Slashdot Mirror
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.
Suck it losers! You can't stop filesharing! If it's not Pirate Bay, it'll be some other torrent site, or something on the Dark Web, or anonymous FTP, or SneakerNet or carrier pigeon -- or just old-fashioned mixtapes (or mix CDs, or mix DVDs, as the case may be). You can't stop the signal. People will find a way. The more you tighten your grip on these people, the more files will slip through your fingers. GIVE UP.
This is pretty much standard practice in western law. If you can't be bothered to show up, the court's not going to waste time on you, they'll spend the extra time on someone who could be bothered to defend themselves.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
What about Abba?
Apparently it means something in Finland.
Your attempts to claim that American copyright law don't apply to torrent sites are as much a waste of time and energy as defending "sovereign citizen" ideas. In the latter case, the taxman is still going to get you, and in the case of filesharing, civil judgments -- if not criminal sentences that are upheld -- are still going to plague at least some people out there. Instead of trying to make filesharing seem legal, I think it would be more productive for society to simply go ahead and do it regardless of its legality. Now that millions and millions of people are sharing whatever they want without thinking about the legality of it, legal hassles on a tiny, tiny minority of them hardly serve as a deterrent.
They will most probably get to pay their share of the suit ( 62K$ ) and that's it ..
What ever happened to cases being decided on the merits?
That's funny. Or naive.
It goes the other way as well. If you go to court for a traffic violation and the officer who wrote the citation doesn't show up, the judge will toss it. Same thing if someone has sued you and fails to show up to court. The judge is there to preside over the trial, not to do the job of the prosecution of defense.
He has never expected people to pay his debts, in fact he has stated that he weill never pay a single eurocent of that debt at all.
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.
Good people go to bed earlier.
If torrent sites are liable for copyright infringement, then by the same logic, I should be able to sue Google Maps for trespassing because they let people look up my address.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
the Federal government, along with some State governments, (most notably Florida's), has announced that distributors and sellers of firearms will henceforth be both civilly and criminally liable for injuries and deaths caused by guns and ammunition they have sold. Oh, wait...
An individual can be hounded and sued into oblivion for providing a platform which others use to distribute copies of music and videos. Yet gun makers and sellers are held harmless, and continue to profit, while the products they sell result in illegal deaths on a more-than-hourly basis. So basically, the profits of music companies and movie studios are more important, in the eyes of the law, than the lives of average people. What a fucked up set of priorities in a thoroughly obscene legal system.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
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.
Shh.
Depends on the judge.
I defend every traffic violation I've ever been handed. Some of them valid, some of them not.
In cases where the officer didn't turn up, I'd say that 70% of the cases were tossed out, and in two cases the judge rescheduled. I objected, naturally, and in one instance it was later dropped, and in the other rescduled and later heard - after which it got thrown out anyway.
I have a 100% success rate in either reducing my (valid) tickets to a slap on the wrist (read: $90 court fine) or tosses out entirely. :P
Goto court.. defend yourself, even if you're guilty, you'll often get a non-points-incurring-verdict.
American copyright law does not mean zip in Sweden
The Berne Convention is not an "American copyright law". Sweden joined the Berne Convention in 1904.
See, this is exactly my point. Instead of wasting time with these theoretical discussions and analogies, why not just fileshare more and encourage your friends to do the same?
If you don't show up to tell your side of the story when ordered to, so the judge only hears one side, what do you expect would happen?
A default judgement isn't quite automatic - the plaintiff needs to put forth a reasonable claim in the written filing, and typically the judge takes a couple of minutes at trial time to see that the claim appears somewhat reasonable.
My divorce is a good example. My ex-wife signed showing that she knew about the hearing and choose not to attend. I presented a division of property which I said my wife and I had agreed to. The judge asked maybe five or six questions to see if there was any clear unfairness, which took five or six minutes, and it was done. If my ex wanted to dispute it, she had the opportunity to do so. She choose not to speak, to have the judge hear only from me.
In fact I was fair to my ex-wife, but how can the judge be sure if she chooses to not show up? Should the judge waste more of her time on it if my ex decided it wasn't worth taking two hours to show up?
And that's really a bit of the shitty part of the whole thing. Because you end up wasting your whole day while the other side costs them nothing.
Take a small claims for example - let's say you're suing someone for $1000. The other guy knows he's in the wrong, so won't bother defending himself. So while you spend the day at the courthouse to get a default judgement, he's off doing whatever he does during the day, knowing he'll have to pay, and thus not wasting his time.
So yes, you get your $1000, minus all the time and effort in court. He was going to have to pay anyways, and all he spent was the 5 minutes writing you the cheque.
Traffic courts are the same way - you spend your whole day there, the cop won't bother showing up (it's cheaper for him to do his job than to waste a day in court). Judge tosses your ticket, you wasted a whole day and cop does whatever he normally does.
The copyright term approximates the life of the author's grandchildren on grounds that those descendants who had personal contact with the author are in the best position to exploit the work as the author intended. The "life of grandchildren" rationale dates back to the nineteenth century. 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. But until medicine breaks the menopause barrier, a subsequent extension is not justified without abandoning life of grandchildren as the rationale.
The artists will only get a share if it is negative. It is a cost that artists must help fund. If it is positive, then it will be eaten up by "fees" called "Hollywood Accounting" and the artists get nothing.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
I have found the same thing.
If you show up and talk to the prosecutor, they will often make a deal with you.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
First of all, American copyright law does not mean zip in Sweden.
Irrelevant. Like most countries in the world, Sweden is a signatory of the Berne Convention. In fact, it was drafted in Stockholm.
Breakfast served all day!
In my Citizen's Dividend plan, I specify that the payment is not taxed as an income and is protected from garnishing and other attacks. Basically, the income is provided as the minimum means to live; if you get a job once you've moved into the hovel, we can take as much of your job money as we want and not drive you into the streets to rot. The strategic problem is then how much we can garnish without driving you to quit your job because it's just not worth working for so little benefit.
It seems reasonable for something which replaces welfare and minimum wage; and removing the reciprocating taxation (the Dividend is paid for by a tax, and taxing it as income is taxing tax money!) allows us to reduce the amount of taxes required to provide it (if we taxed it at, say, 20% in total (17% + 3% general effective taxes), then it'd have to be 21.25%; but then we'd be taxing at 24%, so 22.36%; it approaches somewhere between 23% and 23.5% dedicated tax as a funding source, whereas untaxed it only needs a 17% funding source).
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Or how about this, make a standard open license for works between 20 years old and life of author +75 years where x% of the gross goes to the original author or their estate?
In other words, under your proposal, a work would enter the eminent domain before entering the public domain. Then let the debate commence of what royalty rate constitutes "just compensation" pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and foreign counterparts, especially in fields without enough liquidity in the license market to establish a fair market value and in cases of non-commercial sharing where the gross is zero.
For what? You don't get thrown in jail for owing money to private companies.
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
True, but that's a shame. If justice was a real thing, the final decision should not be dependent on the defense (so that if you can't afford an attorney you're not punished for that).
So is it nanny or fuive?
Ezekiel 23:20
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.
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.
Except that, without summary judgement, a case could be dragged out by one party who simply didn't show up. Suppose Company X dumped waste products in a local river and you got sick. You sue Company X but they just decide not to show up. So the court date is rescheduled and rescheduled again. At some point, the court needs to say "look, you had fair warning and you either need to show up or you face punishment of some sort." If the court didn't say that, then no defendant would ever show up in court and the legal system would collapse from a) the increased load of "postponed for the 50th time" cases and b) the reduced authority to actually decide anything.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
My one traffic ticket was failing to stop at a stop sign. (I did a "rolling stop.") When I was called, I was immediately told to speak to the prosecutor. He gave me a deal - they'd reduce the verdict to "parking on the pavement" if I entered a guilty plea. That charge wouldn't hit my insurance and would have a lower fine. They were doing this for everyone coming in with such fluidity that it was likely just Business As Usual. I suspect that very few "ran a stop sign" cases actually lead to "ran a stop sign" verdicts.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
That doesn't even matter. I wasn't served twice. In MD the county sheriff is supposed to serve you. He kept coming when I was at work, he even tried to deliver on a holiday (which is illegal), but I wasn't home so it didn't matter. He left notes saying things like "a warrant will be issued for my arrest if I don't contact him about the papers", so he was also a liar. Regardless, he never served me, he never left the papers, yet he informed the court system that I was served so I lost a case I didn't know any detail about, got my wages garnished, I filed a complaint with the state and the judges but no gave a shit, their response was, "No one cares." Another time a sheriff came out to my new house, very far from town, my room mate was home, but in the shower, looked out the window, saw it was a cop and ignored it since he was in the shower, anyway I go, "if he needed something he'll be back." He never did, well I was filing some court docs and my lawyer goes, "Hey you got a court case coming up, it says you were served." Servers are fucking liars and scumbags, I still want to know if I can sue MD and the county and the sheriff for lying about serving me, I bet they do it to a lot of people that don't have the means to fight back. I can no afford a lawyer and would gladly sue the shit out the government for fucking me and other people over.
Happened to me as well. Judge goes, we'll call him and if he doesn't come we'll postpone. At the time I couldn't afford to take another unpaid day off work to deal with it so I had to take the shit deal the judge gave me.
If records labels are to be believed they have lost hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Looking at some of the later figures it seems they have lost more money than the music industry is worth.
Imagine an average person that was wrong in such a way; having lost more money than he could make even when counting his friends claimed salaries put together. Wouldn't you demand at least more money than the damages have caused?
The poor label will now have to rebuild their shattered empire on a mere $395k + stamps and change.
I still remember those days when the RIAA website was hacked and they kindly offered everyone a chance to download and appreciate the good music of Linkin Park. Why would anyone want to wrong these generous individuals is simply beyond me.
My heart really goes out to these honest, hard working folk. When I read of their suffering I weep.
It doesn't matter I guess because in the end justice was served, was it not? all the record labels won. I salute your victory in ASCII:
\o/
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Wow. I sure wish I had known this was coming. I didn't use pirate sites like the Pirate bay since "they" told me it was stealing and I didn't want to risk involvement with that. If I had know that, had I used the site to get "free music" one of the founders would eventually pay for my music, I sure would have used the site gladly! Well, now I know. I'll start using pirate sites like the Pirate Bay right away (still won't use criminal sites like E-Bay though).
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
The 1970s called.
Never heard of Dubai, huh?
Who cares? I mean, would you care if you were convicted in Russia? Or Thailand? Nope, you'd just avoid going on holiday there.
This case was tried in Finland. No one goes on holiday in Finland unless they really like reindeers. I mean, like, a lot. Very, very much.
So I think it's a Moot issue.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
American copyright law probably does not have meaning, but there are international copyright conventions that I am pretty sure both countries adhere to. In which case, he's being sued under Sweden's law which was created via acceptance of those treaty conventions.
Note this can seem like its unfair on against the Swedes or other small countries with the US flexing its muscles at them, but to be fair, these conventions protect Swedish material as well, its just not as prevalent as the American stuff being shared (for many reasons).
As for the torrent file being illegal in and of itself... I am not sure that can be guaranteed to hold up as a defense for what they are pointing at in terms of infringement. Perhaps yes, if a very specific interpretation is used, but probably not, since torrent file or not, they are facilitating copyright infringement by hosting an informational service that provides the capability to connect with the sharers. A torrent file is perfectly legal. A torrent file that happens to be a pointer to illicit content is still not illegal, but is evidence of the intent to aid and abet infringement on the part of the site hosting the file.
Mind you, I think the torrent file argument is good enough that they won't just come knock down your door or sue you for hosting a few torrents, but when you are a torrent site the size of TPB, the discretion tends to start falling on the side of trying to make a go at an infringement case because TPB is a major player and a defiant one who doesn't even pretend to hide their intentions to permit what amounts to mass infringement.
Music publishers don't give a shit about mix tapes, because the quality is shit. And they don't care about friends passing along songs by sneakernet or even passing them to each other directly over networks, because distribution in that way is pretty slow. It's when you have a public, searchable site with thousands of torrents that it starts becoming a threat to their distribution channels and profits and they will come looking for you, they really have no choice unless they want to abdicate their entire business model.
Does not work like that in the Scandinavian countries, there are something that's called beneficium that the impound authority cannot seize. They can for example not make you homeless or take cash that you must use for rent and for living expenses. If he ever gets a payed job however all the salary goes to the impounder (Kronofogden) and then they give you the amount of cash needed for rent and living and then they keep the rest to pay off your debt.
A moot once bit my sister.
They're getting back together for their 50th you know. They're still relevant!
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
He also can't complain that he wasn't served and didn't know about the case, given that we knew about the case way over here in slashdotlandia.
No you will not get jail time in the Scandinavian Countries for not being able to pay your debt. What will happen is that your assets will be impounded (however not all your assets since you are allowed to live and eat even if you have a debt here), jail time will only be an issue if it turns out that he actively hides assets from the impounding authority.
You don't go to jail for losing a civil lawsuit. Even if you can't pay the judgement you just get your wages garnished, and if you don't have wages they'll take your car. Since you lose if you don't show up there is no advantage to not showing up, unless it's in a country you'll never visit (and since Sunde has Finnish heritage and lives in the country next door to Finland, he might want to actually visit someday).
The Pirate Bay exists for the primary purpose of facilitating copyright infringement, which is illegal in every developed nation. There's going to be some law or another that covers it in pretty much any jurisdiction.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
As for the torrent file being prima facie illegal, I suspect there are arguments to be made. Since the defendant didn't show up to court, the defendant couldn't present any of those arguments,
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Doesn't matter if you live there, but it does matter if you are involved with a matter that occurs there. He was not sued over issues that occured in Sweden but over issues that occured in Finland.
When I showed up for a parking violation and the officer did not the case was tossed out. If a judge makes excuses for the officer then the judge is not being impartial, and in many places can get in trouble as it's an elected office. If you've got the time then it can be worth it to show up, as it's often not worth the police time to show up.
You really wanna use Dubai as a defense? Cute.
Why should he care what they say? If you show up to their court you are acknowledging their authority. Just because some retard waves their arms and makes some noise doesn't mean you have to do what they say. Just because some suit thinks their music has value or even that money has value doesn't make it so. Just ignore the kids and let them make all the ruckus they want.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
haha, you said pound your pants.
Have you not encountered the word "only" before?
Where you there? No? Then how do you know it wasn't a Moot? :)
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
If you took up rounding up muslims and gassing them, and someone said you were the only country to do it, you'd point at Germany then?