How you you possibly sue two people for the equivalent of $3 million USD and ever expect them to be able to pay it back.
Actually, it was four individuals, where one is Carl Lundström, a pretty rich businessman. The judgment says that the sum should come from whoever of those four that can pay, not that each one should pay 1/4 of the sum. The result is that if the sum stands, the money will likely come from Carl Lundström. It is then up to him to collect money from his "co-conspirators".
And TPB would be open to a damages lawsuit from the law firm or whoever had to process the money.
You can't sue the entire TPB crew for the actions of one of its operators. The guy who came up with this scheme is Anakata, or IRL Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, who is not known to have a lot of money. He won't be able to pay such damages, so suing him will likely be pretty useless.
It's not like the TPB case where one of the defendants is pretty rich and owns one or several companies.
And does Sweden not have some sort of teeth to their court-imposed penalties whereby simply not paying means people go to jail?
The 30 million SEK is not a fine but damages. If you can but won't pay, The Swedish Enforcement Administration will come and take your stuff, sell your house and your car, etc. If you can't pay, you will be indebted until you've paid the damages, but you won't go to jail for not being able to pay damages.
They won't take every dime of your income though. You will be allowed the minimum subsistence level so that you can feed yourself and stay in a cheap rental apartment. Any income beyond the minimum subsistence level will be seized and use to pay off your debt.
I just hope they like what they got so far. A conviction for sure, but I'm pretty sure they didn't like all those conflict of interest accusations directed at the judge, potentially forcing a retrial.
No, you don't have the required land area to support American style urban sprawl
Wrong.
and more cost effective to maintain when you have hundreds of humans per square mile to reduce the average cost per ride.
We have an average population density of 52 per sq mi. But that is really irrelevant, since I was referring to urban mass transit such as metro, trams, commuter trains and city buses.
Contrast that with trains which have inconvenient stops located miles-apart, only serve a few people within walking distance of those stops
Maybe you would consider walking distance to a train station an advantage when looking for a new home? People certainly do here, which has stimulated dense development close to train, subway and tram stops.
Furthermore, within 20 years we'll have the technology to make self-driving robotic electric cars, which will be both more convenient and more efficient than mass transit for short to medium length trips. Existing mass transit systems will become obsolete.
That does not seem likely. A single subway train here takes 1000 people, and you could run one every two minutes without having a congestion. Try that with each guy in his own car, and you'll have a perpetual gridlock.
Anyway, my city uses natural gas or something to fuel the buses.
Maybe bio-gas? In Stockholm, most inner-city buses use ethanol as fuel, except for some that use bio-gas. The bio-gas comes from the primary sewage treatment plant in the city. Diesel is only used for buses that have a significant part of their route outside the inner-city limits, with the stated goal that all buses should be using renewable fuels within just a few years.
It'd probably be different if we had population density/distributions similar to Europe, but we don't.
The idea is that by building a mass transit network, you'll stimulate denser development along the network, since having nearby mass transit is a major advantage when considering where to settle down. We don't have the US-style urban sprawl here because we have an extensive mass transit network, not the other way around.
An SUV is a gas-guzzler when used for just a few folks, but it can't be beat if you have heavy and/or bulky cargo to carry
Or, you could just add a tow ball on your regular car if it doesn't already have one, and rent a trailer when you need to haul stuff. Unless you haul heavy cargo frequently, this option should be better, since you don't carry all that mass around just for hauling something once or twice every year.
Why do you consider Napster any different to Bit Torrent?
Napster was an American file sharing service, and thus it was fine and dandy. The Pirate Bay is a foreign file sharing service from far-away socialist Sweden, so it is just evil.
If all your code is free, by definition you aren't a "programmer by trade". People who are "programmers by trade" typically expect to get paid for their work
That's not necessarily correct, since you can get paid writing free software too. Ask any Red Hat employee.
the first judge due to judge their trial was removed due to conflict of interest IIRC and this is his replacement
No, that is not correct. The judging group consisted of one professional judge and three laymen judges appointed by the city council. Before the trial, the professional judge decided to replace one of the layman judges for fear of conflict of interest because he was a composer. The allegedly biased judge this time is the professional judge that headed the judging group.
and use the money from that to lower the cost of movies and cds
So in effect, you suggest creating a subsidy for the entertainment industry? Because if the state picks up the tab for the difference between the price requested by the industry, and what the consumer pays, a subsidy is what you have created.
I'm not talking about roads in Stockholm, I'm talking about roads in the US.
So? On TV and when I visited the US, I've got the impression that US roads are at least as clogged by gridlock as ours, if not more. And that leads to variable trip times. The convenience of scheduling when driving yourself is just an illusion.
This may not be a problem for you, but I cannot read or work at all in a moving vehicle.
There are big differences between moving vehicles for me. I cannot read anything in a car or in a bus, but trains are a completely different matter. Since the ride is so smooth, reading isn't a problem on a train, at least for me.
I don't find the hard plastic seats on trains or busses all that comfortable.
Hard plastic seats? I've never been on a bus or a train with hard plastic seats. The only hard seats I've encountered has been hard wooden seats on vintage trains, but you don't ride those to relax, and the ride is usually pretty short.
The difference between subsidizing mass transit by rail and mass transit by highways is that everyone uses the highways, but I don't believe that everyone would use the rail.
Where I live, a lot of people use mass transit, both rich and poor alike. This is likely because of a combination of affordable prices, good comfort, frequent schedules and a big hassle with finding parking space if you would drive instead.
In my experience most (but not all) of the people that ride public subsidized mass transit do so because they have no other reasonable option.
You mean like those who can't afford a car? Maybe it's like that in the US, but it doesn't have to be lite that. Mass transit here is subsidized to around 50%, with ticket revenue comprising the other 50%, and as I said, mass transit here is used by rich and poor alike, because it is such a convenient alternative.
The convenience is not only being able to travel by yourself, but from being able to squeeze every min of "not at work" time that you can based on determinations of how long it takes to get from home to work, as well as to and from work to a given restaurant.
In my experience, driving results in much more variable trip times than taking the subway, which I use for my daily commute to and from work. There is never a gridlock in the subway, but it is more the rule than the exception on the road.
There is also the convenience of being able to string errands together in the order that you choose to minimize the time they take to a much greater extent than is possible using mass transit systems on a fixed schedule.
During rush hours, subway trains arrive every five minutes, with 10 minute intervals during the day and early evening. During the late evening, they come in 15 minute intervals, and during weekend nights they come in half hour intervals. If you are going primarily during the day, the fixed schedule isn't really a problem.
Of course, if you choose to live in some far-off location, it might not be that convenient, but most people here consider nearby access to mass transit a serious advantage when they are looking for a home.
Wow, well the city you describe and live at are about 180degrees different than where I have lived.
Well, I don't know where you live, but I live in Stockholm. In the context of this discussion, the section on public transport may be especially relevant.
I've never lived in a super urban center like you seem to be describing...
I work very close to the city center, but I live (for another two months) in a suburb around 10 km (6 miles) to the south-west. I'm soon going to move though, into a newly constructed apartment in the western part of the inner city.
While it had some elements of a jury trial, it really wasn't, at least not the way it works in America (if movies and television depict it accurately).
The judgment was handed down by four people, one which is a judge and three laymen acting as "nämndemän". The three laymen are appointed by the city council, and are mostly recruited among members of the political parties. The professional judge and the "nämndemän" agree on a judgment and the sentence together, with equal voting power. The only extra power of the judge is that his vote counts extra in the case of a tie.
That was caused by lower demand as a result of the financial crisis. When the economy recovers, the demand will go back up again, and with it the fuel prices too.
Slashdot Mirror
How you you possibly sue two people for the equivalent of $3 million USD and ever expect them to be able to pay it back.
Actually, it was four individuals, where one is Carl Lundström, a pretty rich businessman. The judgment says that the sum should come from whoever of those four that can pay, not that each one should pay 1/4 of the sum. The result is that if the sum stands, the money will likely come from Carl Lundström. It is then up to him to collect money from his "co-conspirators".
And TPB would be open to a damages lawsuit from the law firm or whoever had to process the money.
You can't sue the entire TPB crew for the actions of one of its operators. The guy who came up with this scheme is Anakata, or IRL Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, who is not known to have a lot of money. He won't be able to pay such damages, so suing him will likely be pretty useless.
It's not like the TPB case where one of the defendants is pretty rich and owns one or several companies.
And does Sweden not have some sort of teeth to their court-imposed penalties whereby simply not paying means people go to jail?
The 30 million SEK is not a fine but damages. If you can but won't pay, The Swedish Enforcement Administration will come and take your stuff, sell your house and your car, etc. If you can't pay, you will be indebted until you've paid the damages, but you won't go to jail for not being able to pay damages.
They won't take every dime of your income though. You will be allowed the minimum subsistence level so that you can feed yourself and stay in a cheap rental apartment. Any income beyond the minimum subsistence level will be seized and use to pay off your debt.
they needed some conviction against TPB guys
I just hope they like what they got so far. A conviction for sure, but I'm pretty sure they didn't like all those conflict of interest accusations directed at the judge, potentially forcing a retrial.
No, you don't have the required land area to support American style urban sprawl
Wrong.
and more cost effective to maintain when you have hundreds of humans per square mile to reduce the average cost per ride.
We have an average population density of 52 per sq mi. But that is really irrelevant, since I was referring to urban mass transit such as metro, trams, commuter trains and city buses.
Contrast that with trains which have inconvenient stops located miles-apart, only serve a few people within walking distance of those stops
Maybe you would consider walking distance to a train station an advantage when looking for a new home? People certainly do here, which has stimulated dense development close to train, subway and tram stops.
Furthermore, within 20 years we'll have the technology to make self-driving robotic electric cars, which will be both more convenient and more efficient than mass transit for short to medium length trips. Existing mass transit systems will become obsolete.
That does not seem likely. A single subway train here takes 1000 people, and you could run one every two minutes without having a congestion. Try that with each guy in his own car, and you'll have a perpetual gridlock.
Anyway, my city uses natural gas or something to fuel the buses.
Maybe bio-gas? In Stockholm, most inner-city buses use ethanol as fuel, except for some that use bio-gas. The bio-gas comes from the primary sewage treatment plant in the city. Diesel is only used for buses that have a significant part of their route outside the inner-city limits, with the stated goal that all buses should be using renewable fuels within just a few years.
It'd probably be different if we had population density/distributions similar to Europe, but we don't.
The idea is that by building a mass transit network, you'll stimulate denser development along the network, since having nearby mass transit is a major advantage when considering where to settle down. We don't have the US-style urban sprawl here because we have an extensive mass transit network, not the other way around.
An SUV is a gas-guzzler when used for just a few folks, but it can't be beat if you have heavy and/or bulky cargo to carry
Or, you could just add a tow ball on your regular car if it doesn't already have one, and rent a trailer when you need to haul stuff. Unless you haul heavy cargo frequently, this option should be better, since you don't carry all that mass around just for hauling something once or twice every year.
Should anyone be able to use Mr Doe's work without compensating him?
Yes, after a limited time of exclusive monopoly on the distribution of that content. Just as with copyright, but before the numerous term extensions.
This would make Mr Doe upset.
So? Are you suggesting that we should do everything Mr Doe says or else he will be upset?
Why do you consider Napster any different to Bit Torrent?
Napster was an American file sharing service, and thus it was fine and dandy. The Pirate Bay is a foreign file sharing service from far-away socialist Sweden, so it is just evil.
Note: I live in Sweden.
I do wish the Pirate Party website had an English version, as I would like to read their info!
I don't know about you, but this page looks like it's in English to me.
If all your code is free, by definition you aren't a "programmer by trade". People who are "programmers by trade" typically expect to get paid for their work
That's not necessarily correct, since you can get paid writing free software too. Ask any Red Hat employee.
with a sound you do not like being played at 110dB SPL over and over again?
Fingernails across a blackboard?
the first judge due to judge their trial was removed due to conflict of interest IIRC and this is his replacement
No, that is not correct. The judging group consisted of one professional judge and three laymen judges appointed by the city council. Before the trial, the professional judge decided to replace one of the layman judges for fear of conflict of interest because he was a composer. The allegedly biased judge this time is the professional judge that headed the judging group.
it's the same judge that ordered the Pirate Bay servers to be raided some two years ago!
The Bahnhof case is totally separate from The Pirate Bay case.
and use the money from that to lower the cost of movies and cds
So in effect, you suggest creating a subsidy for the entertainment industry? Because if the state picks up the tab for the difference between the price requested by the industry, and what the consumer pays, a subsidy is what you have created.
They did file an amicus curae brief in the case in question. After all, the RIAA motion is in response to that brief.
is like blaming Bush's foreign policy on the average American citizen.
And we all know they love that.</sarcasm>
I'm not talking about roads in Stockholm, I'm talking about roads in the US.
So? On TV and when I visited the US, I've got the impression that US roads are at least as clogged by gridlock as ours, if not more. And that leads to variable trip times. The convenience of scheduling when driving yourself is just an illusion.
This may not be a problem for you, but I cannot read or work at all in a moving vehicle.
There are big differences between moving vehicles for me. I cannot read anything in a car or in a bus, but trains are a completely different matter. Since the ride is so smooth, reading isn't a problem on a train, at least for me.
I don't find the hard plastic seats on trains or busses all that comfortable.
Hard plastic seats? I've never been on a bus or a train with hard plastic seats. The only hard seats I've encountered has been hard wooden seats on vintage trains, but you don't ride those to relax, and the ride is usually pretty short.
The difference between subsidizing mass transit by rail and mass transit by highways is that everyone uses the highways, but I don't believe that everyone would use the rail.
Where I live, a lot of people use mass transit, both rich and poor alike. This is likely because of a combination of affordable prices, good comfort, frequent schedules and a big hassle with finding parking space if you would drive instead.
In my experience most (but not all) of the people that ride public subsidized mass transit do so because they have no other reasonable option.
You mean like those who can't afford a car? Maybe it's like that in the US, but it doesn't have to be lite that. Mass transit here is subsidized to around 50%, with ticket revenue comprising the other 50%, and as I said, mass transit here is used by rich and poor alike, because it is such a convenient alternative.
The convenience is not only being able to travel by yourself, but from being able to squeeze every min of "not at work" time that you can based on determinations of how long it takes to get from home to work, as well as to and from work to a given restaurant.
In my experience, driving results in much more variable trip times than taking the subway, which I use for my daily commute to and from work. There is never a gridlock in the subway, but it is more the rule than the exception on the road.
There is also the convenience of being able to string errands together in the order that you choose to minimize the time they take to a much greater extent than is possible using mass transit systems on a fixed schedule.
During rush hours, subway trains arrive every five minutes, with 10 minute intervals during the day and early evening. During the late evening, they come in 15 minute intervals, and during weekend nights they come in half hour intervals. If you are going primarily during the day, the fixed schedule isn't really a problem.
Of course, if you choose to live in some far-off location, it might not be that convenient, but most people here consider nearby access to mass transit a serious advantage when they are looking for a home.
Wow, well the city you describe and live at are about 180degrees different than where I have lived.
Well, I don't know where you live, but I live in Stockholm. In the context of this discussion, the section on public transport may be especially relevant.
I've never lived in a super urban center like you seem to be describing...
I work very close to the city center, but I live (for another two months) in a suburb around 10 km (6 miles) to the south-west. I'm soon going to move though, into a newly constructed apartment in the western part of the inner city.
This trial was a jury trial
While it had some elements of a jury trial, it really wasn't, at least not the way it works in America (if movies and television depict it accurately).
The judgment was handed down by four people, one which is a judge and three laymen acting as "nämndemän". The three laymen are appointed by the city council, and are mostly recruited among members of the political parties. The professional judge and the "nämndemän" agree on a judgment and the sentence together, with equal voting power. The only extra power of the judge is that his vote counts extra in the case of a tie.
That was caused by lower demand as a result of the financial crisis. When the economy recovers, the demand will go back up again, and with it the fuel prices too.