The Pirate Bay Trial

[obsidian]

Anyone else keeping track of this? Software piracy is one thing, but net neutrality is another so the big corporate lawsuit against The Pirate Bay could spell trouble for all open networks, not just BitTorrent or peer-to-peer protocols, but the Internet in general. TPB is the largest of BT trackers, responsible for over 50% of all torrents. TPB is being charged on multiple counts of "Assisting in and preparing to committing copyright infringement" since they are not actually infringing on any copyrights.

Good news is, TPB is holding up pretty well in court on account of the prosecution being completely incompetent, they mixed up Megabytes and Megabits, and due to a misunderstanding of exactly how BitTorrent trackers work, on the second day of trials all charges related to "assisting copyright infringement" (about half of all charges) have been dropped. The defence on the other hand, asked if the prosecution could call upon King Kong to testify against TPB since that great big ape was the one truly responsible for the copyright infringements in the first place.

"EU directive 2000/31/EG says that he who provides an information service is not responsible for the information that is being transferred. In order to be responsible, the service provider must initiate the transfer. But the admins of The Pirate Bay don't initiate transfers. It's the users that do and they are physically identifiable people. They call themselves names like King Kong," Samuelsson told the court.

"According to legal procedure, the accusations must be against an individual and there must be a close tie between the perpetrators of a crime and those who are assisting. This tie has not been shown. The prosecutor must show that Carl Lundström personally has interacted with the user King Kong, who may very well be found in the jungles of Cambodia," the lawyer added.

http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay- ... -in-court/
http://torrentfreak.com/50-of-charges-a ... ed-090217/
http://torrentfreak.com/g-defense-090218/

[MKJ]

its a futile attempt, they should just drop all charges to save further decline of credibility as legal council

[Ryoki]

Heh, those articles are a fun read

[Transient]

This is inspiring, to say the least.

[phantasmagoria]

listeners of the live audio could hear mouse-clicks as Roswall, who earlier claimed to be an expert on computer crimes, tried to get his PowerPoint presentation on the screen. He was eventually ordered by the judge to stick to his papers and continue.

[YourGrandpa]

Looks to me like some laws need to be changed before they can convict anyone from TPB.

[Dark Metal]

Let's be honest, it's obvious that TPB is enabling people to easily share copyrighted material without license. There seems to be no law preventing what they're doing, but it certainly is opening a can of worms in court. We all should remember that this is a tough case on both sides, and tough cases make for bad law.

[Peenyuh]

Fact

[GONNAFISTYA]

Let's be honest, it's obvious that TPB is enabling people to easily share copyrighted material without license.

So does a public library. So does the torrent software. So do the ISPs. Where does the buck eventually stop?
The laws are never consistently interpreted, let alone consistently applied.

The basic premise of this whole mess is a clash of ideological principles: People who believe knowledge and ideas should be freely exchanged amongst everyone are pissing off people who believe that everything should have a price tag and that knowledge and ideas should be exploited for profit.

It is indeed a tough case for both sides of this issue.

[Dark Metal]

Let's be honest, it's obvious that TPB is enabling people to easily share copyrighted material without license.

So does a public library. So does the torrent software. So do the ISPs. Where does the buck eventually stop?
The laws are never consistently interpreted, let alone consistently applied.

Your argument is completely flawed. A public library loans out books, which must be returned after a specific amount of time, otherwise you need to pay for it. Also there are no laws against it. If a library was loaning out reproductions of books, that would not be legal. The torrent software allows people to share files, there are lots that can be shared with out license. I can own a gun, provided I use it within the law its ok. The ISP's provide people, for a fee to connect to the internet. The government provides highways to connect me to other cities, are they responsible if I go to another city and rob a bank because I used the highway they constructed to get there?

Are you ok with a website posting anti American "propaganda"? Probably. Are you ok with a website posting anti American propaganda, encouraging violence against
Americans, describing how to build bombs, and coordinating attacks? I would hope not.

Aside from the fact that giving out free guns is against the law, if I gave a gun to someone who I know is going to shoot someone with it, is it ok, because I didn't actually shoot them?

It's one thing to create a situation where illegal activity might possibly take place, its quite another to directly provide people with the ability to break the law, knowing they're absolutely going to do it.

[GONNAFISTYA]

I understand what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm talking about sharing of digital information and how it can be interpreted as stealing, regardless of where you get it from.

The main difference regarding digital distribution/stealing is that the original owner is not deprived of copyrighted property...ever. The depriving of property from the rightful owner is the very essence of theft. Copies are distributed but the original/master/whatever does not get into the equation at all after distribution has begun. Regarding that fact, the "fall back" argument about "lost profits" is itself completely flawed and can never be proved in court.

Like I said..it's simply a matter of people demanding to get "paid" and feeling cheated when they aren't...so they sue.

Does anyone remember the shitstorm that was caused during the Human Genome Project when one of the founding researchers decided he should get rich off of it, instead of simply contributing to humanity's knowledge base? It got ugly. Fucking ugly.

[YourGrandpa]

Another thing that they touched on briefly in one of those articles was the claim that everyone who actually downloaded something, would have bought it if it wasn't freely distributed. That idea has to be stupidest thing I've ever heard. I can't think of one game or app. that I d/l'd, that I would have bought if I wasn't able to get it for free. Hell, free d/l's have worked in "their" favor as far as I'm concerned. Because I've actually bought things that I would have never thought of buying if I hadn't been given the opportunity to see it first. If I'm really interested in something, I'll always go buy it.

Movies are another one of those things that falls into the category of, "I would almost never pay for that". If a movie looks good enough to me that I think I need to see it on a 100' screen, pay $30.00 for popcorn and listen to the assholes in front of me talk through the movie, I'll do that. But 99% of the time I watch movies at home. I have Net Flicks, a 60" TV and an awesome surround sound system. Why the fuck would I go to a movie theater when I can pause the movie, get up, get a drink, take a piss and restart the movie whenever I'm ready? So if I d/l a movie and watch it before it's available for rent, so fucking what. I would have just waited for Net Flicks anyway.

GL, TPB.

[hate]

I understand what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm talking about sharing of digital information and how it can be interpreted as stealing, regardless of where you get it from.

The main difference regarding digital distribution/stealing is that the original owner is not deprived of copyrighted property...ever. The depriving of property from the rightful owner is the very essence of theft. Copies are distributed but the original/master/whatever does not get into the equation at all after distribution has begun. Regarding that fact, the "fall back" argument about "lost profits" is itself completely flawed and can never be proved in court.

Like I said..it's simply a matter of people demanding to get "paid" and feeling cheated when they aren't...so they sue.

Does anyone remember the shitstorm that was caused during the Human Genome Project when one of the founding researchers decided he should get rich off of it, instead of simply contributing to humanity's knowledge base? It got ugly. Fucking ugly.

lol, yeah, i was involved in both sides of that matter. it was more about egos than subject matter.

[hate]

the root of this issue regardless of parties involved is:

"intellectual property" and the all-encompassing/over-reaching rights

that big-business lawyers believe they are entitled to...

[Tsakali]

lets not be completely retarder, ideas are private property not only by law, but also ethically ...depends on the originator of that idea if it will be shared with the world or simply rot in his brain (taken it was not able to be turned into a money maker))

I've worked on alot of little projects throughout the years both for free to share with said community but also professionally.

There are some things that not only do I want to be recognized for but also be compensated for. In the digital world of copies, alot of work is put forth with the idea that it will be worth your time since it can be repeatedly copied and distributed for a cost. Like video games for instance...you can't tell me that they put all that work into them just for that one original copy, lolwtf? Can anyone here argue with a straight face that it's ok to torrent video games, which show no compensation to the people that put all that work in it?

I'm guilty of this crime myself, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's not appropriate no matter what philosophy you use.

[Foo]

lol

[seremtan]

Another thing that they touched on briefly in one of those articles was the claim that everyone who actually downloaded something, would have bought it if it wasn't freely distributed. That idea has to be stupidest thing I've ever heard. I can't think of one game or app. that I d/l'd, that I would have bought if I wasn't able to get it for free. Hell, free d/l's have worked in "their" favor as far as I'm concerned. Because I've actually bought things that I would have never thought of buying if I hadn't been given the opportunity to see it first. If I'm really interested in something, I'll always go buy it.

100% agreed. i came across shows like firefly, BSG, the wire and deadwood thru p2p, then bought all the box sets

(but also: numb3rs and alias = bowl of elephant dicks)

[Deji]

I would say pirating often actually helps the owners. I remember reading somewhere that Adobe Photoshop is popular in no small part thanks to the fact that anyone drawing something at home is already using it.

The thing I don't get is that it is *almost* legal to tape shows and songs(provided it's for personal use) off the telly/radio but you can't download a song or movie. Lolwut?

[Whiskey 7]

...........

Movies are another one of those things that falls into the category of, "I would almost never pay for that". If a movie looks good enough to me that I think I need to see it on a 100' screen, pay $30.00 for popcorn and listen to the assholes in front of me talk through the movie, I'll do that. But 99% of the time I watch movies at home. I have Net Flicks, a 60" TV and an awesome surround sound system. Why the fuck would I go to a movie theater when I can pause the movie, get up, get a drink, take a piss and restart the movie whenever I'm ready? So if I d/l a movie and watch it before it's available for rent, so fucking what. I would have just waited for Net Flicks anyway.

GL, TPB.

Exactly.

Look I don't go out of my way to download stuff. I will try certain apps and if happy I am usually OK with buying the legit copy.
Movies! I'll give you movies.

[rant]
In recent trips t the movies I have had some bad experiences, sady enough that I am now staying away. Talking assholes and the 15 minutes of commercial content before the scheduled start of the movie. FFS, if is says commences @ 11AM it bloody well should and not 1115 or 1120.

and the shit (not really but popcorn and soft drink remnants) littering the place. I had to complain to management recently and guess what I got, a return voucher to the same cinema I should have thought more quickly and demanded a $ refund, never to return.

[/rant]

If I am interested I will make an effort to find and d/l from the net, but trust me, with a PVR I can't keep up and watch my recorded FTA TV

I will eventually rent that DVD of those special movies if I need to.

FTA = Free to Air
PVR = Personal Video Recorder (HDD, no tapes or DVD)

[Peenyuh]

I've purchased every single Springsteen release - EVER - and have done so several times for many of them due to loss or theft. I'm pretty sure Bruce got his money from me a few times over and doesn't mind if I replace a missing track or two. In fact, I'll ask him and get back to yuh.

[YourGrandpa]

Yes, let us all flip off the bastards after all of our money! Whilst we take our awsomely awsome TVs home in retarded hummers after pimping our useless guns...
You could have argued maybe that you would purchase good films you warezed to watch on your home set-up, instead of the shameless consumer-peen swing. :ironitard:

Did you have a good cry there? I hope so. Becuase the tears seemed to be blocking your cognizant thought.

[obsidian]

I've purchased every single Springsteen release - EVER - and have done so several times for many of them due to loss or theft. I'm pretty sure Bruce got his money from me a few times over and doesn't mind if I replace a missing track or two. In fact, I'll ask him and get back to yuh.

The recording companies got most of that money, Springsteen probably got to buy half an ice-cream cone. Therein lies part of the problem, said "artists" don't make much money out of media sales, they make the bulk of their income from being on tour and selling merchandise like T-shirts and posters. Go pirate your music and go see a show to support your favourite artists.

Trent Reznor "gets" the technology, he "leaked" or freely distributed a bunch of his recent stuff to BitTorrent under a Creative Commons license and let people support him via "donation" for the digital copies or to buy special edition merchandise off his website. Free from contract, he made a killing in profit. Screw the recording companies, they're exploitive of both artist and consumer.

Also, BitTorrent is a protocol, it's not a method of piracy. Plenty of legit stuff can be found via torrents (I admit, far more illegal than legal), but blacklisting a protocol, or in this case a website that tracks the BitTorrent protocols is silly. Is TPB guilty of letting illegal torrents frequent their trackers? Probably, yes. Are they to be held responsible? No.

[Peenyuh]

Seen quite a few Springsteen shows. I even spoke to him in Tacoma once. Between the concerts and merchandise, my conscience is clear.

Also, with the exception of freakishly outdated ones, I purchase my video games. Even id crap.

I steal porn though.

[obsidian]

Dude, that's low... implants aren't free, you know.

[Dark Metal]

Another thing that they touched on briefly in one of those articles was the claim that everyone who actually downloaded something, would have bought it if it wasn't freely distributed. That idea has to be stupidest thing I've ever heard. I can't think of one game or app. that I d/l'd, that I would have bought if I wasn't able to get it for free. Hell, free d/l's have worked in "their" favor as far as I'm concerned. Because I've actually bought things that I would have never thought of buying if I hadn't been given the opportunity to see it first. If I'm really interested in something, I'll always go buy it.

100% agreed. i came across shows like firefly, BSG, the wire and deadwood thru p2p, then bought all the box sets

(but also: numb3rs and alias = bowl of elephant dicks)

That's a valid point, however it's for those that own the property to decide if they want to do a free release for their content and hope it will raise awareness and thus raise funds.

Don't get me wrong, I love free shit just like the next guy, and this argument is valid to promote the free release of certain things, but shouldn't convince anyone that stealing is ok. It's like saying that you walked into a variety store, stole a Kit Kat, and liked it so much you bought another the next day. You still stole the first Kit Kat, just because you bought the next one doesn't justify the original theft.