have to make an argument that I don't own my hard drive but that your bother does own his bit pattern (that imaginary property is superior to real property, abrogating the entire basis for Western civilization) or you have to claim that you'll willing to take away the property rights of hundreds of millions of people to pad the business plan of one man. Because if real property rights don't exit, surely imaginary ones don't either.
Clearly it's wrong. Find a better business model (I suggest Creator Endorsed as a morally sound option) but whether you personally know of a sound business plan that will allow your brother to make money on that work or not doesn't justify taking away the property rights of millions or billions of people by force for his private benefit.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 04:02 · Score: 1

So, please tell me why we would give up our civil liberties because Hollywood wants to control how and when we watch movies?
The point you're completely ignoring is that you can always make the decision to simply not consume the content. I agree that the penalties far outweigh the offenses, and that copyright (and patent) laws are in dire need of reform... but that does not mean I advocate consuming the content. Whether the rights holder is a small individual eating scraps out of the trash can or a 'big bad' corporation with a golden buffet is not relevant, you're still not entitled to the content.
And in the context of this story, you're splitting hairs and playing with semantics. True, you may not be hosting their site but you're still routing traffic to/from their ASN. Funny how many people are more than happy to blackhole entire regions which are the sources for spam and port scanning, even with no legal Judgements, but when it's a site with Judgements against it for illegal activity suddenly it's a "rights issue". Give me a fucking break.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by mumblestheclown · 2013-02-20 04:15 · Score: 0, Troll

Thanks for the response. However, I'm sorry, but your argument is very wanting.
You are saying, quite literally, "because private companies should not be able to spy on internet traffic, internet traffic cannot be policed, and therefore all uses of the internet should be left alone." This is almost scandalous in its willful torpidity.
your argument effectively makes it impossible for law enforcement to engage in any meaningful oversight of everything from child pornography to bank fraud. "but" you'll say, "these are crimes, and copyright is a civil affair." except that it isn't.. or rather, what you will find yourself arguing for is for the government to be more actively involved in prosecuting copyright infringers- is this really what you want?
if piracy (i use this term as shorthand for unfettered, ahem, 'sharing') results in increased sales, then tell me why rightsholders are so against it? I find your claim about the spanish movie industry to be "flourishing" to be comedy, as anybody who can google the words "Spanish film industry subsidies" can quickly see.
I fully agree that civil liberties are important. however, they don't exist in a vacuum--for example, the reason that sweden is sweden and not somalia with regards to weapons is that swedish weapons laws are balanced. I suggest you have a read of the excellent (but dated) book "rights talk" which goes into this in some detail. while i understand that you try to frame this issue int terms of "big evil hollywood with its billions in profit" because that attracts teenagers to your cause, let's look more realistically on what's going on in sweden - the recent case and the court ruling against you vis a vis a small publisher of audiobooks is telling. http://edri.org/bonnier or are you going to tell me that the swedish audiobook firm was gaining business by having its work expropriated? how many examples, excactly, do you need of the chilling effects of piracy, companies that have gone bankrupt because of piracy, and BROAD academic studies comparing rates of innovation to IP protection (the "pro-piracy" people invariably make small focused studies to pick out statistical anomalies - like your spanish film claim which is not actually true) before you admit that really what you are after is power?
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 04:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

The point you are ignoring is that it does not matter if I "consume the content" or not. If you want to let corporations filter your Internet, you are well and truly fucked, regardless if you "consume the content" or not. Or do you just assume that the RIAA won't abuse their powers once they get them?
Well, here's a newsflash - They already are. they have sent their extortion letters to infants, dead people and the blind. They don't give a shit if you "consume their content" or not, as long as you pay up and stay a happy little consumer, and if they have to scare and bully a large part of the population to get that, well, that's just what they have to do, right?
And no, I do not think it's a good idea to blackhole entire regions for spam. You must have me confused with a narrow-minded bigot that can not accept that anyone else has a different point of view. Check a mirror and pull that giant strawman out of your ass. Please.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 04:21 · Score: 0

Funny how many people are more than happy to blackhole entire regions which are the sources for spam and port scanning, even with no legal Judgements, but when it's a site with Judgements against it for illegal activity suddenly it's a "rights issue".
Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? Blacklisting spam sources is done voluntarily by whoever runs the mail server - it's NOT the government demanding "do it or else". I might also point out that it's quite legal for me to tell someone where they can purchase drugs or stolen merchandise as long as I derive no benefit from it, so how exactly is linking to a download site or indiscriminately routing traffic different?
Re:Small correction - not hosting by nazsco · 2013-02-20 04:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

...and not being merchanists would allow you to see how wrong it is to go after information dissemination cases instead of hiring more personnel to solve actual crimes.
IP cases costs me my tax money and bring me zero benefit.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by TemperedAlchemist · 2013-02-20 04:38 · Score: 1

So what, are you going to start suing private toll road owners because sometimes people traffic stolen merchandise through them?
Get real man, this isn't about stealing or copyright infringement. It's about an industry that has been violating our basic human rights, extorting people and artists, and stagnating technological process through litigation.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by RaceProUK · 2013-02-20 04:58 · Score: 1

your applying of a mechanistic rule "link, therefore guilty or innocent"
I think you misunderstand my post; I never said anything of the sort. I merely summarised the GP post then dismissed it as arse gravy, and the mods seem to agree with me (for now anyway :)).

--
No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 04:58 · Score: 0

This. Only so much more. If the limitation on time was actually limited in some fashion instead of constantly expanding it might be valid. What benefits have we gained with the expanding time frame on IP? There was no benefit to society with the change in laws. No give for their take if you may.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by SuricouRaven · 2013-02-20 05:02 · Score: 1

Meyer wasn't just writing for profit. She has a personal investment: Her writing is an expression of her social and religious beliefs, and an allegorical argument for them. That doesn't make her a good writer, in part because her beliefs (That the rightful place of a woman is in the kitchen, doing as she is told by her male protector) are silly. But you can't fairly accuse her of being just in it for the money.
Dan Brown you can have though. That guy just makes conspiracy crap up because he knows it'll sell.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by jbssm · 2013-02-20 05:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

You see; Mozart, Beethoven, Dante Aguilleri, Luis de Camoes, Virgil, Bach, Rimsky-Korsakov, Shakespeare, not to mention the obvious and all the plastic artists who still now-a-days are not able to sell copies of their labour, never survived by making something, copying basically for free, and selling it.
Art has a whole survived quite well for countless generations without copyright profits, in fact - in my opinion - it survived better than these days, where any mediocre writer can make a mediocre job and by luck/marketing for idiot people have their mediocre piece shoved down our throats everywhere we deem to look.
A truly good artist should make art for the sake of art, not for the sake of profit or even to earn a living. Those are the works that will be remembered in 1000 years, and not some Twilight crap. If your brother only wants a job to gain some money, there are lots of opportunities out there that don't need art to suffer for it.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by mumblestheclown · 2013-02-20 05:09 · Score: 1

> IP cases costs me my tax money and bring me zero benefit.
I'm so glad that you and everybody that you know have never been treated by any medication that has been developed by a profit motive possible primarly due to profit motive, or that you have never used any device brought to market because of the profit motive that patents allow for and also that you have never watched any entertainment that was generated as a profit making venture, again, due to copyright.
when you get back from gilligan's island, let us know.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by mumblestheclown · 2013-02-20 05:11 · Score: 1

the vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of copyright infringed materials are of recent vintage, making your argument both self defeating and a naked attempt at muddling the issue with some sideshow.
yes, copyright should be limited, but marginal effects on steamboat willie really are not central to the issue.
patents are a short 20 years or so and the resulting inventions have bought incalculable benefit to the world. virtually every pharmaceutical you have ever heard of AND NONE YOU HAVEN'T have been developed because of the profit motive that the patent system allows for.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by mumblestheclown · 2013-02-20 05:12 · Score: 1

government or private company?
will you at least get your argument straight? the difference matters, since presumably an argument AGAINST a private company doing this can be seen as an argument FOR government doing it, and vice versa.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by mumblestheclown · 2013-02-20 05:14 · Score: 1

should i bring out morbo who will yell at you that LAW DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY?
law does not work by your idiotic mechanistic application of rigid principles, so your slippery slope arguments are null and void, even if logically sound in some computer programmer sort of way.
honestly this is "law and policy 101" stuff. your argument is tired and deeply, deeply wanting.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Omnifarious · 2013-02-20 05:20 · Score: 1

And where did you get right to make use of his work without giving something in return to either him or society?

When he published it.
If I go pick up all the trash along a road, should I have the right to sue the city for the work I did without compensation? When did they get the right to have a clean street without contributing anything to me or society for having made it happen?

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 05:23 · Score: 0

So, please tell me why we would give up our civil liberties because Hollywood wants to control how and when we watch movies?
Give us a break... movies are not an essential commodity. Au contraire, we're in this fucked up situation because people like you think it's essential to watch movies and listen to songs from the music industry when it's not even close. The fact that you guys keep insisting to watch movies and listen to music industry songs only fuels the flames of the IP movement, which affects not only the stuff on TPB but theatrical plays, storytelling, and software development, among other things.
It is people like you who insist to consume the crap from Hollywood that give the corporations the ammo to make life more difficult for the rest of us.
Do you really want to do some good? Do you really want to help people? Tell everybody to stop consuming products from these thugs, don't go to movie theatres, don't buy DVDs, don't buy CDs, don't listen to commercial radio or TV, and definitely do not share any of the above online. You really need to de-program everybody from thinking they'd stop breathing if they don't watch the latest must-see movie or TV show... Good luck with that, but please, for the love of humanity, stop celebrating these useless thugs by fighting them.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Hatta · 2013-02-20 05:23 · Score: 1

Abolishing slavery put a lot of people out of business too. I don't weep for them, nor will I weep for anyone put out of business by the abolition of copyright. Profit is not more important than civil rights.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 05:33 · Score: 0

Maybe I should make a useless book/movie then claim I have a right to profit from it.

If you want a guarantee of income, then get the payment up-front before you make it.

A right cannot be taken away no matter what. If you think you have a right to profit from something, then you have a right to profit from nothing.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by zwei2stein · 2013-02-20 05:50 · Score: 1

Are you arguing against yourself?
> If I go pick up all the trash along a road, should I have the right to sue the city for the work I did without compensation? When did they get the right to have a clean street without contributing anything to me or society for having made it happen?
Except that city can not prevents itself from volunteer helping out.
Leech has distinct option of not having chain of actions that lead to him having downloaded and enjoyed something.
You example would have been right city forced you to pick up trash, torrent node would have been okay if he only distributed work which someone volunteered for distribution (gpl, creative commons...)

--
-- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by zwei2stein · 2013-02-20 05:58 · Score: 1

And you want cake (watch movie) and eat it too (not pay a cent).
What about everyone having their cake?
You download stuff that people want to share - you get free stuff and can consume it, but refrain from touching other stuff.
You know, pay respect to authors or works you enjoy.

--
-- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by fredprado · 2013-02-20 06:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Movies are not an essential commodity, but the restrictions the corporations want to impose upon people through their lobbies in order to be able to control their distributions are in blatant violation of human rights.

What matters is not if piracy is right or wrong, but if we should allow our rights to evaporate because big corporations want ridiculous powers in order to police their anachronistic rights.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by fredprado · 2013-02-20 06:10 · Score: 1

I don't know where you took that from, my good sir, but you are in dire need to see a doctor.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by camperdave · 2013-02-20 06:18 · Score: 2

That business is basically making money of displaying advertizements (along with doing things like attempting users to download browser toolbar and other things that freedom loving geeks shound not event consider) when people are searching its index which is nearly 100% composed of pirated material.
There is absolutely no pirated content on the Pirate Bay servers. What they have is a link to other people's servers. If you want to stop online piracy, you need to follow the trail to the seeders, not to the people who tell you where the seeders are. The one that makes/uploads the torrent file is the guilty party.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 06:45 · Score: 1

And where did you get right to make use of his work without giving something in return to either him or society?
The return to society is completed when I can use the work to create a derivative or use the work as inspiration for my next new big idea.
Just because you created something does not mean that you have a right to compensation. You only have the right to attempt to collect some sort of compensation. If society doesn't want to pay what you ask for it, well that just sucks for you. You can lower your price point until you reach a level that people are willing to pay or you can just bask in the knowledge that you contributed something to the greater good that will be used indefinitely to inspire or create other works.
Producing a creative product such as a book, art, movie, etc. should not be an indefinite paycheck because it removes the incentive to keep creating. If you know that you can live off something for your lifetime and your children's what incentive do you have to create something new? Greed perhaps? Now if you know that you have a limited right of sole distribution that ends in say seven years or ten years then the onus is on you to create something new to sustain you after that day comes.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 07:05 · Score: 1

I'm so glad that you and everybody that you know have never been treated by any medication that has been developed by a profit motive possible primarly due to profit motive
Oh, I'm pretty sure that that is true of most modern medicines. They have probably been funded by tax money but the developers gladly took the money to pay for the expenses and kept the profit for themselves.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 07:20 · Score: 0

+1: Use of the phrase "willful torpidity" +1: Arguing against piracy on /. +1: Making lots of good arguments. Good luck sir!
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 07:26 · Score: 1

Tell us about this computer of mine. Do I own the hard disk? If I own the hard disk, can I use it how I see fit?
No. You can't. You can't use it to commit a crime, just as you can't use any of your other property to commit crimes.
There are good arguments you can use here, but "I own it therefore nothing I do with it should be prohibited!" is childish and extremist.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Kjella · 2013-02-20 07:29 · Score: 1

You either have to make an argument that I don't own my hard drive but that your bother does own his bit pattern (that imaginary property is superior to real property, abrogating the entire basis for Western civilization)
You're a bit high on the hyperbole, private property is not a total and absolute right. The government can and will come in and condemn the building if it's not up to spec and in general there's a ton of laws that apply to what, when and how you care to use your private property to play a drum solo at 3AM. Even if you've done nothing to upset the neighbors they'll still come and arrest you for growing pot in the basement, private property or not. It's not exactly the equivalent of a total ban on gardening or a nazi-commie-fascist regime. You only need 128-256 random bits for a string to be totally unique, you didn't listen to /dev/rand and accidentally created a 3MB metallica song the way you could "reinvent" the BLT sandwich. You'd be pretty hard pressed to argue that copyright prevents you from assembling your own bits in your own pattern that you've created.
Is copyright a limitation on real property? Most certainly and I doubt anyone has questioned that for centuries because it was even more obvious when it took paper and ink to copy a book, not just flipping bits on a hard disk but the Statute of Anne is over 300 years old and the grants of monopolies and printing privileges go back to the 15th century so how far back to you want to go to find this copyright-free basis of western civilization, the dark ages? Even the US constitution and Bill of Rights managed to say "freedom of the press" and "time limited exclusive rights to authors" at the same time, so free but not that free. History is history, now it's the Information Age and we have fantastic and exact information-duplication machines, so we want to stop information? As likely as the Roman Church was to stop the spread of Bibles after Gutenberg, I'd say.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Small correction - not hosting by fatphil · 2013-02-20 07:32 · Score: 2

Nope. But clearly (yes, that's the sign for impending sarcasm) all shop owners who've suffered robberies should have the right to sue the local councils who maintain the roads that the get-away cars drive on.

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 07:54 · Score: 0

I'm so glad that you and everybody that you know have never been treated by any medication that has been developed by a profit motive
Well, some of us has been treated by "copy drugs" that was affordable only because royalties wasn't paid. Some governments prioritize saving lives over "foreign IP rights".
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Omnifarious · 2013-02-20 08:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

Did I force the artist to publish anything? I don't think so. That's the choice the artist has. Publish and be pirated, or don't publish and keep things to yourself.
I'm perfectly happy to find that only artists who are happy to work in an environment where they don't need control over my stuff and the ability to censor people in order to make money are the only artists who's stuff is available. In fact, I would be overjoyed if all the artists who want to tell me how to use my own stuff or control who's allowed to say things would just go away and stop creating things. Then the rest of us can figure out how to function in a reasonably sane world in peace.
Heck, I already find most newspaper comics too boring to read. And I don't notice that the authors of web comics are busily forming guilds to sue the heck out of everybody or shut down piece of the internet they don't like. Though a few have publicly outed people who repost their stuff without attribution and tarnished the reputations of the reposters. And I'm just fine with that too.
The artist has no 'right' to be compensate whenever something is copied after they've published it. After that it stops being their property. For artists who can't figure out how to live in that world, they can go away and I don't care.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Omnifarious · 2013-02-20 08:28 · Score: 1

And you want cake (watch movie) and eat it too (not pay a cent).

Gee, those don't seem nearly as mutually exclusive as publication vs. exclusive rights. Heck, I see people doing that all the time trivially. Whereas I see a huge legal apparatus being swung into place in a vain and horribly destructive attempt to try to reverse the laws of nature to try to make publishing + exclusive rights a reality.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 08:42 · Score: 0

Well, your brother can complain that the internet isn't letting him bend over for middlemen, or he can use the internet to market the book and spread good word of mouth and good faith.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 09:08 · Score: 0

He is talking about charging people for not stopping criminals who use that person's service, and you are talking about charging people for not stopping people who don't stop criminals from using their service for using their service. Slippery slopes go downhill, not up.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by ultranova · 2013-02-20 09:37 · Score: 1

but you still in principle are not against taking the movie or novel that my brother put his heart, soul, and financial future into making and giving it away to anybody who wants it

Perhaps your brother shouldn't had bet his financial future on a plan that requires restricting what third parties may do with each other?

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by bug1 · 2013-02-20 10:09 · Score: 2

Add to that arrogant behavior that would end up with them being punched in face
You need to talk to someone about your anger managment problems.
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 10:33 · Score: 0

Lets have buissnies be depended on government and have government be a large influence in the market.
Ye, that will work perfectly fine!
Re:Small correction - not hosting by AlphaWolf_HK · 2013-02-21 06:08 · Score: 1

One that will really bake your noodle is: Why the fuck are taxpayers being forced to pay some guy to stick a crucifix inside of a jar full of piss?
I'm not religious so the message of the art doesn't bother me, but...damn. It's not even art that I'm interested in, yet I have to contribute to it anyways. This is what us libertarians complain about when it comes to wasteful spending, but it takes a religious uproar to bring it to the forefront.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 21:52 · Score: 0

What movie did your brother work on? I want to download it, bitch :D SUCK MY DICK FAGGOT
Re:Small correction - not hosting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-22 05:22 · Score: 0

However, in the era of the printing press, America outright ignored Europe's copyright and patents. Small firms ignored other small firms patents and copyrights and disappeared whenever the big guys came knocking. Also, terms were alot shorter for copyrights and patents as well.
In short, our rapid advancement in the last 200 years is due to ignoring this guy's brother. It has also seen the birth and growth of capitalism vs mercantilism, seen the rise and fall of marxism, and has shown the inherent problems in capitalism as well. With all the work in nanotechnology, artificial Intelligence, and robotics, I believe we are on the cusp of another revolution just as large as the Industrial revolution.
We need to start addressing social issues and building the framework for the new age now, before the unpleasantness starts and we get our own very Civil War (the turning point in the industrial north vs the Agrarian south and their struggle for power).

Re:You see... by richie2000 · 2013-02-20 02:51 · Score: 5, Funny

We used to have human rights. Now we just have...

Well, quite a lot of snow. And reality shows on TV. And snow. Yeah, that's about it.

--
Money for nothing, pix for free

Re:You see... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 02:52 · Score: 1

Show me a singe gun-nut that actually stood up against the government when they removed the rights of the people instead of cheering them on and I might be with you on that.

Kudos to them by kju · 2013-02-20 02:56 · Score: 2

I'm somewhat teared apart on this. On the one hand, it is great that they fight against this "Right Alliance". On the other hand, it appears quite foolish, considering the harsh sentences the TPB founders have received (we were told at that time, that what PirateBay does would be legal under swedish law, still they got very stiff sentences).

Kudos to them to stand up against this pressure, but I absolutely hope that none of them will have to face similar hard problems and sentences. And I hope that the pirate party will not get damage from this.

Re:Kudos to them by TheP4st · 2013-02-20 03:34 · Score: 4, Informative

we were told at that time, that what PirateBay does would be legal under swedish law, still they got very stiff sentences
In all fairness it never reached the Supreme Court, possibly the appeal were denied due to political pressure as a Supreme Court ruling done in the spirit of law would not have fallen well with the USA. Remember that the US went to such lengths as threatening with trade sanctions in order to satisfy the MAFIAA?
http://torrentfreak.com/sweden-threatened-with-trade-sanctions-by-the-us-over-the-piratebay/

--
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
Re:Kudos to them by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 04:47 · Score: 0

Remember that the US went to such lengths as threatening with trade sanctions in order to satisfy the MAFIAA?
Can we please have these trade sanctions? I'd rather have my country (not sweden, but close) be free to make its own laws on how imaginary property should be regulated. Sure the americans might be upset about it, but they get pissed every time they lose a dollar. Even in a dying model.
Re:Kudos to them by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 04:48 · Score: 1

When you stand up to bullies, there's a real risk you'll get seriously hurt.
Godspeed Pirate Party!
Re:Kudos to them by Drethon · 2013-02-20 05:18 · Score: 2

Did you mean they get pissed every time a dollar they think belongs in their pocket goes to someone else?

Re:You see... by mumblestheclown · 2013-02-20 03:04 · Score: 5, Funny

No fascism in somalia! Be sure to send us a postcard.

This will be very interesting. by TheP4st · 2013-02-20 03:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

In the letter references are made to 2 court rulings made in a lower court and used to claim that the ISP is committing an illegal act, if I recall correctly both these cases were appealed to the Swedish equivalent of the Supreme Court but never got that far.

With a bit of luck The Pirate Party stand their ground and this will reach the Supreme Court and finally a precedent will be set as should have been done years ago when the TPB founders were at trial.

In my belief the reason that it never reached the Supreme Court is that any ruling based on Swedish law would have ruled in favor of TPB, so the Swedish Supreme Court took the easy way out by not taking up the case. As by taking up the case the Supreme Court would have been faced with:

1. Setting a precedent that would not go down well with the political powers by ruling according to the spirit of the law. Remember that the US did threaten with embargo in order to strongarm Sweden into acting in the interests of the MAFIAA. So there were a lot of political interests in the outcome of the TPB case.

Or

2. Reach a ruling that is in contradiction to the law as written. Being the Supreme Court this is not really a appealing option so the path of least resistance were chosen. Screw over a bunch of cocky nerds by not granting their appeal.

--
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold

Re:This will be very interesting. by TheP4st · 2013-02-20 03:06 · Score: 0

Damn I forgot to add a "First!"

--
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
Re:This will be very interesting. by ehlo · 2013-02-20 03:39 · Score: 1

2. Reach a ruling that is in contradiction to the law as written. Being the Supreme Court this is not really a appealing option so the path of least resistance were chosen. Screw over a bunch of cocky nerds by not granting their appeal.
The Supreme Court cannot 'reach a ruling in contradiction with the law'. While courts can interprate the law, they cannot operate outside of it or even create law. That is for Parliament to do. The Courts job is to apply the law.
Re:This will be very interesting. by Hatta · 2013-02-20 03:48 · Score: 1

Reach a ruling that is in contradiction to the law as written. Being the Supreme Court this is not really a appealing option
Really? That never stopped the SCOTUS.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:This will be very interesting. by Hatta · 2013-02-20 03:50 · Score: 1

The Supreme Court cannot 'reach a ruling in contradiction with the law'.
Sure they can. Who is going to stop them?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:This will be very interesting. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 04:01 · Score: 0

They can't by definition, the same way an umpire in a baseball game cannot make an incorrect call, or the Pope cannot say anything incorrect when speaking ex cathedra.
Re:This will be very interesting. by c0lo · 2013-02-20 04:06 · Score: 1

The Supreme Court cannot 'reach a ruling in contradiction with the law'.
Sure they can. Who is going to stop them?
Me! I'm going to swe 'dem!
(sorry for bad puns. Insomnia and all that)

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:This will be very interesting. by Hatta · 2013-02-20 04:18 · Score: 1

By holding to that definition, you reject the rule of law in favor of the rule of man. Clearly the Supreme Court is made of fallible humans, and they have made errors in the past. Why even have a Constitution if you believe that what 9 people in robes say about it is more important than what it actually says?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:This will be very interesting. by silas_moeckel · 2013-02-20 06:25 · Score: 1

In the US the supreme court has no method of enforcing it's decisions that's the job of the executive branch which is free to ignore it and congress is free to impeach if they do so ignore.
PS when you get down to it there is only the rule of the gun, ultimately force must be used.

--
No sir I dont like it.

Re:You see... by mumblestheclown · 2013-02-20 03:05 · Score: 0, Troll

So, do you get your goth makeup at hot topic or is it more of a mail order thing now?

Re:You see... by mwvdlee · 2013-02-20 03:07 · Score: 0

Because guns are more fair than voting?

Only if you think you opinion outweighs those of others (it doesn't), if your ideas are too stupid/unpopular to start your own political party (likely), if you're too lazy to do so (more likely) or if you're just using it as an excuse to own a gun (this).

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?

Re:You see... by mwvdlee · 2013-02-20 03:10 · Score: 4, Funny

There is something to be said for the democracy by vote of guns.
What can be said is psychotic, paranoid and insane, but still; something can be said.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?

No, that was by YOUR logic. Or whatever that was. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 03:19 · Score: 1

But then again, mumbles, you never were clear on any subject.

Suggested reply by dkleinsc · 2013-02-20 03:21 · Score: 2

The citation I'd recommend using is Arkell vs Pressdram. Now granted, that was a UK case, not a Swedish case, but I'm guessing that The Rights Alliance will get the message.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

Re:You see... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 03:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

To be fair, it needs to be an option of last resort when you're faced with total financial obliteration for doing something that, while completely legal, an entity with large sums of money dislikes. The reasons that Colt's revolver was labeled "the great equalizer" are still evident today, even if we find the implications unpalatable. The modern legal system in most developed countries generally favors the clown with the deepest pockets, and can be a life-ruining experience for the average citizen; in those instances, "just shoot the fucker" may be the only recourse available to said citizen, and even the possibility of that can have far-reaching effects on the willingness of those with deep pockets to pursue matters to the point of financial ruin.

what to do? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 03:30 · Score: 0

What can we do to stop these fuckers? (The Swedish Anti-Piracy Bureau)

translation by ehlo · 2013-02-20 03:31 · Score: 5, Informative

Here's my translation of the letter they sent them. Anything in []'s are my own additions.

Participation in copyright infringement

The Rights Alliance represent among others Noble Entertainment, Nordic Film and SF [Swedish Film], companies which hold the copyright to many Swedish movies that without permission are made available to the public through the Pirate Bay. The Pirate Party and Serious Tubes provide internet access to the Pirate Bay.

In February 2012 the Supreme Court decided to not allow an appeal in the so called Pirate Bay case. Through that decision it was established that not only those who administrate an illegal file sharing service but also those that provide internet access to such an illegal service make themselves guilty of a crime. Despite the fact that the Court has made this clear you continue to do so [provide the internet access]. Since all legal avenues have been exhausted, the only thing left for us to do is request that you cease providing internet access to the Pirate Bay

Through this letter you are formally informed that infringement of rights that are protected by copy right law are occurring through the Pirate Bay and that you participate in these infringements by providing internet access to the Pirate Bay.

Copyright law provides that an injunction can be imposed on those that participate in copyright infringement, fines being the consequence of non-compliance. Liability for damages for any harm caused is also established. These rules apply to among others juridical persons [companies], including non-profit/charitable organisations like the Pirate Bay and Serious Tubes, their board of directors and other associates.

According to copy right law, participating in copyright infringement is extensive. Four people have been handed prison terms and significant damages for participation in copyright infringement for, inter alia [among other things], participation in the running of and the supply of broadband internet/internet access to the Pirate Bay. Furthermore, Svea Hovratt [the Court of Appeal, inferior only to the Supreme Court] have forbidden two companies with threats of fines of 500000 SEK (US$ 80000; £52000) from in the first case supplying internet access to Pirate Bay and in the second case from providing internet access to a tracker that was used for illegal file sharing (Svea Hovratt Case No. Ö 7131-09, Case No. Ö 8873-09 and Case No. Ö 10146-09. Furthermore, Stockholm District Court established by judgment of the 16th of October 2012 the injunctions established by Svea Hovratt in Svea Hovratt Case No’s Ö 7131-09 and 8873-09 (Stockholm District Court Case No. T 7540-09 and Case No. T 11712-09.

With this as a background the copyright holders that we represent request that the Pirate Party and Serious Tubes immediately cease supplying internet access to the Pirate Bay. If notification of having done so has not been received by latest the 26th of February 2013 the Rights Alliance will pursue legal action against you without further communications.

If you would like more information you are welcome to contact us.

Kind regards,

Sara Lindback
The Rights Alliance.

-------

They're using scare tactics. They are referring to cases and trying to make it look like those cases have established that what they are doing is illegal by analogy, but I seriously doubt any Court would entertain that notion and I would expect that they would try any case fully on its merits. I think that becomes even more apparent when they threaten to go after the board of directors personally and threaten that they can be held liable for damages for the copyright infringement in personam [out of their own pockets].

Re:translation by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 05:20 · Score: 0

They're using scare tactics. They are referring to cases and trying to make it look like those cases have established that what they are doing is illegal by analogy, but I seriously doubt any Court would entertain that notion and I would expect that they would try any case fully on its merits. I think that becomes even more apparent when they threaten to go after the board of directors personally and threaten that they can be held liable for damages for the copyright infringement in personam [out of their own pockets].
Considering that there was such blatant and unapologetic judicial bias during the Pirate Bay trial that the court practically became a wholly owned subsidiary of the MPAA/RIAA, acting on the merits of the case where TPB is concerned is the only thing a Swedish court could do that would surprise me anymore.

Re:You see... by Zimluura · 2013-02-20 03:37 · Score: 1

Nicely worded.

The modern legal system in most developed countries generally favors the clown with the deepest pockets

If I only had the mod points...and there were a "+1 quotable".

Re:pirate party by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 03:38 · Score: 1

The name is a bad use of irony. It's as if governments outlawed innocent persuasion, calling all acts of persuasion "extortion" so you founded an "Extortion Party" to defy the new anti-speech laws. Yeah, it might be kind of dumb from some PoVs, or rather, it might be such that unusually dumb people aren't able to get the joke. Jokes are bad in the mainstream; people are too humorless/stupid.

Re:pirate party by PPH · 2013-02-20 03:40 · Score: 1

Sorry. That's already in use by US political parties.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

This is a job for Anonymous!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 03:45 · Score: 1

This is more of a serious issue that someone needs to seriously fight back against!

Re:This is a job for Anonymous!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 04:28 · Score: 0

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xxobd9_anonymous-message_news#.USZH7-BfKRY

Media conglomerates frame political discourse by tepples · 2013-02-20 03:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

The correct answer is: build support, get into government, change the laws.

How is that possible when the movie studios control the means of getting into national government?

OCILLA by tepples · 2013-02-20 03:51 · Score: 4, Informative

By your logic, all ISPs are guilty of accessory to copyright infringement.

Clarifying this situation is why laws like the U.S. Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (1998) had to be passed.

Re:You see... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 03:53 · Score: 1

Show me a singe gun-nut that actually stood up against the government when they removed the rights of the people instead of cheering them on and I might be with you on that.

Spend a little time catching up on modern events, I can think of a half dozen cases which made national and international news in the US since the early 90's. I'd post details, but it will do you far more good to do the research yourself.

The first item of business when taking over a region is to disarm the population. If guns were really such a non-issue in terms of standing up to a government, they wouldn't waste their time.

So, not used, then. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 03:56 · Score: 0

Oh, and "the great equaliser" isn't in the day of bullet poof vests, APCs and advanced weaponry.

PS rule by gun in most developed countries would favour the clown with the deepest pockets (to buy the biggest guns and hire the meanest mercenaries). Net benefit here is what?

Re:So, not used, then. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 04:43 · Score: 1

The benefit would be much quicker dispute resolution and much lower cost to the tax-payer. Also, each persons power is now a function of their wealth and their number of lives (usually 1). While still unbalanced, the playing field is much closer to level and things become quite a bit more democratic.
Don't get me wrong, it's an utterly monstrous and uncivilised notion, but it may well be a step up from the current system.

Can make its misinterpretation binding by tepples · 2013-02-20 03:57 · Score: 1

The Supreme Court cannot 'reach a ruling in contradiction with the law'. While courts can interprate the law, they cannot operate outside of it or even create law.

In legal systems that have the concept of binding precedent, the Supreme Court can completely misinterpret a statute and make its misinterpretation binding on lower courts.

Re:Can make its misinterpretation binding by SuricouRaven · 2013-02-20 05:18 · Score: 1

Except that their precedent then *becomes* the law. They still can't contradict it. It's a logical impossibility. What they can do is effectively retroactively change the meaning of a law, and if they do so in a way too blatant it'll annoy the legislators enough that they'll repeal or revise the law and try again.
Re:Can make its misinterpretation binding by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 06:05 · Score: 0

Except that their precedent then *becomes* the law. They still can't contradict it. It's a logical impossibility. What they can do is effectively retroactively change the meaning of a law, and if they do so in a way too blatant it'll annoy the legislators enough that they'll repeal or revise the law and try again.
No the precedent does not become "the law" it becomes "the interpretation of the law". The law as written does not change and can be re-interpreted by a future court resulting in the precedent being overturned (see Brown v Board of Ed. for the famous U.S. example of an overturned precedent).

Re:pirate party by Jiro · 2013-02-20 03:58 · Score: 1

Given their opinions, they'd be called pirates anyway, whether it's in their name or not, so putting it in their name doesn't really lose much.

Re:You see... by fustakrakich · 2013-02-20 04:06 · Score: 1

The battle of Athens

The Whiskey Rebellion?

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

From the right to freedom of expression. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 04:07 · Score: 0

Where did your brother get the right to tell people what to do with their purchases?

And when will he be giving back to the society? 75+ years after death means a discounted rate of repayment of ZERO at less than 1% inflation.

I guess your brother just wants to sponge off society.

Re:From the right to freedom of expression. by viperidaenz · 2013-02-20 07:26 · Score: 2

I guess your brother just wants to sponge off society.
And his children and their children too. Or, the company who exchanged his rights for hookers, blow and some time in a recording studio.

Re:pirate party by fustakrakich · 2013-02-20 04:15 · Score: 1

Bbol Im gonna go start an extortion party.

Why? You already have lots to choose from...

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:You see... by camperdave · 2013-02-20 04:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

The modern legal system in most developed countries generally favors the clown with the deepest pockets, and can be a life-ruining experience for the average citizen...

I think that each party should put whatever they wish to spend on legal counsel into a pot that gets divided equally between the parties in the dispute. The lawyers would then get paid out of that pot. That way nobody has pockets that are any deeper than anyone else's.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!

Re:You see... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 04:29 · Score: 0

But you have guns! That's close enough to rights, as any REAL 'Murkin can attest. Not like those fake American peaceniks who have a mental defect preventing them from understanding the obvious joy of living under increasing fear of being a random victim. Who's the REAL people who need psychological help?

UK Pirate Party by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 04:30 · Score: 0

After seeing the much smaller UK Pirate Party eventually back down to threats by the British Phonographic Industry (a dark day for British politics indeed), I truly hope The Swedish Pirate Party manage to stand their ground.

As a British citizen I assume I may not give more than moral support. If I discover that I may support the party financially I will do so.

Good luck!

[out of their own pockets] by future+assassin · 2013-02-20 04:36 · Score: 2

Internet pockets can be big. They just have set up a donation site. I got $100 ready.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

Re:You see... by Runaway1956 · 2013-02-20 04:41 · Score: 1

In today's world, it's more like "My corporation will have you arrested and accidentally shot while resisting arrest if you disagree with us."

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br

Re:You see... by undeadbill · 2013-02-20 04:49 · Score: 1

Yep. There are plenty of examples out there, the US pub ed system just doesn't discuss them much. A Peoples' History Of The United States by Howard Zinn makes a pretty good starting point.

Re:You see... by Arancaytar · 2013-02-20 04:56 · Score: 1

Could you link to the RFC that specifies the IP via Bullets protocol? Or are you saying these troubles would go away if people started shooting government officials? Because yeah, that'd totally be the appropriate response and not make anything worse.

(Man, do you gun fanatics even hear yourselves?)

Re:You see... by 91degrees · 2013-02-20 04:58 · Score: 2

Honestly, I can see there's an argument for guns to protect from an oppressive government, even if I'm not sure I agree with it.

What I find daft is the extremes some people take it to. Using a gun to oppose what is largely a popular law is suggesting that people with guns are more important than the will of the people. The reason copyright isn't likely to change is that most people think that the media cartels deserve it.This is not something that's being imposed by an oppressive government but by the popular majority. You can't use a gun to defend against popular opinion. you'll be outnumbered.

Re:You see... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 04:58 · Score: 0

Nothing justifies taking another person's life, especially not financial reasons. And how do you define "an entity with large sums of money"? What is the threshold above which "an entity without large sums of money" becomes "an entity with large sums of money"? And who should be shot in case a multinational corporation engages an average citizen in court? The CEO? The shareholders? The legal department? Whoever first uttered the words "we should take this guy to court"? Or a representative chosen by majority vote? I'm sure the corporations would then lobby for cloning of human beings and keep an army of "retaliation targets" in case an average citizen is granted the right to shoot someone from that corporation. And then they'd transfer $5m to this guy's account and ordered a hit on him, as he'd then become "an entity with large sums of money". Of course the money would then be withdrawn under the pretext they've been transferred on error, but by then it would be too late to call off the hit. Be careful what you wish for...

Re:You see... by Runaway1956 · 2013-02-20 04:59 · Score: 1

Google "Ruby Ridge".

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br

Re:No, that was by YOUR logic. Or whatever that wa by mumblestheclown · 2013-02-20 05:00 · Score: 2

thanks for contributing.

Calling all cars by Herman+Wiliker · 2013-02-20 05:02 · Score: 1

Anonymous please step in here. This is BS, we needyour help.

Re:Calling all cars by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 06:03 · Score: 0

This is beyond anon capabilities. We're pretty close to torches-and-pitchforks time.

Re:You see... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 05:05 · Score: 0

chris dorner =x

When will they learn.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 05:06 · Score: 0

TPB is dead. Just accept it. Let it die..

Re:You see... by GameboyRMH · 2013-02-20 05:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Would these be the same ultra-wealthy industrialists who own gun & ammo manufacturers and back the NRA, or the ones who were buddies with the Bush administration that did jack shit to keep you from your highly inefficient sandblasters for armored vehicles?

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Electoral Advice by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 05:12 · Score: 0

I think TPB should return the favor to the Copyright Industry and start rallying the troops whenever there are elections anywhere there is a p2p-filesharing-friendly party involved. Put it right on the front page, counting down 3 days before the elections, urging visitors to vote if they can, and urge people they know to do the same.

Re:You see... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 05:24 · Score: 0

That's a nice thought, but unfortunately completely unrealistic and still favouring the clown with the deepest pocket. Let's be honest - the poor Joe Average wouldn't put a penny in the pot. Only then, a large corporation would have a guy with legal training on some weird position, like "Legal Operations Officer" to avoid chipping into the pot as well. With no money in the pot, the court could decide to let the parties represent themselves. The corporation could then send their LOO as a representative to stand against the average Joe. This way the corporation has a skilled lawyer on it's side, while Joe's legal team is still just Joe and no one else.

The problem is not the legal system - it's the whole socio-economic system we live in, which generally favours the guy with more money. In any situation, every time, everywhere. You can't fix it by patching holes, because the whole system is a one big gaping hole, into which human dreams and desires are thrown and killed with fire fuelled by cash. The only way to fix it, is to fill it with concrete, forget about it and move on.

I want in too... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 05:26 · Score: 0

Are you getting paid by some RIAA? How much?

I too want a job where I get paid for trolling Slashdot. Must be fun.

Re:You see... by Stormthirst · 2013-02-20 05:27 · Score: 2

Or perhaps just because they are sick and tired of having to answer to their electorate about why their six year old died because of yet another school shooting?

Re:You see... by xevioso · 2013-02-20 06:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

This. What people who are opposed to gun control routinely forget in their fantasy world where they are facing off against an oppressive government with their firearms is that their government, in most of the western world, was elected by the people. And there are a large amount of people who disagree with them and who will fight them if they try to strike back against the government. This is not called fighting against tyranny...this is called a civil war.

A corrupt legislature can accept misinterpretation by tepples · 2013-02-20 06:09 · Score: 1

[Courts can] retroactively change the meaning of a law, and if they do so in a way too blatant it'll annoy the legislators enough

Despite Wickard v. Filburn being what strict constructionists have called a blatant misinterpretation of the scope of "commerce among the several states" under the U.S. Constitution, it still hasn't annoyed legislators.

Search by author's sharing preference by tepples · 2013-02-20 06:11 · Score: 2

You download stuff that people want to share

So how should I search for works by whether or not their authors "want to share"?

Re:You see... by chilvence · 2013-02-20 06:24 · Score: 1

Um. If you are so easily stirred up into murderous frenzy by what is an issue of HOW ARTWORKS ARE SHARED, then you are precisely the reason we don't need guns.

But it was obviously a light hearted joke, eh?

Re:You see... by Kjella · 2013-02-20 06:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's a nice thought, but unfortunately completely unrealistic and still favouring the clown with the deepest pocket. Let's be honest - the poor Joe Average wouldn't put a penny in the pot. Only then, a large corporation would have a guy with legal training on some weird position, like "Legal Operations Officer" to avoid chipping into the pot as well. With no money in the pot, the court could decide to let the parties represent themselves.

True, but if they don't want to claim any legal costs then they also should be barred from compensation from those costs. I think it's far more likely that they'll bankroll your lawyer too, but it will be padded to the damages they ask for. Remember that this also means that if a nutcase sues you and you want a real lawyer to defend you so nothing crazy happens, you'd end up paying for a lawyer for the nutcase as well. It'd be another incentive to legal trolling and ambulance chasers.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:You see... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 06:32 · Score: 0

Your entire posts rests on the premise that I suggested anyone should be shot, which is false. I merely suggested that it should be an available option, however unpopular or illegal. Sometimes, the desire to ruin a person so horribly that s/he has nothing left to lose, simply for shits and grins, is only tempered by the idea that the party in question can punch a chunk of lead through your head from 1200 feet away. An armed society is a polite society, etc...

Re:You see... by X0563511 · 2013-02-20 06:53 · Score: 1

Then maybe they could fix the fucking problem that causes such events, instead of trying to snuff out a symptom?

Naah, that would require actual and unpopular work.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

6 Degrees of Bacon? by dragon-file · 2013-02-20 07:21 · Score: 1

No, This is more like 6 degrees of TPB. Only it's not a fun parlor game and is instead a means of scarring ISPs into submission.

--
Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.

Re:You see... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 07:40 · Score: 0

I'll try to have that done by April.

I don't know who he is, but by DSS11Q13 · 2013-02-20 08:38 · Score: 1

I hate anti-pirate Bryan, he should mind his own business

An old and tired load of bollocks. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 08:51 · Score: 4, Informative

A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE 5TH OF FEBRUARY 1841

by Thomas Babington Macaulay

On the twenty-ninth of January 1841, Mr Serjeant Talfourd obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the law of copyright. The object of this bill was to extend the term of copyright in a book to sixty years, reckoned from the death of the writer.

On the fifth of February Mr Serjeant Talfourd moved that the bill should be read a second time. In reply to him the following Speech was made. The bill was rejected by 45 votes to 38.

Though, Sir, it is in some sense agreeable to approach a subject with which political animosities have nothing to do, I offer myself to your notice with some reluctance. It is painful to me to take a course which may possibly be misunderstood or misrepresented as unfriendly to the interests of literature and literary men. It is painful to me, I will add, to oppose my honourable and learned friend on a question which he has taken up from the purest motives, and which he regards with a parental interest. These feelings have hitherto kept me silent when the law of copyright has been under discussion. But as I am, on full consideration, satisfied that the measure before us will, if adopted, inflict grievous injury on the public, without conferring any compensating advantage on men of letters, I think it my duty to avow that opinion and to defend it.

The first thing to be done, Sir, is to settle on what principles the question is to be argued. Are we free to legislate for the public good, or are we not? Is this a question of expediency, or is it a question of right? Many of those who have written and petitioned against the existing state of things treat the question as one of right. The law of nature, according to them, gives to every man a sacred and indefeasible property in his own ideas, in the fruits of his own reason and imagination. The legislature has indeed the power to take away this property, just as it has the power to pass an act of attainder for cutting off an innocent man's head without a trial. But, as such an act of attainder would be legal murder, so would an act invading the right of an author to his copy be, according to these gentlemen, legal robbery.

Now, Sir, if this be so, let justice be done, cost what it may. I am not prepared, like my honourable and learned friend, to agree to a compromise between right and expediency, and to commit an injustice for the public convenience. But I must say, that his theory soars far beyond the reach of my faculties. It is not necessary to go, on the present occasion, into a metaphysical inquiry about the origin of the right of property; and certainly nothing but the strongest necessity would lead me to discuss a subject so likely to be distasteful to the House.

I agree, I own, with Paley in thinking that property is the creature of the law, and that the law which creates property can be defended only on this ground, that it is a law beneficial to mankind. But it is unnecessary to debate that point. For, even if I believed in a natural right of property, independent of utility and anterior to legislation, I should still deny that this right could survive the original proprietor. Few, I apprehend, even of those who have studied in the most mystical and sentimental schools of moral philosophy, will be disposed to maintain that there is a natural law of succession older and of higher authority than any human code.

If there be, it is quite certain that we have abuses to reform much more serious than any connected with the question of copyright. For this natural law can be only one; and the modes of succession in the Queen's dominions are twenty. To go no further than England, land generally descends to the eldest son. In Kent the sons share and share alike. In many districts the youngest takes the whole. Formerly a portion of a man's personal property was secured to his family; and it was only of the residue that he could dispose by will. Now he can dispose of the whole by will: but you limited his po

Re:An old and tired load of bollocks. by zaroastra · 2013-02-20 09:55 · Score: 1

thanks for the post, long but worth reading, hope someone gives it some moderation to raise its status as most people will pass it with the current 0 points!

--
I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
Re:An old and tired load of bollocks. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 00:15 · Score: 0

That calibre of oratory puts modern politicians to shame.
Re:An old and tired load of bollocks. by OdinOdin_ · 2013-02-23 08:25 · Score: 1

Can someone TL;DR it into 3 paras ?

Re:You see... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 08:58 · Score: 0

And there are a large amount of people who disagree with them and who will fight them if they try to strike back against the government.

What private citizens fought alongside government at Waco or Ruby Ridge?

Also, we don't elect those with power. We simply don't. Having a vote for 1 of 100 voices (Senate) or 1 of 435 (House) is not power. We are tied with chains to too many idiots. States and individuals have little power and it decreases yearly. We don't vote for cabinet members, department heads, attorney general, et cetera. We don't vote for SCOTUS either. Nor can we.

I didn't elect the government in charge. Yes, I am "people".

Copyright infringement isn't a crime. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 09:14 · Score: 0

Even though there are statutes now on the books making *some versions* of infringement a crime, these are not persued.

So he's not wanting to commit a crime with his hard drive.

Please cut out the histrionics.

Re:You see... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 10:00 · Score: 0

I must point out that there is a difference between by the people, for the people, and from the people. It is clear that those who are eligible for election are not of the common cloth, nor are inclined to do anything for it.

Re:You see... by ultranova · 2013-02-20 10:10 · Score: 1

So what is the cause, and what unpopular decisions would fix it?

--

Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

Re:You see... by ralphaostrander · 2013-02-20 11:28 · Score: 2

Just a dead end republican taking point. More guns = more dead people always has always will. That is why they are so popular with soldiers. Lucky Civilians and soldiers kill them self with them more than anyone else. The only bright spot of guns.

Re:You see... by X0563511 · 2013-02-20 12:51 · Score: 1

I'm not republican, and I'm fucking offended that you called me one.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Re:This ISNT a job for Anonymous. by u64 · 2013-02-21 15:27 · Score: 1

Please Anonymous, be constructive rather than destructive.

Re:You see... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-22 05:35 · Score: 0

And eventually, Civil War is necessary. It is the last recourse, when two sides can no longer see eye to eye, negotiation will not work, and there is no third party to arbitrate. One side wants to break away territorialy from the other, but the other side does not want to lose that territory. So they fight. You can also tell a civil war in a democratic nation because army and police get torn right down the middle, and few people want to kill their friends and family because some dicks in washington DC won't listen to entire regions anymore. Think entire army divisions deserting because they don't want to hurt their own countrymen.

The exact same things that were going on with nullification of federal power in the early 19 century are starting to take place again. The rumors of the feds trying to take guns away is downright Incendiary in the south and mountain states, and many state legislatures have said they will ignore the ban if it takes place. The same things are going on in the west coast with Pot, and how they are actively running interference against the feds.

We are still early into the process, but another 10 years of this, and another civil war will happen. The power that has accumulated since the last civil war in the Federal government has gotten too heady, and the lessons from that time period have been forgotten. It may be terrible, but it is alot better then the Jackboot

Slashdot Mirror

Swedish Pirate Party Threatened for Hosting the Pirate Bay

164 comments