×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

347 comments

Making Available (4, Insightful)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886213)

Arguably, I make copyright infingement available by providing my daughter with a computer that can access the Internet.

If the argument is that putting a site up that points at known torrents is a crime, doesn't every media outlet in the world carrying this story run the risk of some culpability by promoting it?

M

Re:Making Available (5, Insightful)

macx666 (194150) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886307)

The secret is journalism.

If the Pirate Bay wrote a quick op-ed piece about every torrent they linked to, then they would be journalists and thus, protected. Next thing you know, they will be named thepiratebaytimes.org.

Re:Making Available (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886499)

If the Pirate Bay wrote a quick op-ed piece about every torrent they linked to, then they would be journalists and thus, protected.

But who's going to have the time to write reviews of so many feature films and their respective encode jobs?

Re:Making Available (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26886547)

www.rlslog.net [htpp] is the answer to your question :)

Re:Making Available (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886919)

You beat me to it. Plus, if you read the .nfo files and the comments attached to the torrents, you'll often get some, er, interesting reviews of the various releases.

Re:Making Available (5, Funny)

OECD (639690) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886563)

If the Pirate Bay wrote a quick op-ed piece about every torrent they linked to, then they would be journalists and thus, protected.

But who's going to have the time to write reviews of so many feature films and their respective encode jobs?

If only they could harness some sort of free labor pool...

Re:Making Available (-1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886695)

If the Pirate Bay wrote a quick op-ed piece about every torrent they linked to, then they would be journalists and thus, protected.

But who's going to have the time to write reviews of so many feature films and their respective encode jobs?

If only they could harness some sort of free labor pool...

I take it you're thinking of forums and wiki pages about each torrent. How would those be kept clean of spam and other vandalism?

Re:Making Available (5, Insightful)

apostrophesemicolon (816454) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887251)

I currently have mod points. I could've just mod you down for "stupid", or "clueless". Both options aren't available, and "overrated" is not satisfying enough.

So I figured I'd just post to point out what the above posts were trying to say is that..

(oh screw it you can't be helped)

Re:Making Available (3, Funny)

horza (87255) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887005)

A screenscraper pointed at the imdb forums, a random number generator, and a thesaurus should do the trick?

Phillip.

Re:Making Available (3, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887259)

That's easy, if you use a computer. I mean use. Not click and play.

See, computers are machines made for automation.

q.e.d.

Re:Making Available (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26886321)

Yeah, I was a little surprised to see the BBC story on the case linking directly to TPB. By the argument being used by the prosecutors and some interpretations of the DMCA, that's arguably facilitating copyright infringement too ...

Re:Making Available (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26886991)

Well you see, for normal people like the person who wrote the article such insane bullshit isn't seriously considered. It may not even have occured to them.

Re:Making Available (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887143)

they could argue it, but do you really think that an organisation the size of the BBC doesn't have some pretty rabid lawyers of its own?

Re:Making Available (5, Informative)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886339)

Sorry to piggyback on the FP, but for those of us at work with TFA blocked, here's the BBC's take: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7895026.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Making Available (5, Interesting)

somenickname (1270442) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886777)

Strange. At the end of the article, the BBC actually presented information that made it seem as if they actually understood what The Pirate Bay does. Either the author of the article asked his IT guys to explain it to him or he knows what it does because he uses it to download copyrighted material. Either scenario is amusing I suppose.

Re:Making Available (5, Insightful)

Kozz (7764) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886949)

Strange. At the end of the article, the BBC actually presented information that made it seem as if they actually understood what The Pirate Bay does. Either the author of the article asked his IT guys to explain it to him or he knows what it does because he uses it to download copyrighted material. Either scenario is amusing I suppose.

Quite the dichotomy you've presented. But is it outside the realm of possibility that the reporter actually already knew how bit torrent worked or otherwise decided to look it up in order to compose an informed article?

Re:Making Available (1)

taoye (1456551) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887355)

You're not suggesting that journalists actually do this "research" stuff and produce "informed articles" now are you???

Re:Making Available (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886955)

Shit, I'll have you know the author of the article sometimes goes by the name "AXX0".

Re:Making Available (5, Funny)

bentcd (690786) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886837)

Here's an excerpt from the BBC article for the benefit of the cynics among us who know the media never gets technical matters right:

BitTorrent is a legal application used by many file-shares to swap content because of the fast and efficient manner it distributes files.
No copyright content is hosted on The Pirate Bay's web servers; instead the site hosts "torrent" links to TV, film and music files held on its users computers.

There may be hope for the world yet :-)

Re:Making Available (-1, Troll)

steelfood (895457) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887175)

From TFA:

No copyright content is hosted on The Pirate Bay's web servers;...

That's technically false. At the very least, the ASCII art that goes into the nfo and hence the torrent descriptions are protected by copyright. And, the comments are copyright TPB or the owner of the comments, whatever the implicit or explicit TOS is for the site.

So there is plenty of copyrighted works on TPB, just none that they can be sued over.

Re:Making Available (4, Interesting)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886415)

The real problem is that the attorney has shown zero, null, nada understanding about how the torrent protocol works. I just listened to the radio broadcast of the trial live from court and his speech was just a laughable 20 minutes talking full of technical non-sense.

The guy just spoke about "IP numbers", "File distribution", etc without understanding the nature of the torrent distributed protocol. It's just incredible that the companies that are bringing TPB to court, with all their money and power couldn't find a more technical prepared lawyer (if there is such a thing)

Re:Making Available (5, Informative)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886475)

It's a prosecutor.

The record labels do not choose their prosecutors, the state does. Keep in mind, attorneys tend to be type A personalities that seek challenges and glory in inordinate amounts.

I am sure there was some jockeying for the person who will handle this case, someone won, and he is doing it because he knew how to handle the politics moreso than because of his technology background.

It was mentioned yesterday that the prosecutor claimed to be a computer crimes expert, but that he could not get a powerpoint presentation to operate on his laptop.

M

Re:Making Available (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26886987)

He uses Open Office at work, you insensitive clod!

Re:Making Available (5, Funny)

xelah (176252) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887123)

It was mentioned yesterday that the prosecutor claimed to be a computer crimes expert, but that he could not get a powerpoint presentation to operate on his laptop.

That's because using a Powerpoint presentation on someone isn't a computer crime, it's a common assault.

Re:Making Available (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26887345)

It was mentioned yesterday that the prosecutor claimed to be a computer crimes expert, but that he could not get a powerpoint presentation to operate on his laptop.

In his meager defense, he may be an expert in computer crime law, not computers per se.

Yeah, I know, if he really wanted to be an expert in computer crime, he'd learn more about computers as well.

Re:Making Available (5, Informative)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886501)

....It's just incredible that the companies that are bringing TPB to court, with all their money and power couldn't find a more technical prepared lawyer (if there is such a thing)

Of course there are technically prepared lawyers! Ye gods man! See my sig

Re:Making Available (1)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886741)

Well, Beckerman may be far more techincally inclined than most lawyers, He still is not quite the technology person most other Slashdot posters are. His blog's main page makes that clear, although he freely admits that it is not as nice as he would like it to be.

I also find it kind of disturbing that he claims the Paypay invoice form looks like a check. It looks like an invoice form to me, albeit an unusual one, since the person paying is allowed to specify the dollar amount. I also find it a bit disturbing that the line item is for "Legal Services". I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that giving money to a lawyer for unspecified legal services is the sort of thing that could create an attorney-client relationship. (If it were listed for specific legal services provided to a third party, that would clear that up). I'm just guessing that he has it set up like that for some obscure legal reasons, quite likely accounting or tax reasons. (In my opinion, accounting law/regulkations comes in a close second for most screwed up laws. The Tax code comes in first. Next up is securities laws/regulations.)

Re:Making Available (3, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886857)

Actually, I believe that if you consult with a lawyer for information or advice, about the courts or the law, it is a legal service. This is just and right. If you consult with a doctor for information about medicine, diseases, or other such, it is medical services.

lawyers are meant to know the law, not be ambidextrous with writing HTML. In respect of a technical lawyer Beckerman's site is a great reference to legal issues regarding the RIAA and lawyers who know their stuff in court.

In terms of a car analogy: You want a car driver that can not only not be confused by a mechanic, but can hold discourse with a mechanic at a level far beyond your own capabilities. It does not matter if the driver can rebuild an engine or not. His job is not building engines, but driving cars.

So, in defense of RB's website, it's not as good as it could be but it still performs the intended purpose, and in doing so exposes you and I and everyone to great legal information. Most of us call this a legal service.

Re:Making Available (2, Interesting)

mrclisdue (1321513) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887257)

If Mr. Beckerman decided to change his website, I, for one, would stop visiting, as it would be apparent to me that he has started listening to us assholes, rather than concentrate on righting the wrong that is 'IP'.

cheers,

Re:Making Available (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26886869)

i suppose it would not be prudent for them to post a mocking of the prosecutor on the Legal Threats page. What i have learned is that when most of these people go after them they go off half-cocked and Judges don't usually like someone who's case is half shit.

Re:Making Available (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26887107)

The sad part is that investigators and police worked for 2 (TWO) years in gathering evidence and stuff only to have half of it dropped in the second day of the trial.

Why should the public pay for the police hours and lawyer costs for such "political" trials?

Re:Making Available (1)

nicodoggie (1228876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887233)

Heh, no intelligent, well-informed lawyer with enough moral fiber in his body would take the case (I hope).

Re:Making Available (2, Interesting)

pdabbadabba (720526) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886509)

I don't know anything about the actual Swedish laws in play here, but it seems to me that yours is just the usual, unpersuasive argument from vagueness. Clearly, both the Pirate Bay and, say, Slashdot are aiding in the making available of copyrighted works. The difference, of course, is of degree.

The Pirate Bay makes it a core objective to assist in making copyrighted files available. (Just look at their name!) When they assist in making the files available, they do it deliberately and for its own sake.*

Slashdot, by contrast, aids in making available to a much smaller degree and only incidentally while pursuing journalistic (-ish) ends.

"The fact of twilight does not mean you cannot tell day from night." - Samuel Johnson

*Of course, none of this should be read as suggesting that I think that "assisting making available" should be a crime...or whatever it is under Swedish law.

Where does the degree stop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26887295)

TPB isn't looking for copyright infringement. In fact, it's entirely possible that there is no infringement, remember, some sovereign states don't recognize copyrights that are not registered in the country (cf US copyright at the turn of the 19th century wrt Chuck Dickens). Such making available is not illegal.

Re:Making Available (1)

Lachlan Hunt (1021263) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886665)

If the argument is that putting a site up that points at known torrents is a crime, doesn't every media outlet in the world carrying this story run the risk of some culpability by promoting it?

That seems to be a non-sequitur. How does simply reporting on this court case relate to promoting piracy?

Re:Making Available (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26886765)

You could also say that Google is doing such things as well.

You can do many things through Google:
- links to download nudes of minors? check
- links to download illegal copies of music? check
- movies? same
- games? same
Etc

They have no grounds on which to sue TPB, they lost.

Maybe we should just hit the Off switch to the internets and call it a day.
Not as if it is hard to kill the internet these days... so much for surviving nuclear war.

Go Pirate Gay!!!1! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26886215)

We support the theft of intellectual property here, right? Fucking Theives.

Re:Go Pirate Gay!!!1! (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886295)

Nope, they only support half the theft.

From this point on, everybody needs to stop their illegal torrents when they reach 50%. Thank you.

Re:Go Pirate Gay!!!1! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26886417)

Cool. I'll just make each torrent two files! One, that is 49% of the total files which is what you want, and the other, at 51%, which is random noise. Hell, I wonder if I can actually assign the relative priorities inside the torrent file itself...

Re:Go Pirate Gay!!!1! (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886753)

yeah as long as the files inside the torrent are visible then people can select what part of the file they actually want to download.

Re:Go Pirate Gay!!!1! (4, Funny)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886893)

Yes, your honor, I didn't download all of that software. I specifically avoided downloading the trojan that the packager slipped in.

Case dismissed!

The World-wide spotlight must burn... (3, Insightful)

Vandil X (636030) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886217)

....especially when millions of people world-wide are waiting scream "Bullsh!t" (in all forms of media) the moment the prosecution tries to submit some in court.

The alliance with the ninjas pays off! (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886223)

Yea, ye' scruvy IFPI may have girded themselves to face yourn dreaded pirates alone. But pirates and ninjas be allied now!

Re:The alliance with the ninjas pays off! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26886899)

Yea, ye' scruvy IFPI may have girded themselves to face yourn dreaded pirates alone. But pirates and ninjas be allied now!

Zombie sasquatches everywhere will quake in terror, leaving the robot clowns to pick up the slack.

Only matter of time? (5, Interesting)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886233)

Good to hear this news.

But From TFA: "What has been shown in court today is that the prosecutor cannot prove that the .torrent files he is using as evidence actually used The Pirate Bay's tracker. Many of the screenshots being used clearly state there is no connection to the tracker. Additionally, prosecutor HÃ¥kan Roswall didn't adequately explain the function of DHT which allows for so called "trackerless" torrents."

So, it is only matter of time they are back later with stronger evidences?

Re:Only matter of time? (4, Informative)

MathFox (686808) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886391)

So, it is only matter of time they are back later with stronger evidences?

At this stage of the process the prosecutor has to present the evidence he has gathered to the judge; the defence gets time to present rebuttal evidence. When all evidence is presented, it is time for legal interpretation (pleading). It is planned that the judges have all the information they need in three weeks, so that only gives prosecution a few days to bring up new evidence.

And because it is a criminal trial, prosecution can not come back with another case based on the same facts... so dropping the charges now has permanent impact.

Re:Only matter of time? (5, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886719)

And because it is a criminal trial, prosecution can not come back with another case based on the same facts... so dropping the charges now has permanent impact.

Are they the same facts, though? Suppose I'm trying to convict a burglar, I turn up in court with evidence of his burglaries, and that evidence is ruled inadequate and he is acquitted; I cannot now convict him of those burglaries, double jeopardy and all. But he's a burglar, and afterwards he carries on in that line of work. I can gather evidence on his new burglaries, and make sure it's sound this time around.

Similarly, since TPB are certainly not going to stop linking to torrents, if they are acquitted here due to technical flaws in the prosecution's evidence, then they can't be charged again over those particular torrents - but new ones are published every day, and the prosecution could try again with a different set of specific torrents, and with more complete evidence.

Re:Only matter of time? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887293)

And because it is a criminal trial, prosecution can not come back with another case based on the same facts... so dropping the charges now has permanent impact.

Dropping the charges now does not have a permanent impact.

Remember that they are prosecuting an idea.
The idea being that trackers = assisting copyright infringement.
The specific infringement & evidence is easily replaced.

It'll take them all of an hour to put together a new package of evidence which includes torrents using TPB as a tracker.

Re:Only matter of time? (5, Funny)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886399)

So, it is only matter of time they are back later with stronger evidences?

Or at least better screen shots.

Re:Only matter of time? (5, Insightful)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886493)

Surely the best way would be to download a torrent from The Pirate Bay in front of the Judge, leave it downloading during the trial (no intervention), and then once it was complete, show that you downloaded a copyrighted piece of material.

I suggest they go to "Porn -> Movies" for the in-trial example usage of the website.

To be honest, I would like to see how they can defend against the "assisting making available" argument, apart from the fact that this charge seems so ridiculous. They're not committing copyright infringement. They're not making the copyrighted files available. Nooo, they're just allowing people to make available themselves.

Re:Only matter of time? (5, Insightful)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886973)

Surely the best way would be to download a torrent from The Pirate Bay in front of the Judge, leave it downloading during the trial (no intervention), and then once it was complete, show that you downloaded a copyrighted piece of material.

I suggest they go to "Porn -> Movies" for the in-trial example usage of the website.

To be honest, I would like to see how they can defend against the "assisting making available" argument, apart from the fact that this charge seems so ridiculous. They're not committing copyright infringement. They're not making the copyrighted files available. Nooo, they're just allowing people to make available themselves.

Immediately after which the lawyer defending them would create a torrent of his own of the trial's proceedings and seed it, demonstrating where the content is coming from and where it goes.

That just made my day.... (4, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886235)

It somehow just makes me feel better about the world when the "bully" gets a face-full of 'take that' from the underdog. I hope that the rest are dropped or mitigated to a wrist slap size judgment that allows TPB to continue operations as normal.

Re:That just made my day.... (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887215)

If they lose this case and all these servers get taken down, new ones will spring up. It's almost better for society if they lose, because it will prove the futility of playing whack-a-mole with internet freedom. (Whether you think that particular freedom is justified, it's still a freedom.)

Hooray? (4, Insightful)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886241)

So now instead of the "making available" theory, we get to see the "assisting making available" theory.

I love how these lawyers think. If I gave a random guy in a wheelchair a push up a steep incline, and he had robbed a store sometime in the past, I would be an accessory to a crime.

Seriously, can't we just round up all of the lawyers, executives, and directors and just fucking kill them already?

Re:Hooray? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26886345)

Seriously, can't we just round up all of the lawyers, executives, and directors and just fucking kill them already?
Unfortunately on the executives and directors part, they will be immediately replaced by middle managers. Middle managers make executives and directors look nice except they don't have any power...

Re:Hooray? Well, maybe... (4, Informative)

davecb (6526) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886555)

A classic tactic in self-serving prosecutions is to charge a person with rape, pillage, robbery and illegal parking. Then, when the defendant is found guilty of illegal parking, the prosecutor can announce conviction, with most listeners thinking that the defendant was convicted of all the charges.

--dave

That's not how this system works (5, Informative)

MoellerPlesset2 (1419023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887077)

That's not how the Swedish/Scandinavian/German legal system works.

It's a different legal philosophy. The Anglo-American system works essentially by contrasting two alternate realities,
the prosecutor's version of events versus the defendant's version of events, and the trial is a decision between the two.

In this legal system, the prosecution and defendants work towards a sort of common reality. Along the way, arguments and evidence gets dropped until they're left with essentially the minimum of differences. *Then*, at the end, the prosecutor formally demands they be sentenced for whatever they think they can reasonably get.

It's common and completely normal in that way for charges to be changed, dropped or added during the trial. It's what remains at the end that matters, not what they were demanding at the start.

Also, district attorneys in Sweden are not elected officials, and a D.A. career is not viewed as a stepping-stone into a political one. So Swedish prosecutors aren't anywhere near as interested in media attention as American ones are.

Re:Hooray? Well, maybe... (5, Funny)

chill (34294) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887119)

Except that "making available" was thrown out in U.S. court. If they're convicted of "assisting making available" in Sweden it'll mean that the U.S. is the more liberal country and I don't think Sweden can live with that. No one in the E.U. would talk to them anymore.

Re:Hooray? (2, Interesting)

KibibyteBrain (1455987) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886627)

And wouldn't this make a ton of people liable. For example, the people who write software that enables ripping DVDs and CDs, the people who wrote the file sharing software, the people who wrote the OS used to run the software rip and share the content, the people who built the computers and servers used, the ISPs, and the telcos and fiber owners. They all have about the same role if not more in facilitating the copyright violations than the The Pirate Bay does in practice. After all, after finding peers, the tracker could go down and piracy could still be committed, leaving only these parties liable.

Shh, don't tell anyone (1)

GiantRobotMonster (1159813) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886637)

Seriously, can't we just round up all of the lawyers, executives, and directors and just fucking kill them already?

Shh, don't tell anyone, but it's all under control. That's what climate change is for. We're gradually raising the temperature of the planet until all the lawyers, executives, directors, used-car-salesman, boy-bands, etc all decide to build a giant spaceship and leave. Once they're gone, we'll set it back to where it was. We tried starting a rumour about the planet being in danger of being eaten by a mutant star goat, but it didn't take.

Re:Shh, don't tell anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26886721)

We tried starting a rumour about the planet being in danger of being eaten by a mutant star goat, but it didn't take.

Don't you think you should tell the scientologists?

Re:Hooray? (2, Insightful)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886653)

That is a terrible analogy.

Saying that you just pushed a guy in a wheelchair not knowing that he was going to rob a store is one thing, but in this case a better analogy would be to say "I pushed a guy in a wheelchair towards a small store knowing he was going to rob it"

TPB knows what they are doing. Hell their name says so. You can't say that they are just playing innocent here.

Re:Hooray? (1)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886905)

Actaully it not great but its not overly wrong either.

If they are found guilty then technically CD-Ripping software is illegal..

Don't forget on TPB I can also find torrents for ubuntu / debian etc, which are legal.

They just look for *.torrent, so it's not their fault if the results are meatloaf.torrent.

Re:Hooray? (1)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886911)

Of course it was a terrible analogy. I was trying to make the idea of murdering executives sound less like crazy talk.

Re:Hooray? (1)

horza (87255) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887291)

Car manufacturers know perfectly well that their vehicles are used to facilitate robberies. Hammer manufacturers know a number of their products will be directly used for murder.

The question is whether they are assisting or wehther they making available public resources which are being 'abused'. If they offered $1 for each file being uploaded and then made an average of $4 per file through advertising on the download page then this would be a pretty clear cut case. If you are simple acting as a Google, then you have to balance public interest and setting dangerous precedents against the rights of the copyright holders.

Phillip.

Re:Hooray? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26887091)

If I gave a random guy in a wheelchair a push up a steep incline, and he had robbed a store sometime in the past, I would be an accessory to a crime.

No no no, you have this all wrong, it is if he commits a crime some time in the future that would make you accessory to the crime.

Assisting making available (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886259)

That's not vague or anything.

Re:Assisting making available (5, Funny)

funkatron (912521) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886897)

"Assisting making available is not vague. It is the most specific charge we could make up and it means whatever the pirate bay did." - The Prosecutor

My favourite part... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26886277)

"It's a largely technical issue that changes nothing in terms of our compensation claims and has no bearing whatsoever on the main case against The Pirate Bay. In fact it simplifies the prosecutor's case by allowing him to focus on the main issue, which is the making available of copyrighted works," IFPI's legal counsel said.

Here's to having the case simplified to the point it allows the prosecutor to focus on other cases...

Ah, I see (-1, Offtopic)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886309)

They must have used a reverse ssh tunnel [caseybanner.ca] !

Re:Ah, I see (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26886401)

link spamming piece of shit. no one wants to read your fucking site. this is the 2nd time i have seen your shit posted in an unrelated thread today.

fuck off and die

Then libraries are in *big* trouble! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26886361)

Libraries provide all sorts of assistance. Why, they even have a professionals devoted to "assisting making available" -- librarians. I ask them where I can find a (copyrighted) book, and they not only tell me, but they let me borrow that (copyrighted) work!!! After that, I could either be following the law or not. How do they know I don't have a photocopier or scanner set up at home to "steal" the whole thing? What's worse, governments provide all sorts of financial assistance for libraries on the premise it is a "public good" to make these (copyrighted) materials available. They're obviously complicit in any copyright infringement that occurs.

Do the math! Next up: print publishers sue librarians and government for "assisting making available" copyrighted works.

Re:Then libraries are in *big* trouble! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26886453)

It won't work. The reason TPB is being attacked is because it involves computers. Computers are scary. Anything done with a computer is a million times worse than the same thing done without a computer. Librarians might be scary, but they're not scary in the same way.

Google, Microsoft and Yahoo too (4, Insightful)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886385)

Effectively, any search engine and the whole internet itself assists in 'making available'.

DUH? (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886425)

Well, DUH?, if they haven't been able to shut it down in years of raids and proceedings, why should they be able to do it in a few days trial???

The accual .torrent-files (5, Interesting)

EyyySvenne (999534) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886473)

The accual .torrent-files where not even submitted as evidence, only screenshots from the client. The prosecutor assumed that the only source of peers is a single tracker when it in reality can be multiple trackers, DHT, Peer Exchange, Local Peer Discovery and adding them manually. Note that the defence haven't even started to make it's case yet, this is just from the prosecutors own mistakes.

The reason for dropping (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26886517)

The reason for dropping the charges can be found between the lines of this article [thelocal.se] . Basically, TPB nicely informed the prosecution that there way no way in hell that they could prove which copyright infringements originated from the trackers provided by TPB (as opposed to, say, mininova or slotorrent).

While I love this outcome (and the fact that it took TPB less than 24 hours to uproot the more serious charges brought against them), I'm not too happy about this approach. They're winning on technicalities, while I would have liked for them to win on principle.

Anyway, I'll keep dreaming.

Re:The reason for dropping (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886943)

While I love this outcome (and the fact that it took TPB less than 24 hours to uproot the more serious charges brought against them), I'm not too happy about this approach. They're winning on technicalities, while I would have liked for them to win on principle.

While that would be grand, I'm sure they're happy to win on whatever legal theory keeps them out of prison.

Re:The reason for dropping (2, Interesting)

Pofy (471469) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886971)

One other thing to note is that for the cases that are computer programs (all games I think) the part of making copies are not relevant at all since it is not a criminal offence to do so if the copy is for private use. It would be a civil case only and this is a criminal case.

One other problem was the identificatio of the location of each peer. Since only those located in Sweden could be tested by the court and the prosecutor appearantly had not or could not accurately identify which one originated from Swedne and which one originated from abroad. This WILL have a bearing also on any possible ammount they can be sued for. They can only be sued for (in Sweden and in this trial) those copies that has been made in Sweden.

Re:The reason for dropping (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887339)

Heh... Even the cheap shots work, really. If the prosecution's really going to be that sloppy, go for it. Why take the high road and risk missing something in your legal theory that causes you to lose?

Question about the prosecution (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886543)

So was the prosecution technically incompetent, or were they aware that it was wrong and just hoped that they would get away with it? I suppose that it is possible that they expected TPB to try to make a deal rather than go to court, and so had to hurredly put a case together at the last minute.

They want to boost our morals, but they ended up boosting our morale!

Re:Question about the prosecution (2, Insightful)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887305)

Maybe the prosecution is just a show to keep the RIAA et al happy that "something" is being done.

What has been gained? (4, Interesting)

WhyMeWorry (982235) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886593)

Why are people so happy? The linked article merely states that the prosecution didn't demonstrate that they had the evidence that they said that they have. I thought that slashdot wanted a verdict of "They are doing everything that is claimed and that is okay because it is legal". Why would slashdot be interested in the competency of the prosecution?

Re:What has been gained? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887285)

I thought that slashdot wanted a verdict of "They are doing everything that is claimed and that is okay because it is legal". Why would slashdot be interested in the competency of the prosecution?

The competence of the prosecution is relevant to the outcome of a trial just like the competence of a slashdotter is relevant to the outcome of a comment - and yours was a massive FAIL. Correlation does not imply causation, but if I were you, I'd think a little harder before I posted my next comment. Your question is like asking "Why would Niners fans care about the competency of the Raiders" or something, just plain dumb.

It really looks like the prosecution will fail (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886601)

Weird how they are giving up so quickly. I get the feeling that the prosecution doesn't actually want to win this. Could they be going through to motions to satisfy the demands made by MPAA/RIAA/**AA as relayed through the U.S. government to the government of the prosecution to make them just shut up? "Hey! We did what you asked and it failed! What would you like us to do now?"

But even if there were some success in this, won't the result just be the development of technologies that make it even harder to prosecute?

Re:It really looks like the prosecution will fail (1)

Talar (1245824) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886965)

If the prosecution fails the next step will be even heavier lobbying against politicians, "look what they are doing and they are getting away with it".

There are a few legal changes related to IP law and the operators resposibilities coming up for discussion in the swedish parliament soon. A failed prosecution would likely be used to point out how unfair the content owners are being treated in Sweden compared to other countries.

Nailor (5, Informative)

Nailor (999083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886747)

The prosecutor dropped half of the charges because he had misunderstood the behaviour of the BitTorrent. The half of the charges were about making pirated copies.

This however still leaves, as the TFA states, the charges about 'assisting in making available'. This also does not affect the claims of the stakeholders, they are still "valid". Also the maximum possible sentence is still the same.

Swedish prosecutor has been really careful with this case and propably doesn't want to risk the case with false charges. All the tracker files provided by stakeholders as the files downloaded are carefully selected. They even have listed every IP met using those .torrent files and made sure that every one of those has a Swedish IP among them. The prosecutor is also careful in using any previous cases against torrent tracker (for example Finnreactor case in Finland [theregister.co.uk] ).

A Finnish lawyer Mikko Välimäki has made a blog post about the case [google.com] (Google translation, original is here [turre.com] )

Don't post when you can't think straight.... (2, Funny)

Nailor (999083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26886871)

Just a reminder to myself not to post when I can't think straight. Imagine a better topic for the previous post, other than my nick. :)

Beware, Google! You're NEXT! (4, Funny)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887011)

"Your Honor, The Engulf and Devour Media Conglomerate, er, I mean, The PEOPLE'S exhibit A:

A Google Screenshot [grabup.com] , illustrating how Google facilitates the infringement of copyright and assists in making available these copyrighted files to immoral and unconscionable thieves like THEM!"

(Prosecutor inadvertently points towards jury box. Hilarity Ensues!)

And so does Target ... (1)

ElSupreme (1217088) | more than 5 years ago | (#26887097)

Hell Target makes available a lot of copyrighted works. I walk in, stuff my bag, then walk out. making available of copyrighted works What about that?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...