Pirate Bay Co-Founder Must Pay Record Labels $395,000 (torrentfreak.com)

Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde has run into another setback. The Helsinki District Court has ordered him to pay $395,000 to record labels including Sony, Universal, Warner and EMI, after the music of 60 of their artists has been shared illegally through The Pirate Bay. From a TorrentFreak report:Sunde did not appear in Helsinki to defend himself so the Court handed down a default judgment. He is now ordered to pay the full amount plus costs of around $62,000 (55,000 euros) to the local branch of IFPI. He also faces a fine of one million euros if the content continues to be shared via The Pirate Bay but how he is supposed to do anything about that isn't clear. Sunde and Pirate Bay co-founders Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm owe large sums of money to copyright holders following adverse decisions in cases dating back years. None of those judgments have been satisfied and there's no reason to believe this one will be any different.

Comments

shared through is a helluva stretch.

[nimbius]

Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde has run into another setback.

He also faces a fine of one million euros if the content continues to be shared via The Pirate Bay

pretty extraordinary considering he hasnt been part of the pirate bay for nearly a fucking decade. Again, content isnt being shared, only metadata to acquire it from a distributed network of people who have it. Im sure the same media companies that employ metadata to track every iota of their customers lives are well versed in the concept.

Sunde and Pirate Bay co-founders Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm owe large sums of money to copyright holders following adverse decisions in cases dating back years.

the point of this is you do not, and cannot win these court cases. The cases arent the point, its biblical retribution for anyone who even dares to challenge the protection racket of music and video. Most of the attorneys are just showing up to bleed the defendant dry and ruin as much of them as possible. Its harder to do in more liberal european nations, however its getting easier. Media companies have a direct in with the FBI and ICE. They can lobby to have your generally trustworthy host countries police force arrive in full tactical regalia to drag you in handcuffs to jail for a victimless crime. Kim Dot Com doesnt get to win his cases either. your money is confiscated, youre made to be tried in absentia, your case is as obfuscated as possible, and the judge has more chromosomes than a sperm bank.

Copyright terms are immoral

[headkase]

I'll have some respect for copyright when the terms aren't life of the author plus 75 years. That's ridiculous. If someone makes a work today, I'll have been dead 50 odd years before it's in the public domain - assuming, a big assumption, that the shill maximalists don't get the terms extended even more towards perpetuity.

Current terms are also theft: they are the theft of things that could have been. If terms were 20 years then at that mark new works could be created by anyone who would wish and their work would then get 20 years. You want to see an explosion of culture? Look at that right there. Creative works that take ideas in ways the original author couldn't conceive of or didn't think was worth the money. 20 year term: and I will never infringe again, unjust terms bring all of copyright into contempt.

For a free (pdf download) of a book which explains the issue in detail, see: The Public Domain.

Mickey Mouse, not grandchildren

[Uberbah]

The copyright term approximates the life of the author's grandchildren

Tolkien's grandkids don't have the money to buy off Congress every time The Hobbit inches towards public domain. Disney and Time Warner, do.

Starting in the 1990s, it was extended in many countries from 50 years after the death of the author to 70 on grounds of drastic improvement in health care over the twentieth century, which allows authors and their children to reproduce later.

Which makes a mockery of copyrights, at least as to how they came about in the U.S. The whole point is to have an exclusive, but time limited control over the reproduction of works to encourage creation. Locking up ideas for a century or more is the antithesis of that.

A good example here is Disney itself - FIFTY of their movies have been based on public domain works. Many of which, like the Jungle Book and Alice in Wonderland, they couldn't have made if current copyright laws were in place at the time.