It's what they call a cash cow. Large segment of the market, not a lot of growth. Piling more money into the market isn't going expand it a lot so it makes more sense to take the cash generated and invest it in other products. Apple are in a similar position with the iPod (The mp3 player market is still expanding but not as much as when the original ipod was released), and so are Microsoft with Windows.
Google maintains a cache of what it finds. They store actual content. TPB stores no actual content.
Yes, that's my understanding too. What's your point?
Are you suggesting that because Google do something that could be considered copyright infringement, TPB should be able to do something unrelated that could be considered copyright infringement? It sounds like it could be an interesting legal theory but I'm not quite sure I understand it.
I can't remember the sources, but if you absolutely need them I can find the relevant newspaper articles,
Since I have a 5 word Swedish vocabulary I'll accept your summary as accurate.
TPB itself has done very little other than tell users where to find the material they want. That might make them accessories to copyright infringement, but I don't see how it would make them guilty of copyright infringement.
See, this is the argument I still have problems with. They are doing more than that. I see a difference between someone simply explaining how to download illegal content and someone actively providing a mechanism to do so. A torrent server is more than just an information provider. It's providing the information explicitly in a computer readable format. As a result, it's a key part of the mechanism. Even if this is less than hosting, it's more then merely providing information.
I'm not sure exactly what Google Sweden's policy is. I'd be surprised if it was the same as TPB's. Is there a list of mocking responses that Google has written in response to copyright infringement complaints?
That's why TPB don't make that argument.
I look forward to reading about TPB's legal defence. I expect it to have some interesting legal theory behind it. But all I want to address is the argument that if TPB is illegal then all search engines are illegal. This is clearly not the case.
Does it? Show us the Swedish law that says so.
Well, given that intent to commit a crime is generally considered an important point in a number of jurisdictions, it seems odd that you would be expecting me to demonstrate this is also the case in Sweden. But here's an example of some learned professionals treating this as an established fact in at least some aspect of Swedish law, and here's another article where intent is considered important. Perhaps this is different for criminal copyright infringement, but I think really it's up to you to demonstrate that copyright infringement is a strict liability crime in Sweden.
Why are you asking me for references to back up my lack of certainty? My position is that I don't know whether their behaviour is legal but that demonstrating search engines are legal is not sufficient. If we don't know whether intent matters then it seems disingenuous to assume that it does when forming an opinion. You'll end up with a guess.
On the other hand, it's not called 'the copyright infringement bay',
No. It's not called that on either of my hands either. It's not called anything on my hands.
nor are they accused of boarding ships on the high seas,
I didn't realise there was a suggestion that they were ships carpenters.
so I'm not sure it's appropriate to draw any conclusions from that.
How do you draw a conculison? I have a pencil and pad of paper here but I can't see a conclusion to make a picture of.
Piracy is a term that dates back to the beginning of the 18th century to describe unauthosrised reproduction, I'm surprised you've not heard of it in this context before. Some words have more than one meaning.
[citation needed]. I really want to know how everyone is so much more knowledgable than legally trained Swedish prosecutors about the intricacies of Swedish copyright law. I find it hard to believe they would have brought this case if they didn't think they could make a case.
They're doing more than "providing links". They're providing a mechanism whereby people can download infringing content and providing it for the primary purpose of aiding people in downloading infringing content.
I think Google can reasonably argue that they try to link to legal content. The evidence for this is that the majority of the content appears to be legal, and if someone provides evidence that a link is illegal they will typically remove it.
I think the pirate bay cannot reasonably make this argument. The majority of the content appears illegal and if someone provides incontravertible proof that the link is illegal they'll send a smug insulting response.
Uhm... We do have tower blocks in England. Mostly ugly grey soviet style ones, but they seem to have managed to provide OTA television service to them.
Getting stuck is irritating. Getting a total solution is unsatisfying. There must be an in-between option. Could you just tell them how many pieces are in the right place, or just that they have some in the wrong place?
Customers don't always know exactly what they want, or at least don't express it accurately.
Users don't actually want a hints system. They want not to be frustrated and irritated by a tricky puzzle. A hints system is the obvious solution but there may well be others.
TPB is just a torrent hosting site. Torrents are tools, just like guns - they can be used for piracy or downloading copies of a game a person lost.
Downloading a copy of a game a person lost is copyright infringement. And do you really believe many people use bittorrent for this reason?
like suing the gun companies if a murderer killed some one with one of their guns.
If I had a shop called "Sam's murder weapons", offered advice on which weapons would be best for murder, and appeared to sell guns only to people who were probable murderers, do you think that someone might ask questions? Intent is important.
Fair points although why are those the only two options? There's the possibility that there's simply something genetic. There is a certainly a genetic component to autism.
As for technology... It's oversimplifying to suggest the Amish do or do not allow certain things. There are many different amish communities, and while they tend to seek agreement with each other, the specifics of the rules are up to the individual communities.
Brighton is actually pretty sucky for cinemas. The Duke Of York is pretty good but to everyone's taste. When it comes to mainstream releases, there's a choice of two cinemas. The Odeon is quite nice but only has 8 screens, most of them quite small, and the Marina is a bit run down and hard to get to if you're not a driver. That's not a lot of screens considering Brighton's catchment area, so it's not a surprise that the Odeon tends to be quite full.
Another reasonable conclusion is that the writer was confused and thought that 2k cinema resolution is equivalent to 2048p. While there are valid reasons for it it is a little odd that TV resolution is typically measured in vertical lines and cinema tends to be measured in horizontal lines.
How well informed is Paul Aiken? did he come to the WSJ to make the complaint, or did a journalist giver an inaccurate explanation of what is did that suggested that it was an audiobook? Was he aware that what he said was going to be taken as on the record?
I think even if we ignore these issues, which are significant), techies seem to forget another important factor. There's a prosecutor. And this is someone who knows the law and, like a chess grandmaster, thinks several moves ahead. So the techy thinks "I shall commit something that may be a crime and use a bizarre interpretation of the English language and a tortured analogy as my defence."
However, the prosecutor mind works along he lines of "I shall charge him with a more easily provable crime that he has also committed. He may try to pull a bizarre redefinition as a defence, so I shall point out legal decisions in similar cases that support my argument. It's possible that he will also do the same either because he's had the sense to pay for a legal expert or he's actually not as stupid as I expect, so I'll research all the cases that may support his innocence and find strong arguments about why they are different."
Microsoft have a very successful product and a large market share. This is good, but the market will shrink. When computers can be churned out for $50 a time, people are not going to pay $80 for the OS, and might not be willing to pay that much for Word, if they can get an adequate word processor for free. Right now MS is raking in money from these products but the company needs to be able to survive if people don't want their key products any more. They need to invest and need to hope to stumble on the next big thing.
Apple have done well because they made the iPod and have used that as a springboard for their R&D. Similarly, Google have a large stake in a rapidly expanding market. Comparisons with these companies is pointless
Slashdot Mirror
It's what they call a cash cow. Large segment of the market, not a lot of growth. Piling more money into the market isn't going expand it a lot so it makes more sense to take the cash generated and invest it in other products. Apple are in a similar position with the iPod (The mp3 player market is still expanding but not as much as when the original ipod was released), and so are Microsoft with Windows.
It's pretty much 101 business strategy stuff.
Hey shit-for-brains:
Hey, yourself.
Google maintains a cache of what it finds. They store actual content. TPB stores no actual content.
Yes, that's my understanding too. What's your point?
Are you suggesting that because Google do something that could be considered copyright infringement, TPB should be able to do something unrelated that could be considered copyright infringement? It sounds like it could be an interesting legal theory but I'm not quite sure I understand it.
I can't remember the sources, but if you absolutely need them I can find the relevant newspaper articles,
Since I have a 5 word Swedish vocabulary I'll accept your summary as accurate.
TPB itself has done very little other than tell users where to find the material they want. That might make them accessories to copyright infringement, but I don't see how it would make them guilty of copyright infringement.
See, this is the argument I still have problems with. They are doing more than that. I see a difference between someone simply explaining how to download illegal content and someone actively providing a mechanism to do so. A torrent server is more than just an information provider. It's providing the information explicitly in a computer readable format. As a result, it's a key part of the mechanism. Even if this is less than hosting, it's more then merely providing information.
I don't think so. Unless this case is radically different from all the others.
It is. All the others are just letters. This is a case.
Only if it's criminally illegal,
I'm not sure exactly what Google Sweden's policy is. I'd be surprised if it was the same as TPB's. Is there a list of mocking responses that Google has written in response to copyright infringement complaints?
That's why TPB don't make that argument.
I look forward to reading about TPB's legal defence. I expect it to have some interesting legal theory behind it. But all I want to address is the argument that if TPB is illegal then all search engines are illegal. This is clearly not the case.
Does it? Show us the Swedish law that says so.
Well, given that intent to commit a crime is generally considered an important point in a number of jurisdictions, it seems odd that you would be expecting me to demonstrate this is also the case in Sweden. But here's an example of some learned professionals treating this as an established fact in at least some aspect of Swedish law, and here's another article where intent is considered important. Perhaps this is different for criminal copyright infringement, but I think really it's up to you to demonstrate that copyright infringement is a strict liability crime in Sweden.
Why are you asking me for references to back up my lack of certainty? My position is that I don't know whether their behaviour is legal but that demonstrating search engines are legal is not sufficient. If we don't know whether intent matters then it seems disingenuous to assume that it does when forming an opinion. You'll end up with a guess.
While this comment is sensibly argued, it makes me feel like a hypocrite, so I'm afraid I'll have to label you a troll.
On the other hand, it's not called 'the copyright infringement bay',
No. It's not called that on either of my hands either. It's not called anything on my hands.
nor are they accused of boarding ships on the high seas,
I didn't realise there was a suggestion that they were ships carpenters.
so I'm not sure it's appropriate to draw any conclusions from that.
How do you draw a conculison? I have a pencil and pad of paper here but I can't see a conclusion to make a picture of.
Piracy is a term that dates back to the beginning of the 18th century to describe unauthosrised reproduction, I'm surprised you've not heard of it in this context before. Some words have more than one meaning.
These people did nothing illegal _in_Sweden_.
[citation needed]. I really want to know how everyone is so much more knowledgable than legally trained Swedish prosecutors about the intricacies of Swedish copyright law. I find it hard to believe they would have brought this case if they didn't think they could make a case.
They're doing more than "providing links". They're providing a mechanism whereby people can download infringing content and providing it for the primary purpose of aiding people in downloading infringing content.
I think Google can reasonably argue that they try to link to legal content. The evidence for this is that the majority of the content appears to be legal, and if someone provides evidence that a link is illegal they will typically remove it.
I think the pirate bay cannot reasonably make this argument. The majority of the content appears illegal and if someone provides incontravertible proof that the link is illegal they'll send a smug insulting response.
INTENT MATTERS!!!!!!
Uhm... We do have tower blocks in England. Mostly ugly grey soviet style ones, but they seem to have managed to provide OTA television service to them.
I doubt that anyone other than the thieving hypocrites would likely notice.
Assuming that by "thieving hypocrites", you mean anyone who wants to get free shit off bitorrent, you realise that covers most of the people here.
And I may be a hypocrite but I'm no thief.
Getting stuck is irritating. Getting a total solution is unsatisfying. There must be an in-between option. Could you just tell them how many pieces are in the right place, or just that they have some in the wrong place?
Customers don't always know exactly what they want, or at least don't express it accurately.
Users don't actually want a hints system. They want not to be frustrated and irritated by a tricky puzzle. A hints system is the obvious solution but there may well be others.
I thought everyone said that what the pirate bay does is legal in Sweden. Has the internets lied to me?
TPB is just a torrent hosting site. Torrents are tools, just like guns - they can be used for piracy or downloading copies of a game a person lost.
Downloading a copy of a game a person lost is copyright infringement. And do you really believe many people use bittorrent for this reason? like suing the gun companies if a murderer killed some one with one of their guns.
If I had a shop called "Sam's murder weapons", offered advice on which weapons would be best for murder, and appeared to sell guns only to people who were probable murderers, do you think that someone might ask questions? Intent is important.
No idea. But I took some open source code, incorporated it into a closed source application and sold it.
Is there something wrong with doing this?
Fair points although why are those the only two options? There's the possibility that there's simply something genetic. There is a certainly a genetic component to autism.
As for technology... It's oversimplifying to suggest the Amish do or do not allow certain things. There are many different amish communities, and while they tend to seek agreement with each other, the specifics of the rules are up to the individual communities.
Hell no. As my old poli sci prof put it "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner".
But there are more sheep than wolves.
What makes you so sure the framers were right? And if they were right why did they bother allowing constitutional amendments?
Brighton is actually pretty sucky for cinemas. The Duke Of York is pretty good but to everyone's taste. When it comes to mainstream releases, there's a choice of two cinemas. The Odeon is quite nice but only has 8 screens, most of them quite small, and the Marina is a bit run down and hard to get to if you're not a driver. That's not a lot of screens considering Brighton's catchment area, so it's not a surprise that the Odeon tends to be quite full.
Another reasonable conclusion is that the writer was confused and thought that 2k cinema resolution is equivalent to 2048p. While there are valid reasons for it it is a little odd that TV resolution is typically measured in vertical lines and cinema tends to be measured in horizontal lines.
Allow people to hire the smaller screens
It's actually possible to do this.
perhaps working with distributors to license shows they wish to watch.
And this shouldn't be too hard. The cinema has a relationship with the distributors.
How well informed is Paul Aiken? did he come to the WSJ to make the complaint, or did a journalist giver an inaccurate explanation of what is did that suggested that it was an audiobook? Was he aware that what he said was going to be taken as on the record?
I think even if we ignore these issues, which are significant), techies seem to forget another important factor. There's a prosecutor. And this is someone who knows the law and, like a chess grandmaster, thinks several moves ahead. So the techy thinks "I shall commit something that may be a crime and use a bizarre interpretation of the English language and a tortured analogy as my defence."
However, the prosecutor mind works along he lines of "I shall charge him with a more easily provable crime that he has also committed. He may try to pull a bizarre redefinition as a defence, so I shall point out legal decisions in similar cases that support my argument. It's possible that he will also do the same either because he's had the sense to pay for a legal expert or he's actually not as stupid as I expect, so I'll research all the cases that may support his innocence and find strong arguments about why they are different."
Microsoft have a very successful product and a large market share. This is good, but the market will shrink. When computers can be churned out for $50 a time, people are not going to pay $80 for the OS, and might not be willing to pay that much for Word, if they can get an adequate word processor for free. Right now MS is raking in money from these products but the company needs to be able to survive if people don't want their key products any more. They need to invest and need to hope to stumble on the next big thing.
Apple have done well because they made the iPod and have used that as a springboard for their R&D. Similarly, Google have a large stake in a rapidly expanding market. Comparisons with these companies is pointless