Slashdot Mirror
Swedish Pirate Party Threatened for Hosting the Pirate Bay
New submitter BetterThanCaesar writes "The Swedish Pirate Party and their ISP Serious Tubes have received a letter from 'The Rights Alliance' (formerly Antipiratbyrån, The Swedish Anti-Piracy Bureau), demanding they cease supplying Internet access to The Pirate Bay. Referring to the final sentence on the four Pirate Bay profiles, they threaten with legal action if access is not removed by February 26. On her blog, party leader Anna Troberg calls the letter 'extortion,' pointing out that (translated from Swedish) '[i]t is not illegal to provide The Pirate Bay with Internet access. There is no list of illegal sites that ISPs cannot provide access to.' (google translation to English)."
The letter sent (in Swedish). Update: 02/20 14:58 GMT by U L : richie2000 notes that hosting isn't quite right; they're just routing traffic to TPB: "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."
..or, as they're more commonly known: NINJAS!
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
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.
Since the pirate party is a political party in Sweden with seats in the European Parliament.
Or did TPB AFK lie?
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".
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
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
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.
No fascism in somalia! Be sure to send us a postcard.
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
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?
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
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.
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].
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?
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.
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!
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*
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.
thanks for contributing.
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
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?
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.
You download stuff that people want to share
So how should I search for works by whether or not their authors "want to share"?
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
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.
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
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.