×

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!

Pirate Bay Day 3 — Defense Requests Dismissal

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the ninja-lawyers dept.

The Courts 685

Hodejo1 writes "Yesterday was a big day for the Pirate Bay when half of the charges against them were dropped leaving only the lesser charges of assisting making copyrighted material available in place. TorrentFreak is following the English twitter feed of the trial in the wee hours of the night, documenting more missteps by the prosecution. 'The Pirate Bay trial is moving forward rapidly and again the day in court has ended early. On the third day the prosecution presented the amended charges. The defendants all called for acquittal while Carl Lundström's lawyer scored points with the already legendary "King Kong" defense.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

685 comments

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

boogerme0 (1151469) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912441)

First Post.... Every user should get at least one!

Re:First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912459)

Congrats, you got it! Now prepare for the karma burn.

Re:First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912563)

king kong is now a meme

Anonymous Coward (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912445)

Dylan Lainhart 1st post Leet HAxor.

if you think it's over... (5, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912455)

.... think again. while i don't think these guys are innocents by a long shot, asking for jail time was always bullcrap.

Re:if you think it's over... (4, Insightful)

AceofSpades19 (1107875) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912821)

how are they not innocent?, unless you think hosting .torrent files is ilegal

Re:if you think it's over... (0, Offtopic)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912911)

profiting from another persons crime? the sites primary income is copyrighted content, and don't pretend otherwise. they know full well without that pirated content they wouldn't have a business, hence they aren't innocent.

Re:if you think it's over... (5, Insightful)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912993)

Whoa there, skipper. Their primary (and sole) income is adspace. They don't sell the copyrighted content. That's the big issue here, so I wouldn't be so quick to right it off as simple legal or illegal.

Re:if you think it's over... (5, Insightful)

Wescotte (732385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913123)

Does that mean the MPAA could sue any company who runs ads on the website?

Re:if you think it's over... (5, Interesting)

iksbob (947407) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913133)

One could argue that they profit substantially from the copyrighted material, since it brings in revenue from page (and thus ad) views. If that theory flies in court, I hope someone will similarly prosecute the countless news agencies that benefit on a daily basis from the assorted illegal acts on which they report. After all, the crimes that they benefit from are often far more heinous than TPB's alleged copyright infringement.

Re:if you think it's over... (5, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913193)

How is TPB different from those people that sell maps to the stars' homes? As pointed out, they are not doing anything with the content, merely telling people where they might find it... if they were looking for it that is.

How is it different from someone seeing a pile of DVDs in a trash can and telling people where to find the trash can? How is it any different than Google helping people find content on the Internet, even if it is content from copyrighted works? These questions can go on and on. The point is that they have done nothing with the content, nor told anyone what they should do. They simply provide the method for people who are interested in doing so, to find files on the Internet. Remember, TPB and BT are not used exclusively for downloading copyrighted works without permission. The way you are talking, all major ISPs are guilty of facilitating copyright infringement by not preventing users from connecting to TPB. You're heading towards a nanny state when it's the law's responsibility to prevent crime rather than find and prosecute those who commit crimes. In this case, those who actually download or share copyrighted material without permission are the one's who broke the law... and I won't even talk about what I think of these laws. Prosecuting anyone else for the "crime" is ludicrous.

The only thing that TPB is guilty of is helping people to share files. Note, not actually sharing the files, but simply assisting people with the process of sharing files with other people. This is not a crime. If it was, all CEOs of ISPs would also be guilty. The Internet is truly redefining what is a crime and what is not. We've seen more unintended consequences in the past 15 years than we should have because of this, IMO.

Whether you personally like it or not, TPB is not acting criminally. Do you think radar detectors for vehicles are illegal? The makers of such are aiding people in criminal activities. Are those people in jail?

Re:if you think it's over... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26913099)

.... think again. while i don't think these guys are innocents by a long shot, asking for jail time was always bullcrap.

They ARE innocent, thats the point. What they are doing is not against any law in their jurisdiction. Some people with a lot of money WANTS it to be illegal.

This may be a fine line but its an important one, there is NO copyrighted material on TBP, they don't even link to it, they index links. And indexing services (like search engines) are specifically exempt from legal action based on automated indexing.

I'll even go so far as to admit that there are more .torrents up on TBP that are pointing to files being distributed without authorization than there is the alternative. But thats still not their problem. In fact if they try to enforce rules based on content they actually will become liable.

As far as their reputation for ridiculing people serving them legal notices... why shouldn't they?

If a $200 dollar an hour lawyer can't spot the problem in quoting US law at people who are based out of Sweden he deserves to be ridiculed!

FROSTED!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912479)

POASTY

H0H0H0H0H0

Score: 0 (Logged-in users start at Score: 1). Create an Account! To confirm you're not a script,
please type the word in this image:

Price of damages? something more serious... (0, Redundant)

boogerme0 (1151469) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912489)

It sounds to me like they pretty much arbitrarily choose the cost of damages in these bootlegging charges, and give bogus reasons for them. Considering that there exist pretty much no grounds for exacting justice legally, what happens if they are found guilty? What are the potential ramifications?

Re:Price of damages? something more serious... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912711)

They appeal. They will win in the higher courts, because there isn't a case according to any sane interpretation of Swedish law.

But the laws can be changed, swiftly and easily, in a country that doesn't have a constitutional court or supreme court. Especially when said country is member of a union that can, more or less, dictate laws to it's member states.

King Kong Defence? (5, Funny)

spankyofoz (445751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912493)

Tell me about the King Kong defence. Please compare and contrast it to the Chewbacca defence, to provide an adequate frame of reference.

Re:King Kong Defence? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912553)

Re:King Kong Defence? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912631)

LOL...

"Newspapers immediately pointed out how the term already had acquired its own article on Wikipedia.[2][4]"

So it must be notable.

Re:King Kong Defence? (5, Funny)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912809)

Metanotability, don't you love it? :P

Re:King Kong Defence? (0)

steelfood (895457) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913051)

Basically, an article on how the King Kong defense appeared on Wikipedia within minutes of the term being used is now notable, but the King Kong defense itself still isn't until journalists start sourcing said Wikipedia article for the definition of the King Kong defense in their pieces.

Re:King Kong Defence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912565)

First you must obtain a global distribution license for a small fee for both characters from the MPAA before you are allowed to view said frames.

Re:King Kong Defence? (4, Funny)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912617)

What, no car analogy?

Re:King Kong Defence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26913201)

Not this time, me laddie, this time it's ships.
You see, this is like the Black Pearl. It's a mystical ship, noone knows who built it or who owns it, but if I give you a copy of it, it's all fine and dandy.
Now if I give you the Queen Anne's Revenge, Blackbeard will make you walk the plank. Arr!

Re:King Kong Defence? (5, Informative)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912673)

It's quite simple. In the king kong defense, it relies on the law they are subject to making a distinction that two or more people act together requiring intentional interaction. The defense is that we put A up, and some use did B. A isn't connected to B outside of some user using A's informational service. There is no intentional interaction. These users can be seen with screen names like King Kong.

The Chewbacca defense more or less distracted people with star wars idioms and then pulled those rhythmically towards an acquittal for the defense.

A car anology might be, the king kong defense require two people to get into the same car and go to the place the law was broken. If that didn't happen, the person not in the car cannot be charged for breaking that law. The chewbacca defense is like watching a movie about horse racing to convince the jury that the two people were never in the cars together.

Re:King Kong Defence? (5, Funny)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912685)

Per E. Samuelson
Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, RIAA's attorney would certainly want you to believe that my client is assisting in these copyright infringement activities. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is KingKong. KingKong is a big gorilla who shares file from Cambodia. But KingKong lives on the fictional Skull Island with ninjas. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

RIAA Attorney
Damn it!

RIAA Exec
What?

RIAA Attorney
He's using the KingKong defense!

Per E. Samuelson
Why would a gorilla, a several stories tall Gorilla, want to live on Cambodia and fileshare from there, with a bunch of smaller and numerous human beings? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major anti-shipping company, and I'm talkin' about KingKong! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If King Kong shares file from Cambodia, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Re:King Kong Defence? (1)

crazybit (918023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913059)

the above comment is so funny and true that deserves to be added in the wikipedia page.

Re:King Kong Defence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26913127)

Except for the fact that Swedish trials does not normally employ jurors.

Re:King Kong Defence? (5, Interesting)

EGenius007 (1125395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912803)

For those too lazy to visit WikiPedia (and/or in case it gets pulled soon):

EU Law, adopted by Sweden, indicates that service providers cannot, and are not expected to be, able to monitor all of the information passing through their site. e.g. I post a link to a copyrighted document on /. then it is not the fault of /. editors.

One of the defendants lawyers pointed out the applicability of the law in this case by theorizing "The person responsible for uploads [of copyrighted files] might as well be a user named King Kong in the jungles of Cambodia" reminding the court that the onus to show a direct link between the defendants and the copyrighted material is on the prosecution.

Now for the important bit.

Similarities of King Kong defense to Chewbacca defense:
  • funny name
  • makes us think of furry creatures
  • (appears to be) legally successful

Dissimilarities:

  • legally relevant
  • not being made by Johnny Cochran
  • actually happening in real life

Re:King Kong Defence? (4, Funny)

steelfood (895457) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912831)

Chewbacca is a Wookie. King Kong is a giant ape. What does a Wookie have to do with a giant ape? Nothing. It doesn't make sense.
Therefore, you must acquit.

Chewbacca co-pilots the millenium falcon. King Kong was shot down by pilots. What does this have to do with anything? Nothing.
Therefore, you must acquit.

Chewbacca is 7'4.75 inches tall. King Kong is 50' tall. King Kong can squish Chewbacca with his finger. It doens't make sense.
Therefore, you must acquit.

Chewbacca can do the Kessel run in 12 parsecs. King Kong can climb the Empire State Building in 2 minutes. This is a travesty.
Therefore you must acquit.

Chewbacca has a life debt to Han Solo. King Kong lost his life to protect Ann Darrow. How are they related? It doens't make sense.
Therefore, you must acquit.

Chewbacca is a minor character in the Star Wars trilogy. There are three movies named after King Kong. This does not make sense.
Therefore, you must acquit.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Chewbacca and King Kong have no relationship. They are both furry and not human, but they are completely unrelated. Ladies and gentlemen, it is for this reason that you must acquit.

I rest my case.

Re:King Kong Defence? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912913)

King Kong defense is basically kidnapping Naomi Watts, and go to the last floor of the Empire State. Bring parachutes to the party.

Chewbacca's is a hairy one. All you say sounds good, but have no sense. Still people will think it should mean something.

Both defenses implies lots of hair and strenght, but if you are big enough you get the girl, at least for a while.

Re:King Kong Defence? (1)

mysticgoat (582871) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913137)

Tell me about the King Kong defence. Please compare and contrast it to the Chewbacca defence, to provide an adequate frame of reference.

  1. Compare:
    1. Both are big
    2. Both are hairy
    3. Both can sit wherever they want to
  2. Contrast:
    1. Chewbacca is an alien, but King Kong is one of our own
    2. Um, that's it, really

common (4, Insightful)

enter to exit (1049190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912499)

It's common practice for the prosecution to throw everything in a case and see what sticks

Don't read too much into half the charges being dropped, its common practice

The nitty-gritty begins about now.

I hate to say it... (1, Informative)

realmolo (574068) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912503)

While I think the "Pirate Bay" guys are legally in the clear, it doesn't really matter.

In the current economic/political climate, and with the United States pushing HARD on copyright issues worldwide (and with President Obama even *more* firmly in the pocket of the big media companies than Bush was), the "Pirate Bay" is almost surely going to lose this case.

Hope for a miracle, is my advice.

Re:I hate to say it... (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912535)

"with President Obama even *more* firmly in the pocket of the big media companies than Bush was"

Citation needed. Unless you're referring to Biden in which case I concede the point;P

Re:I hate to say it... (3, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912591)

The bosses of the entertainment industry(no, not that "liberal media" bullcrap) are to the democrats as the oil industry is the republicans. Same shit different name.

Re:I hate to say it... (5, Funny)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912805)

The good news is that you don't need to fill your car up with entertainment to get to work.

Re:I hate to say it... (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913039)

I HAVE A CAR!?
*runs outside now that the evil daystar has retreated from the sky*
*comes back inside*
I didn't find it. :-(

Re:I hate to say it... (3, Insightful)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912879)

Yeah the entertainment industry. Who wants that?

Seriously people. The media companies may have gotten out of hand. But let's be honest, the pirate bay IS assisting in copyright infringement. They may be legally in the clear. But it's really a technicality. I use bittorrent. I want fair copyright reform. I want rational penalties for breaking the law to fit the crime. Like the $20 parking ticket I get for failing to pay at a meter. But I also want the media companies to be protected.

Piracy may be grossly exagerated, but also is a real problem. The media companies may be stupid and behind the times but their concern is valid. Their product is becoming worthless before their eyes. The position of the government SHOULD BE to protect the property of its citizens. Without strong copyright law the GPL would be meaningless. What if someone contracted you to write code for them on a GPL project and then decides not to pay? How is that any different from taking code and using it without permission? Would you expect the government to protect your property?

Everyone says musicians should be making their money from concerts. Ok. Well what if people jump the gate and sneak into concerts? It's 'free' to the artists your presence isn't taking anything from them. Should the government not be on the side of the artist in that case?

The media companies have screwed up HUGE. They've violated laws. They've abused their influence to futily attempt to stop the inevitable tide of free but they're also attempting to defend something which SHOULD be defended.

They've gained too many rights. They've overstepped what they should be allowed. But that doesn't mean their rights should be thrown out either.

The media industry is one of our largest exports. It's an industry that does employ a great number of people whose work does deserve to be protected. The punishment no longer fits the crime but let's not raise piracy onto some elevated pedestal of justice.

"Ohhh but pirate bay can provide legal software as well." Yes. It can... but does it? I've never gone there to aquire somethign legally. It's called the PIRATE bay. They aren't about 'freedom' or 'justice'. They're about profiting through ad sales from providing copyrighted works. They aren't guilty of any crime but that doesn't make their service any more upstanding or deserving of respect.

They're just as low as the media companies sueing them in my opinion. I hardly think that the US protecting one of its largest exports is a bad position for the US government to take.

Re:I hate to say it... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26913077)

While you make some strong points that I agree with, there needs to be motivation for companies to not stampede all over our justice system in order to further their rights. There needs to be an example made of these companies so others that are considering abusing the legal system as a form of profit realize that it's ultimately futile and costly.

These companies should be entirely disposed of, if you ask me - forced to pay full restitution for ruining countless lives. It would not satisfy me to see them simply slapped on the wrist after they've been so evil.

It's not just about the here and now, it's about the future as well. And while I agree that entertainment is a huge business, that doesn't give the collective the right to be insane in going for profits.

And that's why it's considered justice for now.

Re:I hate to say it... (1)

PiSkyHi (1049584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913147)

If work for the greater good requires no due credit, then the GPL is redundant.

If the majority of people prefer to use the sum of all free software without caring who made it - copyright laws with software are redundant.

If we could get used to the idea that credit due merely helps us contact the people behind the software, then it would not need to be compulsory and copyright laws would only hold back progress of any particular implementation - since any free implementation with correct credit designation has a big evolutionary advantage.

GPL uses copyright law to protect itself from copyright law. GPL software is doing pretty well now - imagine how good it would be if it didn't have this obstacle.

I have obtained free software through pirate bay - a Seagate disk tool that would take ages to obtain from Seagate - pirate bay allowed me to use it without holding Seagate responsible for my actions with it.

You may think RIAA execs don't deserve a gravy train, but do artists deserve a gravy train ? I think they should be rewarded for their work like anyone else - millions of sales ? how about your local musicians - they have to work to get paid - that's all that is needed. The distribution of recordings is just publicity for their work - money does not need to be involved for a decent music industry.

Re:I hate to say it... (1)

Apathist (741707) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912959)

Same shit different name.

Well, that's not exactly true. In the name of profit, one would annoy and imprison us; the other would happily destroy the world.

Re:I hate to say it... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912569)

Any good government *should* protect copyright. I'm sorry Slashdot doesn't agree.

Re:I hate to say it... (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912605)

I'm sorry you can't make a coherent argument, cause without one there's nothing to discuss.

Re:I hate to say it... (1, Insightful)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912823)

There hasn't been a coherent argument made about copyright on Slashdot ever. It boils down to greed on both sides, and people screaming why their greed is more important to satisfy. It's like a cosmic joke, only it's too stupid to be cosmic.

Re:I hate to say it... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912987)

There hasn't been a coherent argument made about copyright on Slashdot ever. It boils down to greed on both sides, and people screaming why their greed is more important to satisfy. It's like a cosmic joke, only it's too stupid to be cosmic.

Mod parent up. He has a good point, but fairly disagreeable.

Re:I hate to say it... (1)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913119)

There hasn't been a coherent argument made about copyright on Slashdot ever. It boils down to greed on both sides, and people screaming why their greed is more important to satisfy. It's like a cosmic joke, only it's too stupid to be cosmic.

Bullshit. Like any interesting issue, there are excellent arguments on both sides. In this case, many of those arguments *have* been made in a coherent manner in Slashdot posts. If you can't understand the arguments, all that means is that you aren't in a position to have an informed opinion on the topic.

Re:I hate to say it... (0, Flamebait)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913205)

You know what - fuck you, buddy. Don't tell me how informed I am by reading three sentences tossed off in the middle of the night. I'm well versed in this issue, and more importantly, I realize that this topic, like Microsoft related posts, is how a significant chunk of Slashdot users masturbate mentally.

I masturbate mentally by pointing out the masturbation. It's very meta.

Re:I hate to say it... (5, Informative)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912577)

Whoa, you think that the US has that much pull on the Swedish courts? I doubt it. TBP is clearly winning the case thus far. I expect them to win, regardless of the United States not liking it.

Re:I hate to say it... (0, Troll)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912657)

I hate to say it, but realmolo is probably right. Odds on "weapons of mass destruction" being found in Sweden sometime in the very near future just shot up by 1000%.

Re:I hate to say it... (0, Troll)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912829)

I hope you honestly believe that. I would love to think you're that retarded.

Re:I hate to say it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26913031)

Stripping off the sarcasm, what the GP is saying is that anyone who thinks that the US is all cuddly and has the best interests of the civilised world at heart is delusional.

The US has its own interests at heart, just like the UK, Canada, Estonia, Sweden, Cambodia, North Korea, Iraq and Iran. A nation is just a likely to cop a knife in the back from the US as from any other nation.

Re:I hate to say it... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912989)

Well, Sweden had a WMD program in the 50's and 60's. Some Swedish officers still tell (for a laugh) to conscripts that Sweden has secret bomb-kits that can be taken out of mothball storage when needed!

There's a straw to pull on. =)

In reality the program was scrapped in an early stage when it became clear how costly it would be to go ahead and build enrichment plants and bomb factories and the supersonic bombers or missiles needed (SAAB drafted concepts for supersonic bombers able to reach Moscow. Expensive stuff for a tiny country). Not to mention how it was against the public sentiment of peace and non-proliferation.

Re:I hate to say it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912973)

As an American I hope you are right. This will sound more pompous than I mean it but one thing about liking the idea of freedom is that it means other countries can do their own thing. I mean sure, if they can do something we like that's good but if they don't tough nuts its their choice. Kind of tired of the arrogance many Americans have. It all goes back to WW2, and the people that fought it weren't braggarts about it really but their kids grew up hearing stories and seeing the US and Allies win the Great War and then they told their kids and so on and so forth until you get a bunch of people that just naturally assume they're the best and then don't put any effort in instead of realizing they really need to suck it up and get stuff done. I mean its kind of sad when Adam Corolla makes the most sense out of most people on radio/TV about stuff.

Re:I hate to say it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26913023)

Really, think of all the movies that have been "sweded".

Re:I hate to say it... (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912935)

While I agree with you that here in the US with Obama appointing people to the peak of law enforcement we're in a bad way, this trial isn't in the US. It's in Sweden. Different strokes for different folks.

The Pirate party [piratpartiet.se] is actually a political force in Sweden. In particular the salient points of their platform were adopted [wikipedia.org] by several political parties in the last election due to a groundswell of support. We could learn from them. They're in no danger.

Now I've posted enough on-topic stuff. Let's have an excerpt from TFA:

Sony complained in court that The Pirate Bay never remove torrents on copyright holders request, but that they have the ability to do so since they remove torrents that are named in a way that doesn't reflect the material they link to. They note that The Pirate Bay has a bad attitude to complaints and ridicules the complainer.

Aw... the pirate bay makes fun of takedown requests and that makes Sony sad. I think there's something in my eye.

King kong defense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912537)

If only OJ hadn't wasted his money on Shapiro and Cochran... King Kong ENSURES reasonable doubt! Smart fucking pirates.

King Kong defense (0, Redundant)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912611)

Would have been nice to see a link to the King Kong [wikipedia.org] defense. Short version - the person uploading the files could be named King Kong for all they knew...

Loss of goodwill? (5, Insightful)

overzero (1358049) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912625)

Am I the only one whose mind is boggling at how the prosecution thinks that phrase works? Is there a law that says you can't post complaints against you or respond to them in a way that might make the complainer look like an ass? I understand things like libel and slander, but does "loss of goodwill" prohibit me from pointing out that Sony's inclusion of rootkits in their products might be considered a negative?* If Sony wants to prevent "loss of goodwill," they should be suing themselves.

*instead of the wonderful feature that it is, of course.

Re:Loss of goodwill? (3, Informative)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912703)

"Goodwill" has a long history in business (and divorce where there is family business involved) litigation. We're not talking about the thriftstore here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_(accounting) [wikipedia.org]

Re:Loss of goodwill? (2, Insightful)

overzero (1358049) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912787)

I recognize that goodwill has a real value to a company, but when you're claiming that half of the damage the defendant caused is due to them defending themselves, I don't see how you have a leg to stand on, regardless of how rude TPB was. At bare minimum, you might want to re-evaluate your strategy (you, of course, being Sony). It's not like TPB went well out of their way to organize a campaign against Sony or anything.

What a crock.... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912635)

I must admit, I'm quite shocked as to how this trial is going - I would of though The Pirate Bay owners would be holding onto life rafts at this point, rather having 1/2 the charges dropped and making a bold request for the remaining ones to be dismissed.

I really thought that the Pirate Bay's argument is just a "dictionary" or "search engine" like Google and Yahoo would just fall apart in the courts. Unlike Google or Yahoo, the Pirate Bay cannot claim that it serves a larger legitimate and legal forum for free content - The name of the site alone implies it's true purpose. Likewise, they refuse to remove content that is knowingly infringing (and taunt the owners when they are asked to remove it) seems to contradict their defense that they do not aid in contributing to illegal content.

If I were to open "FindAHitman.com" where 'clients' and 'plumbers' can meet to discuss person arrangements, I think I would have a hard time justifying myself as just 'a site that connects individuals, not providing any illegal services'.

Whatever - So goes the European court system.

Re:What a crock.... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912765)

The name of the site alone implies it's true purpose.

Aw c'mon -- pirates are fun and wholesome! Disney! Pirates of the Caribbean! Johnny Depp! Yarrr matey!

Re:What a crock.... (2, Interesting)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912877)

Hmm, so I suppose that a site named "Auschwitz Camping" automatically means that they secretly kill people?

Piratbyran ("The Piracy Bureau") is a Swedish organization (or think tank) established to support people opposed to current ideas about intellectual property â" by freely sharing information and culture.

=

[The Pirate Bay] Initially established in November 2003 by the Swedish anti-copyright organization Piratbyrån (The Piracy Bureau)...

And being indifferent about infringing content (according to other countries), doesn't automatically make their purpose infringement.

...Pirate Bay cannot claim that it serves a larger legitimate and legal forum for free content...

Yes it can, it doesn't promote "illegal" content, and it doesn't promote "legal" content, just "content", it's the users who choose to add "illegal" content, some of which reside (some purposefully) in countries that are more lax, or have none of the same infringement/copyright laws.

Re:What a crock.... (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912975)

Whoops, hit submit...

They are just a middle-man, and one that resides in numerous countries all with differing laws, and it's users reside in even more countries, with even more contrast in laws...

For the most part, (to me anyways) it's the same as suing ISP's for distributing illegal content, suing Cat5 cable makers for allowing it, suing hard drive makers for storing it... etc etc...

Besides, as soon as you try and plug or restrict a "tube" with that much pressure behind it, it's just going to spring leak somewhere... if the TPB goes down, then every Torrent tracker/server is "under attack"... even entirely legitimate/scrutinized torrent servers, still sometimes have "illegal" content on them, just like (whatever company that was) that distributed some illegal (or weren't 'allowed' to distribute) content, by accident... for now "that's ok, you tried"... but when they are the only ones left, they become the new target... then even accidental distribution is a crime...

And considering how late (how used to it people are) it is now, if that happens, there no doubt will be riots and uproar, even if those riots stay entirely online, imagine the inspiration for 'evils ppls' to hack/destory/distribute viruses against those who helped with "the day the torrents stopped"... a lot of which are probably starting/waiting for an excuse already.

TPB might be (somewhat) in the wrong, but so are their accusers, it's just people are so used to the norm, "thats just how business works" that they allow them to continue.

Anyways, i'm just rant-babbling... the whole thing pisses me off, but I don't know how to fix it either.

Re:What a crock.... (2, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913111)

Unlike Google or Yahoo, the Pirate Bay cannot claim that it serves a larger legitimate and legal forum for free content

O RLY? [thepiratebay.org]

Likewise, they refuse to remove content that is knowingly infringing (and taunt the owners when they are asked to remove it)

Usually, they are not asked. They are commanded. Under the authority of a law that does not apply in their country. How would you react if some Chinese group ordered you (as a non-Chinese citizen hosted outside China) to remove a blog entry mocking the Chinese government, because such blog entries are illegal in China.
(I was going to use that asian country that has laws against insulting the royal family, but I don't remember the name of the county.)

Re:What a crock.... (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913181)

Likewise, they refuse to remove content that is knowingly infringing (and taunt the owners when they are asked to remove it) seems to contradict their defense that they do not aid in contributing to illegal content.

That's not quite true. Not technically, ergo not legally.

A .torrent file in itself isn't breaking a movie copyright. Yes, the files that you download from other users from information WITHIN the .torrent file break copyright, but the .torrent file itself is clean of copyright.

If I were to open "FindAHitman.com" where 'clients' and 'plumbers' can meet to discuss person arrangements, I think I would have a hard time justifying myself as just 'a site that connects individuals, not providing any illegal services'.

Okay, lets say you opened just such a site. And if a 'plumber' put up a contact phone-number there on your site, is the information on that site any different to say a phone book? The local phone book may well also contain that exact phone number. Does that make you someone who is a murderer? That is the exact analogy of the charges that were dropped against TPB. The charges that they have chosen to try to stick with is the "helping to commit murder" although as I put it before, they aren't technically hosting anything copyright, they are merely hosting pointers to this info.

If I find a mafia hideout cafe, and put up a sign saying "mafia hangout cafe, get your illegal actions done by those guys" with a big arrow, and someone goes and gets someone whacked, did I help murder them?

You can't be charged with telling the truth.

The Chewbacca defense (-1, Redundant)

chrome (3506) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912651)

Cochran : Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Gerald Broflovski : Damn it!

Chef : What?

Gerald : He's using the Chewbacca defense!

Cochran : Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

FUCK ARTISTS (-1, Flamebait)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912669)

Yes! It's only a matter of time until Slashdot's heroes, the Pirate Bay operators, get away with this. It's our right as human beings to rip off artists and not pay them, and it's totally awesome for Pirate Bay to run a torrent tracker that connects users so that they can distribute file chunks to each other.

FUCK artists, and FUCK their rights. They are our slaves. We don't owe them a dime for their work. Long live, Pirate Bay, and enjoy the victory, guys!

Re:FUCK ARTISTS (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912699)

Of course, the only people who use copyright are giant corporations and media conglomerates.

Re:FUCK ARTISTS (2, Funny)

overzero (1358049) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912743)

It's our right as human beings to rip off artists and not pay them, and it's totally awesome for Pirate Bay to run a torrent tracker that connects users so that they can distribute file chunks to each other.

Well, awesomeness is what the courts are ruling on, isn't it? Ever since Brown v. Board of Education was settled with a crocodile-punching contest, there's been a precedent.

Re:FUCK ARTISTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912745)

I don't think anyone thinks it is anyone's right to deny the artists dues when it comes to works of music or movies. Most of the file sharing folk I know regularly buy music and visit the movie theaters. Your sarcasm is in poor taste and I think far removed from the type of people that should have any say in what happens. You honestly don't seem to find the gray area that exists.

Re:FUCK ARTISTS (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912767)

Yes! It's only a matter of time until Slashdot's heroes, the Pirate Bay operators, get away with this. It's our right as human beings to rip off artists and not pay them, and it's totally awesome for Pirate Bay to run a torrent tracker that connects users so that they can distribute file chunks to each other.

FUCK artists, and FUCK their rights. They are our slaves. We don't owe them a dime for their work. Long live, Pirate Bay, and enjoy the victory, guys!

So if H&K or Smith&Wesson were ever to be charged with making the guns used to kill people, and were acquited... logically you would say:

Yes! Its only a matter of time until Slashdot's heroes the, the manufacturers of guns, get away with this. It's our right as human beings to shoot people in the face, and its totally awesome for gun manufacturers to run a production chain that connects users to guns so they can buy weapons for eachother.

Fuck people I want to shoot in the face, and fuck their rights. They are our slaves. We don't owe them not shooting them in the face. Long live gun manufacturers, and enjoy the victory guys!

See what I did there? Copyright infringement may not be legal (murder sure isn't), but simply being peripherally involved in the crime, by providing, say, the very instruments used to commit it provided you aren't directly participating in anything criminal,... well shucks... that isn't actually illegal.

If you want to stop copyright infringement, convince the people actually downloading copies that what they are doing is wrong. Senselessly prosecuting gun manufacturers and torrent indexes for what end users do with them really isn't ever going to be very effective, because the murderers and infringers aren't even the ones affected.

Re:FUCK ARTISTS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912983)

This is the dumbest rebuttal I have ever wasted my time reading.

Re:FUCK ARTISTS (1)

Naedst (1313869) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913067)

Your comparison would be more apt if H&K or Smith&Wesson made guns that were predominantly used to kill people, as the torrents indexed on TPB are predominantly for pirated material. Damn it, see what you've done? Now it looks like I'm defending gun manufacturers and opposing TBP in the same sentence!

Re:FUCK ARTISTS (2, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912909)

If they make too many cars, those cars are going to get cheaper.

The huge glut of entertainment that has developed means that 99% of artists won't get a dime for their work.

Huge corporations that have the backing of the government will.

But even they are seeing enormous drops in revenue (and not because of piracy-- but because the middle class has no money left (the rich have it all) and after you spend your $300 to $1200 a year on entertainment, you are done- even IF the government kills people who infringe- no one except the wealthy can legally fill even a small IPOD).

Re:FUCK ARTISTS (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913139)

no one except the wealthy can legally fill even a small IPOD).

Me and my microphone (and video camera, and $BIGNUMBER megapixel DSLR) disagree. Not that I or anybody else I know wants to listen to me talk or sing that long.

Re:FUCK ARTISTS (2, Insightful)

mail2345 (1201389) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913017)

With or without excessive copyright, artists will lose. With copyright, they don't own their work and just feed off the crap their publisher feeds them. Without it, they can't own their work, and get money primarily though donations and events that don't rely on intellectual property being owned.

Re:FUCK ARTISTS (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913029)

Uh dude the artists have been fucked all this time. That's not out of the norm. Big business is all about making people do hard work, not paying them their worth and reaping the profits. The internets actually give power to the artists. Allowing to sell their product directly. For example if I were a band and I put my record out on the nets for pay. If I charged only a dollar for the whole album I would probably make more money than if I were signed to a record label. And not risk potentially having to pay the label because CD sales less the cost of advertisement ended up being negative!

legendary 'King Kong' defense (5, Insightful)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912707)

I've been hanging around Slashdot for over ten years, and "legendary 'King Kong' defense" has to be the most link-worthy phrase I've ever seen.

Because I'm not new here, I'm not at all surprised it isn't linked in the summary.

-Peter

Re:legendary 'King Kong' defense (4, Funny)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912813)

It's because this "legendary" defence was first used in this TPB trial...

Anyway, don't you have Wikipedia set up as your secondary search engine?

What are the real Damages? (4, Insightful)

inmytaxi (1403189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912875)

If the lawyers for the plantiff developed a statistical model about the net impact of PB downloads on sales, their case would be more palatable to the public. Of course, that could show a net gain in sales due to the free publicity PB downloads provide.

Not so Legendary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26912925)

Legendary King-Kong defense? And yet, the only reference to it is a wiki that is only the actual TPB lawyer quote that this article is referring to. Unless... that's the legendary part? Those sly Swedes!

I used the Pirate Bay tonight (1)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912949)

I watch the ABC show LOST fanatically on TV. I Had a psychology night class that ran late until 10:30 pm. Got home. Downloaded the latest episode of LOST from TPB. Watching it now. God I hope they win.

No market, no sale (5, Insightful)

Skapare (16644) | more than 5 years ago | (#26912961)

From TFA:

For the song "Let it Be" by The Beatles, IFPI is asking for 10 times the damages, since the band's music isn't officially available online. Interesting logic here - perhaps if The Beatles music was made officially available, people wouldn't even need to pirate it.

Since I only buy music online, now (yes, I really do pay for music), and only if it works in Linux (yes, I really do use Linux to play music I pay for), it seems that if the owner of the Beatles song "Let it Be" doesn't offer it online and playable in Linux, then they don't count me in as part of their potential market. So if I download that song, there is no loss of sale, since there wouldn't be a sale were I to not download it, because there can't be a sale if they won't sell to the tiny fractional minority market I'm in (people who only buy music online for playing in Linux).

Re:No market, no sale (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913145)

You believe that your own personal preferences deserve to be honored without exception, and as such that justifies piracy? Interesting point. I'm not certain how it translates into anything more than "my greed deserves to be satisfied more than theirs" but this isn't really a contest about honor or ethics, is it? This is about people wanting to fill their hard drives with entertainment.

Shades of gray (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913011)

They don't trade anything illegal, just say that someone maybe does it and provide some means for contacting him.

But there are cases and cases. The phone directory (or yellow pages) gives the phone (and the address) of people that could do something illegal. Could be blamed for it? What if someone publish a list of drug sellers phone numbers in your area? Or hitmen?

Also could be seen like if you provide means to commit a crime, you are responsible. If you have a newspaper, publish that someone won the lotto, and then someone else kill him, you will be responsible? What about weapon makers?

err, wrong? (1)

dotar (1400363) | more than 5 years ago | (#26913157)

Perhaps someone should point out that making his own books freely available over the internet drastically increased their sales [lunchoverip.com].

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...