Remember hearing about these guys back when their offices were raided. The whole thing seems rather quixotic. Take down Pirate Bay and you still have hundreds of other torrent sites nearly as big. They have the same content and its just as easy to access. Not even the massive industries involved have the resources to take down all of them, nor the hundreds of others that will pop up in their wake. I guess its useful for establishing a precedent than clubbing others in the country (they're swedish right?) with it if they decide to start their own. But you're not gonna kill peer-to-peer file-sharing, you're not even gonna really slow it down.

QUOTE (Tempra @ Apr 17 2009, 08.53)

Good riddance. Just because society has this weird idea that file-sharing is not theft does not mean that it actually isn't.

Good riddance to what? From my reading the site is still up, the servers are still up, everything's business as usual except for the founders and another guy who have to contemplate a fine and prison time to make outraged American industries happy. Even if PB was shut down, so what? There are a thousand other torrent sites in a hundred other countries and not even the MPAA has the resources to shut them all down. This accomplished exactly jack.

QUOTE (Tempra @ Apr 17 2009, 09.56)

Good riddance to people who assist in crimes. Should we not enforce laws because others will continue to break them? That's crazy logic.

I'm saying that its Quixotic, pointless, and doomed to failure so why expend so many resources on a battle that not only can't be won, but can't even inflict a marginal dent into the problem? Kind of like the drug war, cept you can't even accuse piracy of 'destroying lives and the social fabric of society'.

QUOTE (the Blauer Dragon @ Apr 17 2009, 13.43)

I have to wonder about that. It generated some media, it eased the ignorant masses into the idea of carrying out such outrageously unjust trials. If one country can set a precedent for going after a site like tpb, and another is already tracking down individual users here and there and prosecuting them; How long will it be before they take this down to the ISP level and start snooping everything looking for more heads to place on the chopping block? I had been hoping that this trial would be an "epic fail" at every step, but it looks like the persecution won the first round.

Napster generated alot of media. Maybe set a precedent. Took down the BY FAR biggest head of the super-headed monster. But the day after MP3's were just as easy to get as they were the day before. It accomplished nothing. This won't either. Even if the MPAA and cronies pressure every government that's on speaking terms with us, not all of them are gonna bend, and there's always going to be someplace for the servers and websites to relocate that's beyond their reach. (Or they'll pop back up in places that are within reach but have been ignored too long) This is what happens with drug production. You crack down in one state, the shit is gonna pop back up somewhere else. Except its infinitely easier to do with this shit.

About the only place they can hit which might have significant impact is with the ISP's. There aren't too many of them in any given area and if they're on board, the individual users are pretty much screwed. But at the moment, there's no way that I know of by which they can distinguish lawful vs. unlawful downloading. They could have them agree to heavily restrict any torrent downloading at all, but that limits alot of lawful content and its inevitable that a new format would pop up shortly.

Yeah its a PR victory and they might be able to scare tactic a few more site runners with cease and desist orders, but there are too many jurisdictions with varying laws and just too damned many sites. All the downloads are peer-to-peer anyway, which is literally impossible to even slow, let alone halt. Nothing will come of this.

Tempra,

I can tell that you know absolutely zero about this case. This isn't about people who stored files on a server to share, this is about people who created a peer to peer SOFTWARE which people use for different things, among them illegal file sharing.

The people who were found guilty never touched any of the files in question.

That there is a guilty verdict is only because the Swedish courtsystem contains mostly old people who know fuck all about technology and frankly have no clue how the software Pirate Bay used works AT ALL. In other words: they're a bunch of idiots who fell for the record company lobby. Really, really bad.

Basically, the main crime here is Random Dude 153 downloading music and movies from Random Dude 571. This the record companies and movie lobbies don't care about, they are instead prosecuting the 4 Pirate Bay people for providing a piece of software with which people CAN commit a crime, (sort of like selling crowbars, get away cars or knives which can also, theoretically, assist in commiting crimes).

Also, these people have been found guilty of assisting and abetting a crime, but to assist and abet a crime in Sweden, there MUST be a "main" crime also mentioned, and the main crime is that Random due 153 downloaded a movie, but Random Dude 153 is NOT prosecuted. Random Dude 153 is not even contacted to give evidence. To find somebody guilty for assisting and abetting a non existent crime is remarkable, as it is actually against Swedish law. There MUST be a main crime to assist and abet, it is a simple as that. This case totally lacks that. The main crime is not of interest to the prosecuters and that is wrong.

I'll be very interested to see how this works out once they bring it up to the next level: Hovratten. It might even go as far as Hagsta Domstolen, since it seems crazy they can trial people for assisting and abetting in a crime when they don't CARE about the cime itself.

Shameful, imho.

QUOTE (Lyanna Stark @ Apr 17 2009, 04.15)

Tempra,

I can tell that you know absolutely zero about this case. This isn't about people who stored files on a server to share, this is about people who created a peer to peer SOFTWARE which people use for different things, among them illegal file sharing.

Thank you. I understand that.

They provided a forum for illegal activity to occur. I don't know specifically whether that is a crime under swedish law, but i'd find it hard to believe it isn't. And the court appears to acknowlede as much. If we changed the facts around so that the Pirate Bay founders ran a hotel that benefited from drug users/dealers renting rooms to complete transactions, we wouldn't think twice about sending these people to jail. Or to bring it even closer to the facts, a person who runs a drug referral business and puts dealers in contact with junkies is just as illegal Instead, people clamor on because virtually everyone downloads movies/music.

QUOTE (Tempra @ Apr 17 2009, 08.52)

They provided a forum for illegal activity to occur. I don't know specifically whether that is a crime under swedish law, but i'd find it hard to believe it isn't. And the court appears to acknowlede as much. If we changed the facts around so that the Pirate Bay founders ran a hotel that benefited from drug users/dealers renting rooms to complete transactions, we wouldn't think twice about sending these people to jail. Or to bring it even closer to the facts, a person who runs a drug referral business and puts dealers in contact with junkies is just as illegal Instead, people clamor on because virtually everyone downloads movies/music.

So your of the opinion that if someone builds a hotel they are responsible for any crimes that patrons of that hotel commit? That is completely absurd.

QUOTE (Tempra @ Apr 17 2009, 08.52)

If we changed the facts around so that the Pirate Bay founders ran a hotel that benefited from drug users/dealers renting rooms to complete transactions, we wouldn't think twice about sending these people to jail.

The fuck?

Okay, is anyone aware of any instances in which hotel owners were prosecuted because hookers made use of their facilities? Because I sure ain't.

QUOTE (Tempra @ Apr 17 2009, 08.52)

They provided a forum for illegal activity to occur. I don't know specifically whether that is a crime under swedish law, but i'd find it hard to believe it isn't. And the court appears to acknowlede as much. If we changed the facts around so that the Pirate Bay founders ran a hotel that benefited from drug users/dealers renting rooms to complete transactions, we wouldn't think twice about sending these people to jail. Or to bring it even closer to the facts, a person who runs a drug referral business and puts dealers in contact with junkies is just as illegal Instead, people clamor on because virtually everyone downloads movies/music.

None of the hotels who put up Al Capone had any problem whatsoever.

This is stupid. There are many jurisdictions where escort services or other adult behaviour is illegal. But many of those countries/states often have published guides to the adult industry. To my knowledge, nobody has ever said those books with information on where illegal brothels/strip bars/etc are, or links to phone companies for escorts, are illegal. And thats what this is the equivalent to, an address book for this information.

I'd also point out that copyright infringement is unlike most other laws, because I suspect 90% of people in western countries. I doubt you could find too many households where nobody has kept a show they taped off telly via the VCR, or had a single burnt copy of a CD or DVD, or had some MP3 songs or videos that they don't own. It maybe illegal, but its also simple fact that a majority of the people voting in the government probably participate in it, to one degree or another.

QUOTE (Ken Stone @ Apr 17 2009, 15.58)

What you are talking about here is motels that exist in run down areas and charge by the hour, basically. They exist and the owners don't get arrested.

To actually replicate PB's role, the hotel owner would be putting prostitutes and clients into direct contact. That is called running a brothel.

QUOTE (Tempra @ Apr 17 2009, 15.17)

To actually replicate PB's role, the hotel owner would be putting prostitutes and clients into direct contact. That is called running a brothel.

What about Craig's list, internet and newspaper classifieds, and even the damned phone book sometimes? They list escort services. They facilitate the contact between clients and prostitutes. Everyone knows they do it. They don't get busted.

QUOTE (Tempra @ Apr 17 2009, 15.29)

Why do you think they are called escort services? It's not just a nice PC term. It is away around the law.

Paid escorts (sans sex) are perfectly legal. File sharing (sans copyright violations) is perfectly legal. Everyone knows the former is just a front for Prostitution, just as everyone knows that a shitload of the file-sharing does involve copyright infringement. Craig's list, dating sites, newspapers and the phone book still knowingly facilitate that prostitution and are not prosecuted. I fail to see the difference.

Wait, there is one. Craig's list/classifieds/newspapers are actually incredibly easy to police. 99.99% of the time, escort = prostitute. everyone knows that. Their listings are straight forward and abundantly obvious, easy to identify. They could be monitored and removed with ease. Yet noone does, noone calls upon them to, and the services bringing whores and john's together doesn't get arrested.

QUOTE (Geddon @ Apr 17 2009, 17.11)

That was written in 1841. In the intervening years many governments have, in their wisdom, decided to extend copyright to the creators death + 95 years. Copyright has gone from being a very limited monopoly on the commercial exploitation of work to what amounts to a perpetual monopoly and, as predicted, many people are now choosing to ignore copyright completely. Or, put another way, the copyright lobbyists eventually got their "unreasonable restraints" and now the public are "pillaging and defrauding".

I'll be the first to agree that current copyright laws are ridiculous and far exceed their original Constitutionally intended purpose. They've been completely hijacked by business interests and no longer serve primarily to promote the arts and innovation. But I don't believe for a second that any pimply 15 year old or bored college freshmen downloading gig upon gig of torrents is thinking 'If only we had a fair and just copyright law, then I wouldn't by downloading the new Wolverine film' Nor would there be that significant of a decline in copyright infringement if fair and just laws were put in place. They're generally not downloading shit that would otherwise be in the public domain by now under our much older laws. Most of it is newer shit.

QUOTE (Tempra @ Apr 17 2009, 19.22)

Do you really need me to explain why the RIAA goes after file-shareres and why there is little interest in cracking down on the escort industry? The RIAA goes after file-sharers because of all the M-O-N-E-Y that they lose.

Ummm...no shit. When did I or anyone else ever say otherwise? Of course its about money. It sure as hell ain't about the law.

QUOTE (Tempra @ Apr 17 2009, 19.22)

The police don't go after the escort industry all that often because they have worse crimes to worry about.

Which is why they still write speeding tickets....arrest shoplifters...and oh yeah...still bust prostitution rings.

QUOTE (Tempra @ Apr 17 2009, 19.22)

The yellow pages, dating sites, craig's list do not KNOWINGLY facilitate prostitution. Yes, people use those sites for prostitution, but it is different from PB. Lets say users on on PB swap Lord of the Rings. We know Lord of the Rings is a copyrighted movie that New Line Cinema will want to protect. When file-sharers use PB to download LOTR, there is no doubt that they are infringing on New Line Cinema's copyright. Now for the phone book, people connect under the color of a legitimate activity(escorting). It is AFTER they connect, and after the phone book is out of the picture, that the prostitution bit comes into the picture. You may find the difference negligible, but that is part of the reason why escort businesses are able to advertise in the phone book and why whoever owns the phonebook doesn't get in trouble.

Well, yes...those sites do knowingly facilitate prostitution. Because an escort ad is a prostitution ad. They know this. So does everyone else. The same way that TPB people know that a file titled Lord of the Rings is probably a copyrighted movie...because everyone knows that Lord of the Rings is a big, recent Hollywood film. But ya know, you're never 100% sure until you download yourself just to make sure. Could be some free indy project about some domineering polygamist patriarch. Title could be misleading and all. But 99.99999% of the time its probably not. So they just go on faith that LotR in the title = copyright infringing file. Sort of like Escort ads = prostitution on Craig's list. Except that we don't apply the same standard there for some reason...

QUOTE (EHK for Darwin @ Apr 17 2009, 19.12)

Well, yes...those sites do knowingly facilitate prostitution. Because an escort ad is a prostitution ad. They know this. So does everyone else. The same way that TPB people know that a file titled Lord of the Rings is probably a copyrighted movie...because everyone knows that Lord of the Rings is a big, recent Hollywood film. But ya know, you're never 100% sure until you download yourself just to make sure. Could be some free indy project about some domineering polygamist patriarch. Title could be misleading and all. But 99.99999% of the time its probably not. So they just go on faith that LotR in the title = copyright infringing file. Sort of like Escort ads = prostitution on Craig's list. Except that we don't apply the same standard there for some reason...

No. An escort ad MAY be a prostitution ad. The rest of your post is to silly too even address. I will say, however, that RIAA and the movie studios go out of there way to tell people that their copyrights are being infringed. TBP had ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE that copyrighted material was being transferred. The Phone book does NOT have actual knowledge that escorts = prostitutes.

QUOTE (Tempra @ Apr 17 2009, 20.19)

No. An escort ad MAY be a prostitution ad. The rest of your post is to silly to even address. I will say, however, that RIAA and the movie studios go out of there way to tell people that their copyrights are being infringed. TBP had ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE that copyrighted material was being transferred. The Phone book does NOT have actual knowledge that escorts = prostitutes.

Just like that file titled Lord of the Rings MAY be the billion dollar earning film directed by Peter Jackson, starring the gay geriatric from Gods and Monsters. But ya never know for sure until you call the ad/download the file. Its the same fucking thing. Your refusal to acknowledge that is edging towards absurd.

As for the MPAA, do you really think they downloaded each one of the couple thousand versions of LotR floating around the internet to confirm that each one was actually the film? Or did they just group in every vaguely close file name, repeat the same thing for damned near every other Hollywood movie, and demand they all be taken down? (Hell, they probably didn't even do that much) Cause unless they dowloaded and viewed the file (called the escort service), then they don't have any ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE to give TBP in the first place. They can shout 'COPYRIGHT' til they're blue in the face, doesn't necessarily make it so.

Anyway, just applying your standard here.

QUOTE (Tempra @ Apr 17 2009, 20.19)

No. An escort ad MAY be a prostitution ad. The rest of your post is to silly to even address. I will say, however, that RIAA and the movie studios go out of there way to tell people that their copyrights are being infringed. TBP had ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE that copyrighted material was being transferred. The Phone book does NOT have actual knowledge that escorts = prostitutes.

I don't know. As someone who's downloaded a file only to find out it was fake, someone's idea of a joke, TPB's actual knowledge doesn't necessarily amount to much more than the phonebook's unless they're downloading files themselves (which they probably are, but I don't see that as one of the charges). I don't really see a difference between the two honestly.

QUOTE (AverageGuy @ Apr 17 2009, 19.26)

I don't know. As someone who's downloaded a file only to find out it was fake, someone's idea of a joke, TPB's actual knowledge doesn't necessarily amount to much more than the phonebook's unless they're downloading files themselves (which they probably are, but I don't see that as one of the charges). I don't really see a difference between the two honestly.

Good point. If the RIAA makes TPB aware of the copyright infringement, as they did with Napster, Kazaa, and every other program/site that pops up, they can't plead ignorance. The RIAA/MPAA troll sites looking for copyrighted material. YouTube takes down copyrighted material every day to avoid the wrath of the RIAA/MPAA. I can't imagine the RIAA/MPAA not informing TPB about the copyright infringements.

QUOTE (Tempra @ Apr 17 2009, 20.44)

Good point.

I've been telling you that for 3 fricken pages with you constantly naysaying, and you tell him 'good point?'