Beta
×

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 Court Loss Won't Stop the Flow of Files

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the magic-eight-ball-seems-to-be-working dept.

The Courts 358

Adrian Lopez writes "According to PC World, 'Hollywood may have won a battle, but the war against piracy is far from over. Unauthorized file sharing will continue (and likely intensify), if not through The Pirate Bay, then through dozens of other near identical swashbuckling Web sites. ... What Hollywood needs to remember is sites like The Pirate Bay are like weeds. When you try to kill one, they grow back even stronger. In this case, The Pirate Bay already moved most of its servers to the Netherlands, a move that could keep the site running even if The Pirate Bay loses its appeal.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hooray! (5, Funny)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634563)


I can look forward to a future with no more big-budget movies or mainstream e-books. What a relief!

Re:Hooray! (5, Insightful)

linzeal (197905) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634573)

Lol, they used the same line of reasoning when TV came out. There were scare campaigns that there would never be any more media because TV would allow people to watch things for free.

Re:Hooray! (5, Funny)

MR LOLALOT (1286276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634591)

OMFG people will stop buying bottled water!!!!

Re:Hooray! (5, Interesting)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634615)

OMFG people will stop buying bottled water!!!!

you think bottled is good, I've got the stuff on tap...

seriously though, wasn't FM radio supposed to be the death of recording industry, and VHS the death of movies?

oh my god! humanity is progressing!

Re:Hooray! (5, Funny)

HertzaHaeon (1164143) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634659)

True, but parchment was the death of the stone tablet industry back in the day. They must still be hurting, I guess.

Re:Hooray! (5, Funny)

GrpA (691294) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634803)

True, but parchment was the death of the stone tablet industry back in the day. They must still be hurting, I guess.

No they just updated their business model...

And they're so popular that people are dying just to get one...

Unless you prefer cremation of course.

GrpA

Re:Hooray! (4, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634899)

Unless you prefer cremation of course.

Most urns around here get a stone on the grave as well.

Re:Hooray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27634805)

The stonecutters guild has marked you :)

Re:Hooray! (5, Insightful)

Lagurz (908275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634959)

...and the printing press would make a lot of monks unemployed as well. They wrote all the books by hand.

Maybe 'unemployed' is the wrong word here. It is more that the monks lost control of what the general public was able to read. Suddenly is was no longer possible for the monks to censor religious or political incorrect ideas.

The exact same thing is happening again, but with different players. When music started to be broad-casted on FM radio, the media industry lost control of their products. Same thing with VHS.

The Internet is probably the scariest thing that can happen to the media industry. Because Internet is built without any central point and any node can broadcast. (Compare with a radio or TV station; one central point for broad casting and many passive listeners.) This is a tremendous loss of control for the media industry. The industry can not say this in public and that is why they always bring back the same culture-will-die ghost from the closet.

It is not about culture, it is about control.

Re:Hooray! (2, Informative)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635043)

Maybe 'unemployed' is the wrong word here. It is more that the monks lost control of what the general public was able to read. Suddenly is was no longer possible for the monks to censor religious or political incorrect ideas.

This is a very wrong analogy. No media industry is censoring you from producing and selling your own music or movies. You are perfectly able to do that either in a traditional business model (selling individual copies using copyright law to protect yourself) or using one of the "new" business models that are much-touted on Slashdot (such as giving away for free and making money from touring or waiting for donations).

The Internet has opened up media distribution to a whole new set of people. This has some parallels to the printing press and is great. But piracy is not a required part of that and the monk analogy does not fit piracy.

Re:Hooray! (5, Insightful)

DangerFace (1315417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635129)

piracy is not a required part of that and the monk analogy does not fit piracy.

Of course, the other reason that the monk analogy does not fit that seems to be oft overlooked is that the monks did not make record profits as printing became increasingly common. My anecdotal evidence, and quite a few studies, show that:

A) Downloading music and movies and games for free actually makes people more likely to buy them, not less - my movie collection was tiny back when I just had to watch whatever was on TV or the cinema. A couple of months ago I had to buy a new set of shelves to keep my new DVDs on.

B) Probably most importantly in this argument my money is now freed up to spend on other stuff, and no, by that I do not mean pizza. I mean that since I can download a discography of the Red Hot Chilli Peppers for free while I actually only own four or five albums of theirs that the $50 or so (?) I just saved can be spent going to see / buy albums from less well known bands that need the money to pay rent and bills, rather than buy another Bugatti Veyron so when their friends come round they can race.

Re:Hooray! (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635195)

...progressing where?

Yay! I get free shit!

...

Re:Hooray! (1)

kaaposc (1515329) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634613)

Yeah, and there were times people called cars "Devil's Machines"...

Re:Hooray! (2, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635227)

Does anybody remember that photography was once said to take away your soul. Even mirrors were a thing of the devil, way back in the old old times.
And the little note at the bottom or this sign should tell you something about electric light [nextnature.net] to.

I can imagine there being the same "discussion" about wheels, and maybe even the first stone blades.
But I dunno if monkeys fear other monkeys more, who use a stick or stone instead of their fists, to break their bones. ^^

Re:Hooray! (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634675)

And don't forget piano rolls, radio, cassette tape, video tape, etc.

Every single one of them was a harbinger of doom according to the music industry. None of them ever were.

Re:Hooray! (4, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634939)

I especially remember "home taping is killing the music industry" warnings featuring such down-on-their-lucks as Sir Paul McCartney, one of Britains richest men, complaining that people who tape some tracks off their mates can destroy an entire industry. Perhaps, with hindsight, he was the wrong person to choose to front the campaign. This was around the time the Musician's Union was actively campaigning against synthesisers and keyboards in case it put people's jobs at risk. Some people don't think before they open their mouths.

You can't polish a turd. You can't expect people to pay £12+ for Robbie Williams or Madonna CDs when even their fans think they're shit now, especially when most of the albums are shit and people are buying them for the singles, which they can just tape off the radio/tv if they're that bothered about it.

Re:Hooray! (1, Offtopic)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634963)

The thing is though they don't watch it for free. It's full of ads. In fact they have more ads not than when compared to even a couple decades ago. Movies now have normal ads before the previews.

That may be fine for some people but quite frankly I rather pay a bit more and not have to sit through so many ads. My time is more valuable than money.

Re:Hooray! (2, Interesting)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635005)

Lol, they used the same line of reasoning when TV came out. There were scare campaigns that there would never be any more media because TV would allow people to watch things for free.

Citation please. I know that in the UK it was predicted that TV would harm the cinema industry. And as it turns out, it did. Vast numbers used to go to the cinemas for newsreels, weekly serials and others. I'm not aware that there was a general feeling from the industry that there would be "no more media." So as your comment appears intended to undermine mine, please could you support it with some industry quotes from the time period. Though its also worth noting if you do find such quotes, that just because some people sixty-odd years ago may have been wrong about something, an entirely different set of people talking about a different thing today would be also be wrong because of it.

Re:Hooray! (3, Insightful)

lilo_booter (649045) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634693)

Think the moderation of flamebait is unjustified here - it's a valid point of view and could even be read as funny (depending on whether or not you like the big budget movies or not).

Whether it's accurate is another matter altogether though... you have to consider that a small broadcasting/production house which caters to a niche market, but only has limited broadcast footprint could actually benefit from the torrents - it would be able to reach far further afield right from the outset, which could, in turn lead to more interest on an international scale.

For example, I wonder how many DVD orders for the new Red Dwarf episodes will be placed as a direct consequence of the torrent availability and subsequent 'try before you buy' which it enabled to a much wider audience? Difficult to determine in the case of an established brand perhaps, but I wonder how long it will be before we see new productions which will benefit directly from this model.

Re:Hooray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27634795)

The lack of DVD orders for the Red Dwarf finale will have more to do with it having been utter shit than from piracy.

Re:Hooray! (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634931)

Whether it's accurate is another matter altogether though... you have to consider that a small broadcasting/production house which caters to a niche market, but only has limited broadcast footprint could actually benefit from the torrents - it would be able to reach far further afield right from the outset, which could, in turn lead to more interest on an international scale.

It's possible. And general trends will only be general in either case, meaning there will be a lot of winners and losers on either side of the small-company big-corp divide, regardless. But I think it's more likely to be the other way around than what you propose. Non-profit media producers - whether written stories, amateur movies, etc. will likely benefit from file-sharing models. There are no or very limited costs to cover so any gains are pure profit and often profit isn't the motive anyway. But these groups are perfectly capable of using such models legally already - they just say "you're free to copy and redistribute." Move much above this level and I think piracy starts to hit very hard. The big corps can actually weather this damage better than the small ones I think. I know some people that eke out a very small business selling books in both hardcopy and PDF. It's certain that piracy costs them quite a lot of money. A big corp with a big name product can still make a lot of money even if a big chunk is taken away by piracy. Small players, or individual artists selling directly, are already on more of a knife-edge and losses can easily make it non-viable to them.

Don't forget that it's not a case of big vs. small players only. Often times, particularly in the music industry, big labels will front the expertise and money to artists that are less likely to be big names as well as the Britneys. *If* these become less profitable to the big labels, then there will be an increasing focus on just the more certain big earners. I don't know if this last part will turn out accurate or not, but my experience in small publishing bears out the first part of my post.

Re:Hooray! (2, Informative)

lilo_booter (649045) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635201)

And you could well be right too :-).

But a lot of things have changed over the years - when artists first started making money, they got it through commission through a patron - the rich patron would pay for the artist to produce and as a result, the general public got to share the works (OK, perhaps with a covering charge to see a play or attend a live performance - which would be the main motivation for some, but not all, of the original commissioning).

Regardless, the commissioned artist was given the ability to ply his trade, and use the uncommissioned time to create new original works, hone their skills or just switch off from that and focus on family or boozing or whatever they did best :-).

Over the years, these patrons of the arts have survived and become the publishers and associated organisations which we have today. With distribution mechanisms which have evolved from the earliest printing presses to dvd manufacturing plants, they have seen their profits escalate to dizzying proportions - only, now they're threatened by the same progress of technology which they've been riding for centuries and are calling foul (and not for the first time either... cassettes, vhs, mp3...).

In times before, they have risen to the occasion and increased their profit margins despite their initial reluctance... and here too, they have a perfect opportunity to profit by the current technology (I can think of quite a few ways to do it that would seem reasonable and fair - don't see why they can't...).

Re:Hooray! (1)

hachete (473378) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634937)

I was a big fan in the day so when I saw the upcoming new series, I obtained a copy of the first series. It hadn't aged well. Worse, the new program was ... just ... hideous, and utter shit as AC says.

Re:Hooray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27635183)

If I liked a series, I'd probably pay $5-$10 per disc (depending on quantity ordered) to have a set shipped to me on DVD to save me the trouble of burning it and gain high-res. I'd want one season per disc though, and preferably a good codec (read: h264 or something modern, not mpeg2)

That is purely convenience. I might pay a premium to support the series while I'm at it.

The new business model of direct contact between bands and fans has potential, but movies are still far too big of budget.

Re:Hooray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27634781)

Isn't that a good thing ?

Re:Hooray! (4, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635093)

What is wrong with that?

We don't owe Hugh Jackman and Tom Clancy a living. Television has an entertainment model that doesn't have to charge at the point of delivery. Musicians can perform and make a very handsome living if they are worth listening to. Shit artists and holywood can suck my free living balls.

Re:Hooray! (3, Insightful)

kklein (900361) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635221)

Musicians can perform and make a very handsome living if they are worth listening to.

I always hear this from people who aren't musicians, and who don't know any.

Musicians make nothing. Even the ones you've heard of; even ones you may like and listen to a lot. They are lucky if they make it out of their contract with any profit at all. These are people who have produced a lot and whose stuff has been purchased by many. The fact of the matter is that it is very expensive to get your stuff to the ears of interested listeners, and a million musicians making blogs doesn't make that happen. In fact, it makes it harder.

I'll point to a band I know a little about: DeVotchKa. They are now making decent money. They have been around in Denver for a very, very long time, and they were far from making a "handsome living," despite a lot of local popularity. They toured with Dita Von Teese (burlesque) a lot. Then someone scored his quirky little movie with their work, that quirky little movie did very well (Little Miss Sunshine), and now they are finally living a comfortable life. But it could be over any minute.

Performers cannot make a "handsome living" by performing, okay? Until you are huge, you get screwed by every pissant little venue. Seriously. Hang around with some musicians sometime. Places stiff them all the time, and they can't afford lawyers. No, the way you make a "handsome living" is with a paycheck. You know, the kind of monthly income that happens when you, I dunno, get royalty checks? From people buying your stuff?

I am so sick of this nonsense:

We don't owe Hugh Jackman and Tom Clancy a living.

--You do if you are consuming their products, and no crazy, twisted logic is going to change that. When you pirate media, you are stealing. End of story.

Full disclosure: I live in Japan and steal some US TV. I don't, however, when I can get the stuff legitimately. But I don't pretend like it's my right to see this stuff and suggest that these people don't deserve to make a living because they could be traveling minstrels and gypsies, which is exactly what you are advocating.

Re:Hooray! (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635249)

Shit artists and holywood can suck my free living balls.

If you think something is shit, then you wouldn't download it. Right? So you don't pirate and this discussion isn't of concern to you. Or if you do download something, then we can assume that you don't think it's shit.

It's doubtful anyone thought this was the end (1, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634611)

The death of Napster wasn't the end of filesharing 10 years ago. The elimination of TPB won't be the end of filesharing today.

What it does change, I hope, is the smugness of people like TPB folks who act like spoiled children when confronted by legal action.

Filesharing is an important outgrowth of the Internet, not just for the illegal download aspect, but also for the perfectly legal transfer of software like Linux distros. Assholes who make a big spectacle of how they are skirting the law just make it harder for legal filesharers to do our work.

Good riddance to TPB, and long live filesharing!

I Bet H'wood Would Like to Stop All Sharing (5, Interesting)

Velska1 (1435341) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634637)

This is typical of a situation, where a dinosaur on top of the food chain tries to defend its position.

I am pretty sure that MPAA/RIAA/Big Publishers would like to put the whole filesharing technology back to the bottle until they find a way to monetize it. Then, of course, it would be accepted.

And I can't get over the Swedish court's argument that making the service available is criminal, because it can be used illegally.

Re:I Bet H'wood Would Like to Stop All Sharing (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634685)

I'm sure this will be the focus of the appeal.

This trial was a jury trial and juries aren't very good at technical details, mostly it's the lawyer with the best hair/suit that wins and you can be sure the RIAA spent a fortune on theirs.

Re:I Bet H'wood Would Like to Stop All Sharing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27634695)

I am pretty sure that MPAA/RIAA/Big Publishers would like to put the whole filesharing technology back to the bottle until they find a way to monetize it. Then, of course, it would be accepted.

I'm quite sure the MAFIAA would be perfectly happy to (if they had the power) completely cut off the internet for everyone on the planet.

They are perfectly happy resting on their laurels and have little incentive to change their practices. They've been able to buy any laws they need and crush anyone in court trying to challenge them.

Why even investigate monetizing filesharing when you can just outlaw it and not have to worry about it?

Re:I Bet H'wood Would Like to Stop All Sharing (1)

therufus (677843) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634741)

I'm going to sue the governing body responsible for roads. Because most people speed in my city when driving, this will eliminate their ability to do it. Therefore without roads, driving will be safer.

Making available argument is ridiculous. Just because you give someone the tools to do something illegal, doesn't mean YOU have done something illegal.

Re:I Bet H'wood Would Like to Stop All Sharing (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634839)

you'll fail if i can show your providing the roads for the purpose of speeding though, which was what TPB morons were doing. just making something available isn't what sinks them, it's the fact your are making it available with no other reason than to break the law.

yes i know there is lots of shit where the sole purpose of them is to break the law - bongs, home brew etc. but in this case someone is taking them to task about it so either put up a better defense or lobby to have the laws changed.

Re:I Bet H'wood Would Like to Stop All Sharing (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635105)

it's the fact your are making it available with no other reason than to break the law.

I'm going to add to that. From the court verdict I read, one of the major factors in deciding sentence wasn't just their intent to break the law, but their making substantial profits from doing so. Apparently TPB got quite a lot of ad revenue from their site (to the tune of around SU$60,0000 per month).

Re:I Bet H'wood Would Like to Stop All Sharing (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634921)

I'm going to sue the governing body responsible for roads. Because most people speed in my city when driving, this will eliminate their ability to do it. Therefore without roads, driving will be safer.

There are a whole set of offences specific to driving. No doubt lots of other criminals also make use of roads in some way or other...

Re:I Bet H'wood Would Like to Stop All Sharing (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634945)

I'm going to sue the governing body responsible for roads. Because most people speed in my city when driving, this will eliminate their ability to do it. Therefore without roads, driving will be safer.

Why don't you sue the people who own your local football stadium while you are at it? They actually have the audacity to charge you money for access to the stadium before you can go there and watch football games. That has to be a blatant violation of your basic human right to freedom of movement!

Re:I Bet H'wood Would Like to Stop All Sharing (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635243)

Here in the US anyway, the people who typically own the local football stadiums are... the people. Hundreds of millions of dollars of tax money are typically used to build the stadiums under the "threat" of the multimillonaire owners moving their franchise to another city.

So yeah, a person thinking it's a raw deal that they have to spend $150 to see a game in their local stadium has some justification.

Re:I Bet H'wood Would Like to Stop All Sharing (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634881)

They already could have monetised it, but they prefer to do things the old way. There is more money to be made from lawsuits than honest sales.

Re:I Bet H'wood Would Like to Stop All Sharing (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635141)

There is more money to be made from lawsuits than honest sales.

That's a failure of logic. You can only recover money from the people you were suing if they have made more money from 'selling' the product (e.g. actual sales, advertising, whatever). Which means that there was more money made sales than from lawsuits. If there is more money recovered from lawsuits than is made, then you have created money from thin air.

Re:I Bet H'wood Would Like to Stop All Sharing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27635203)

you have created money from thin air.

In which case you're a bank!

Re:I Bet H'wood Would Like to Stop All Sharing (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635263)

No the RIAA sues people who have made nothing from piracy. Stupid figures like $700 per song, thats allot more than you can sell them for on itunes.

Re:I Bet H'wood Would Like to Stop All Sharing (1)

mspohr (589790) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634955)

This is typical of a situation, where a dinosaur on top of the food chain tries to defend its position.

I am pretty sure that MPAA/RIAA/Big Publishers would like to put the whole filesharing technology back to the bottle until they find a way to monetize it.

I think the big problem here is that they have missed the opportunity to monetize it. If they had set up a system to offer cheap non-drm copies from the start instead of trying to hold back the rising tide, they would be in good shape now. However, now people are used to having free non-drm copies and it will be hard to compete with that.

Re:I Bet H'wood Would Like to Stop All Sharing (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635037)

And I can't get over the Swedish court's argument that making the service available is criminal, because it can be used illegally.

I think it's more about the fact that it is very widely used illegally. Very few users wanted to download Linux distributions or public domain music.

Figureheads (4, Insightful)

Sorthum (123064) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634629)

All the Pirate Bay is really, is a symbol; I'm not convinced this spectrial was ever about combating P2P, but more about a clash of ideologies.

Re:Figureheads (4, Insightful)

who knows my name (1247824) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634711)

I'd agree. In the trial itself the prosecutors asked the defendants their views on copyright. Their response? "I thought this wasn't a political trial?".

I think it is a shame they didn't openly state their opinions about it whilst still arguing they are within the law, either way it was a political trial and maybe they should have met it more head-on.

Twofo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27634641)

Evolution (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27634669)

Development of filesharing solutions is a bit like evolution.

Like new, more advanced life sprung up as a result of each disaster, new, more advanced file sharing solutions pop up each time after the media industry manages to kill one.

As Bittorrent is not a service, but a protocol, it will obviously never die. Darker and decentralized versions of it is evolving already, made strictly for "private" use.

What the industry fails to realize, is that the newer solutions is also *better* for the user than its previous counterparts. Remember Napster? It was only good for people who listened to mainstream chart toppers with crappy sound quality. It was not an option for people really interested in music.

Re:Evolution (4, Informative)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635017)

Remember Napster? It was only good for people who listened to mainstream chart toppers with crappy sound quality. It was not an option for people really interested in music.

Maybe that's the case with legal Napster but the original "pirate's edition" had MP3s of all levels of quality and everyone was using it so of course you could find rare stuff.

Re:Evolution (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635193)

Funny thing: Scour Exchange was even bigger. I had them both, and dropped Napster, because SE had the double amount of active users. 40 million at the same time, from what I remember. And remember that this was a single-server-solution. So you can imagine that you could find pretty much everything and it's dog there. I remember that when Madonna's "Music" came out, I searched, and found 12 different remixes. All of those available in more than 2-3 different qualities.
Of course this was a "crappy mainstream chart topper". But I can't remember not finding anything. (And I never ever accept not finding something. There are things that I literally searched for years, and found. Like while label recordings that were never sold but only given to 7 DJs in the whole world!)

Well, duh... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634671)

But of course it won't stop. On one hand, there's a significant demand for services that let you get for free (not counting the cost of bandwidth) what otherwise costs a lot, so it's a viable business model for the broker. On another hand, there are still plenty of jurisdictions in which it will be much harder to take such a website down, either because the legal system is not on par with that, or because corruption level is high enough that there is no need to bother with the laws at all.

Even after this ruling, file sharing in general still remains a low-risk, high-profit activity. Such things don't die off. It's the economics, silly.

Re:Well, duh... (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634891)

On another hand, there are still plenty of jurisdictions in which it will be much harder to take such a website down, either because the legal system is not on par with that, or because corruption level is high enough that there is no need to bother with the laws at all.

Or even because the corruption level is not high enough for external agencies to have laws ignored...

Can anybody see ... (5, Funny)

mystuff (1088543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634691)

The irony of moving your weeds to the Netherlands ...

Re:Can anybody see ... (2)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634697)

Yes. It sure is ironic that they would move "weeds" somewhere that weed is legal.

It's like rain on your wedding day. Or a free ride when you're already late.

Re:Can anybody see ... (1)

Cyphax (262239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634789)

Other than ironic, it's a particularly dumb move imo: Brein - the organisation that hunts down anything P2P as much as they can - have managed to take down sites similar to TPB before. Quite a few times before, in fact. It is only a matter of time before they find out, and they'll manage to take it down, unfortunately.

I don't see why they would move it to the Netherlands because of the above, instead, they should move it to a country where these organisations such as Brain aren't prevalent or otherwise succesful. As much as I hate to admit, Brein has proved to be a real menace.

Re:Can anybody see ... (4, Insightful)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634895)

That may be so, but I'd be surprised if they have managed to sell even one additional CD or one additional movie as a result of their actions.

That is how you measure their performance. Not how much menace they have caused to customers and potential customers.

A move would be pointless (1)

s-whs (959229) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634705)

> The Pirate Bay already moved most of its servers
> to the Netherlands, a move that could keep the
> site running even if The Pirate Bay loses its
> appeal.

Is this move true? If so it would be pointless as similar legal battles in NL made it clear that such torrent sites are essentially (considered to be, by judges etc.) illegal. Mininova for example was in NL for a while, but left because of this.

Re:A move would be pointless (2, Interesting)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634875)

It's a shame they didn't manage to buy Sealand.

Re:A move would be pointless (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634901)

Where did they move? They even have a small office in Netherlands.

http://www.mininova.org/images/office.jpg [mininova.org]

Servers may be up, but users might go down (3, Insightful)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634719)

A lot of 'casual' (non tech.) users are likely to be put off by the increasing application of EU directives against sharing/copyright theft. (The ones that the boys from PB were hammered under).

As EU Govs. progressively try and vote these into law, (a recent attempt in France was defeated at the last minute), users are going to find it harder to use file-sharnig services without getting cut off by their ISP, or worse.

I predict a growing interest in TOR and IRC...

Re:Servers may be up, but users might go down (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634889)

and Freenet

Re:Servers may be up, but users might go down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27634961)

Try i2p, it's better equipped to handle p2p traffic than tor.

Re:Servers may be up, but users might go down (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635265)

What about the street? Here in Austria there are plenty of bootleg DVD for sale of various quality. Don't know about CD's though.

Fuck 'em (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27634727)

This is used in an excuse to reserve full participation in culture for a narrow class of professional creators, and to attempt to destroy the potential of the Internet to make human life better, more creative, more democratic, and more free.

It will fail.

Re:Fuck 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27634967)

Or all they are trying to do is line their own pockets. Which I don't mind so much, but could they do it in a less fucktarded way than trying to sue filesharers and anyone who goes near them with a 10 foot pole. One example I'm talking about is Spotify.

Do what you want cause a pirate is free (4, Interesting)

TOGSolid (1412915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634761)

You are a pirate!

They can trash on The Pirate Bay all they want, but public sites like that are mostly just for piracy tourists anyway thanks to their notoriously unreliable speeds that make the 'pr0' pirates steer clear of 'em except as a last ditch option. Sure you can try and stem the tide by taking down one of the big, well known ones, but that's really not going to help matters much. Another public site will spring up, having learned from the lessons of the prior one, and will be even harder to take down. The tourists will latch onto it and the whole mess will ramp up even more.
Besides, the guys doing the really heavy duty stuff (i.e. dedicated download boxes with a ritual morning tracker browse through with 24/7 downloading) are all rocking private trackers and encrypted file transfers anyway. Good luck to trying to crack apart the chunk of the piracy community that actually does know what they're doing and aren't 13 year old girls, grandmothers, or drunk, stupid, college kids.

"I am pretty sure that MPAA/RIAA/Big Publishers would like to put the whole filesharing technology back to the bottle until they find a way to monetize it. Then, of course, it would be accepted."
They had their chance a loooooong time ago. They thoroughly screwed that pooch and will have to stop basing their businesses on suing the crap out of people, which they really don't want to do (mostly because I think they enjoy it).

Re:Do what you want cause a pirate is free (1)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634897)

Daft as it sounds, it's not the pr0 pirates that are the problem. pr0 pirates, in their numbers, are very few and far between and it's actually the sheer number of tourists that are the problem. They are the ones who have absolutely no intention of buying anything ever. They are the ones that've resulted in the current situation of 10,000 sales of a song getting you a number 1 in the weekly charts compared to the 100,000's you needed 10 years ago when MP3 existed but p2p was in its infancy. It is the tourists who have elevated the level of theft to the point of unsustainability.

Re:Do what you want cause a pirate is free (1)

TOGSolid (1412915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635175)

The tourists however are an incredibly mixed bag of people. I'd imagine that most of them are the sort who really only download one thing, once in a while but still buy a good deal of media. However, due to the way the industry loves to spin the whole thing, obviously every 'pirate' is a lost customer rather than just someone getting a really fancy demo.
I'm kinda waiting for Demigod sales reports post Stardock fixing up their servers and the game going live nationally before I decree that yes, 95% of pirates are dicks.

Re:Do what you want cause a pirate is free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27635019)

Avast, ye Landlubbers. Yarr!!, death by pirate slang! http://www.amazon.com/reader/0451216490?_encoding=UTF8&ref_=sib_dp_pt#reader-link [amazon.com]

"By applying the principles in this book, I've enjoyed a 78% increase in my income from plunder."

Re:Do what you want cause a pirate is free (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635173)


I've been arguing throughout this thread (mainly because I dislike bad logic and hypocrisy) against support for TPB, but I find it hard to dispute someone who quotes Lazy Town. ;) :D

It's good that there are people still out there running encrypted torrents with private trackers, because we (all of us) need the Internet to preserve some of its freedom and for governments not to be able to establish total control over communications. One day (today?) we'll need this technology for more important things than downloading movies. But if big name and more public setups like TPB get lopped down periodically causing mainstream public to not pirate *everything* but buy enough that such works actually still get created, then I'm happy about that too. I don't like seeing people go to jail - it's a barbaric treatment, but the verdict was probably correct.

prohibition does not work (3, Insightful)

jabjoe (1042100) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634775)

Technically it's not possible to stop p2p, and the harder you try, the tougher it becomes. My fear is as that happens, it all gets pushed further and further underground. There are millions and millions of teens and youngsters involved. As it all moves to anonymous p2p and darknets, what these kids are exposed to along side the music/games/films is going to get more and more worrying. There is already a lot of porn along side torrents. Maybe this is what the copyright enforcers want to use to strengthen their moral argument, call it gateway data or something.

There is also the issue of the morality of it all. Should something that such a large section of the population do be illegal? Who is the law serving then?

Is this a road we really want to continue down? Seams pretty dark....

I say bring it all out in the open so it can be regulated and taxed. Money can still be made, if the service is good enough and the price is reasonable enough, people will pay, allofmp3.com demonstrated this, as do many private torrent sites. On top of this, people will always want real world stuff to go with their data (think how much money the Star Wars toys made). On top of that, advertising worked well for existing TV. Good money can be made if free downloading is brought out in the open.

Re:prohibition does not work (4, Insightful)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634893)

Money can still be made, if the service is good enough and the price is reasonable enough, people will pay, allofmp3.com demonstrated this, as do many private torrent sites.

It's rather easy to keep costs low if you're not bearing any of the costs of production.

Re:prohibition does not work (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634997)

If 300 times the people are willing to download an album that now costs $15 for $.05, then they break even. Less than that because of markup, probably only costs them about $6 per album, so that's only 120 times the people to break even. All of this is on top of the sales they would (yes, still) have from selling physical albums.

Re:prohibition does not work (1)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634927)

I say bring it all out in the open so it can be regulated and taxed. Money can still be made, if the service is good enough and the price is reasonable enough, people will pay, allofmp3.com demonstrated this, as do many private torrent sites. On top of this, people will always want real world stuff to go with their data (think how much money the Star Wars toys made). On top of that, advertising worked well for existing TV. Good money can be made if free downloading is brought out in the open.

I call bullshit on this one. Why? Amazon, iTunes, 7Digital offer DRM free tracks for a pittance - I bought a 60 track album for £7 last week, a per track cost of 12 pence. Spotify offers all you can eat for the price of listening to the odd commercial. Napster and others offer all you can eat for the price of a couple of beers a month. Yet despite these, we've not seen any dip in piracy.

The service IS good enough and people aren't paying because they know they can feed in the never emptying trough of piracy at no cost.

Re:prohibition does not work (5, Insightful)

Stevecrox (962208) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635245)

I've always thought public consensus of a law was integral to that law. If people don't believe a law is just, they'll ignore it. If you criminalise enough people over things they don't consider wrong you erode respect for all laws.

In the UK it's illegal to rip CD's to your MP3 player and yet I'm betting 99% of the MP3 players in the UK have ripped music on them. By criminalising CD ripping you cause people to lose respect for the law, in this case when your average citizen finds out they instantly see it as the fault of the stupid record companies. Which in turn makes it easier to "steal" from those same "greedy" companies.

In comparison most people hate speed camera's but they agree with the idea of having a speed limit and sticking roughly to it. Heck even when I got caught speeding recently my outrage wasn't about getting the speeding ticket but because Dorset/Somerset's police attitudes towards bikers (which borders on harassment) annoyed me. As for doing 40MPH in a 30, well I should have stuck to the limit.

I believe you can have unpopular laws like speed limits but people understand the need for them and so they work. On the other hand people don't understand copyright and its application these days.

The media companies have been so hell bent on treating all customers like criminals and subtracting value, that people see them as an evil faceless corporation (see Slashdots view on Microsoft) and that makes it ok to take from them. This particular ruling has probably done more harm to the Media companies cause then anything they've done. Just go to the BBC's Have your Say section (or any newspapers) and 99% of the comments are against the media companies and how laws can be bought. The sheer amount of effort required to force these companies to provide the customer what they want has annoyed a lot of people.

I believe in copyright, I'm a software engineer I've worked on a variety of TDL and UXV applications and know how expensive and difficult it is make good software. But software/media analogies aren't perfect, if my company didn't keep improving their software and adding new capability to it another competitor would get the future sales. With music/movies you could make one great movie and people will still buy it even if new movies come out. Which is the big difference between software and media.

I honestly hope that in time politicians release than reducing the copyright length to something closer to twenty years (I'd prefer ten) and decriminalising non-commercial copyright, will be in the best interest for everyone. Since it would help maintain respect for law and encourage more media.

As for the internet age stopping the big blockbusters and the current pop stars, I can only hope. Hollywood has fallen into the same black hole as games, where more special effects are the equivalent of adding more polygons. At a certain point it adds nothing new and the fixation often means more important things are forgotten.

Re:prohibition does not work (1)

smallfries (601545) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635247)

Whether or not it is possible to stop p2p depends entirely on how far you are willing to go, and much you would destroy the internet to make it happen. Media interests would be very happy with a walled garden approach - white-listing of acceptable services, monitoring of suspicious bandwidth / traffic patterns etc. With a compliant legislative body this is not impossible. A complete disaster for mankind, yes, but sadly, impossible - no.

free-floating data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27634799)

Sorry if I'm dense, but, why the need for a centralized repository of the torrent data? These data could be floating on the net themselves, replicating in a huge number of copies, with a versionig system for updating. Or not?

Re:free-floating data (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635197)

Sorry if I'm dense, but, why the need for a centralized repository of the torrent data? These data could be floating on the net themselves, replicating in a huge number of copies, with a versionig system for updating. Or not?

It is possible to create "tracker-less" torrents without a central tracker server. These are newer and TPB wasn't using such a system. It's not as effective but it does work. But you're also asking why there needs to be a central repository of torrent data. There are ways around this. There are things like Freenet which let files (such as the torrent files you need) to be decentralised, and you could have a system whereby updated collections of torrent files are passed around from peer to peer. I don't know if anything exactly like the latter exists. It wouldn't work as well - you'd still need some way of finding and joining the network in the first place. I expect to see something like this start to appear if it doesn't already, but there are problems with it compared to having a tracker. And there are plenty of private trackers out there for the time being, so there doesn't seem to be a driving need at the mo. Be interested to hear from anyone with newer insights, though.

Not safe in Netherlands (5, Informative)

WarwickRyan (780794) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634841)

Not sure that it was such a good idea moving the servers to Netherlands.

The local RIAA (BREIN), have been pretty successful in having the law 'bent' to their will and having various torrent sites closed down.

Even now they've announced that the want to block the Pirate Bay in Netherlands [link is in dutch]:

http://tweakers.net/nieuws/59677/brein-wil-na-vonnis-the-pirate-bay-in-nederland-laten-blokkeren.html [tweakers.net]

Rough translation: "Brein will use the guilty judgement against the Pirate Bay operators as a chance to try and convince the government to block Pirate Bay in Netherlands".

The current parliment act as if they're in the pockets of Brein, so I'm not sure why TPB thought it safe to put the servers here.

What we really need is some sort of decentralised torrent client.

Re:Not safe in Netherlands (2, Informative)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634903)

Also, they're both in the European Union, so the same directive that got TPB in Sweden can be re-used in the Netherlands.

Re:Not safe in Netherlands (3, Informative)

Okind (556066) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635087)

"Also, they're both in the European Union, so the same directive that got TPB in Sweden can be re-used in the Netherlands."

Maybe not: in the Netherlands, there is an organization called "Stichting Thuiskopie" (foundation for home copying). They collect money from a wide range of data carriers, from the old cassette tapes to blank CD and DVD discs. This money is then distributed to the authorship right holders.

As a result, copying by private individuals is fully legal in the Netherlands (despite attempts by BREIN to have it otherwise). The only tricky part is this:

Can TPB successfully argue that not they, but their users make the copies?
If not, they'll be blocked and/or convicted here as well.
If so, they may still be required to block IP addresses not from the Netherlands (and we all know how effective that is).

Re:Not safe in Netherlands (1)

Teron (817947) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635147)

Most likely the answer is NO, since the exact same system exists in Sweden already, though I'm not sure the law in the Netherlands is exactly the same. In Sweden, it's allowed within a closed, small circle of friends. Random people on the Internet are apparently not included.

Re:Not safe in Netherlands (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27635011)

they could move here to Brazil.

sure the industry can buy our politicians, but since our politicians dont go to work and they l-o-v-e illegal stuff, that would just be perfect xD

Re:Not safe in Netherlands (1)

spanky the monk (1499161) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635131)

We just need a torrent search on a tor hidden server. Does anyone know of one? Or a freenet site which indexes torrents. Combine this with lots of smaller trackers and bittorent is basically impossible to shut down without banning encryption.

Re:Not safe in Netherlands (2, Interesting)

RichardDeVries (961583) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635189)

The Pirate Bay moved their servers to the Netherlands after the raid in 2006. They weren't welcome.

By 9 June, the website was once again fully functional. On 14 June 2006, the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet reported that The Pirate Bay was back in Sweden due to "pressure from the Department of Justice [in the Netherlands]."

The_Pirate_Bay_raid#Aftermath [wikipedia.org]

Not safe at work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27635241)

"What we really need is some sort of decentralised torrent client."

What WE really need is free, unencumbered content [youtube.com]

Reason this article was posted (-1, Flamebait)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634907)

This article was posted to cheer up the pirates.

"Hey, don't sweat it! Your free ride isn't ending! We can continue to FUCK over the artists! Those big meanies who shut down the most well-known torrent tracker server for copyright materials aren't going to enjoy this victory for long!

Long live the leeches! FUCK artists, and FUCK their rights!"

Re:Reason this article was posted (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635089)

www.thepiratebay.org

It hasn't been shut down. The prosecution were all about how this sent a 'message' - and indeed it did. It sent a message that Swedish legal judgements are apparently toothless against a torrent tracker.

Oh, and the whole media circus made damn sure anybody who didn't know about pirate bay before, does now. Congratulations, asshats.

Re:Reason this article was posted (1)

spanky the monk (1499161) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635151)

Piracy is nothing more than thoughtful humans who question the premise of copyright law and want to end the corporate stranglehold over culture.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Reason this article was posted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27635171)

I agree with that, except the Long live the leechers. Pirates aren't evil, we live by a code, and that includes seeding the file.
Long live THE PIRATE BAY!

Legal defeat, political victory? (5, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634923)

I read the Pirate party has received three thousand new members since the verdict was announced. That's a /lot/ of Spartacus.

Re:Legal defeat, political victory? (4, Informative)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635061)

Actually, the number is over 9000, literally.

5022 on 4/17/09
4067 on 4/18/09

and counting! [google.com]

TPB & Cloud Computing? (1)

GordonCopestake (941689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634951)

Is Cloud Computing a method for TPB to move servers at will between datacentres? What would it take to package up a VM and move it to a different country with different laws? All this for just $0.10 / hour!

P2P replacement "Oneswarm" uses BitTorrent files! (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 5 years ago | (#27634995)

The P2P replacement "Oneswarm" is F2F, "friend-2-friend" and uses BitTorrent files. Read more at: http://oneswarm.cs.washington.edu/ [washington.edu]

Now, you can legally share your own, home-made Word-documents again!

Legal Process (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635023)

Are the media so naive that they don't understand how the appeal process happens?

Re:Legal Process (1)

oneirophrenos (1500619) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635251)

Are the media so naive that they don't understand how the appeal process happens?

Exactly. The media seems to have already convicted them, even before the appeal process has been completed. If the TPB gang manages to get exonerated, it'll just be mentioned in small print somewhere and the public will be left with a conception that the industry won - don't fuck with them.

Long live The Pirate Bay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27635101)

Haha!
Long live The Pirate Bay!
Long live file sharing!
Long live Bittorrent!

Test Disqus (1)

RobertLinthicum (1535975) | more than 5 years ago | (#27635213)

Test Disqus

There's only so many places in the world... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27635223)

Yes, in theory you could move your servers any where & other services would take up the slack.

However, if they are successful in continually blocking these services in countries with fast internet, then they'll be relegated to countries that have little bandwidth & potentially long pings if there's a satellite link along the way).

The strength of pirate bay is that it has a huge user base so that there's a lot of torrents on the site & there's a good chance that there's seeders for those torrents you need.

Aggregators would be more resistant to these things because they could simply provide torrents with the list of servers aggregated.

However, that still creates a potential problem if as a response people switch to private trackers which are un-indexable by aggregators.

However, that obviously doesn't account for new protocols.

Oneswarm is pretty cool but still has a problems. Per-GB caps pose a problem. Privacy is trust based meaning that untrusted friends break the anonymity so this isn't applicable to the internet at large and all the content you want must already be available within your circle of friends. Of course if you set up a dumb public server that anyone can friend with oneswarm, you could still get privacy.

And in general, routing through third parties worsens the protocol efficiency & puts unnecessary data on the network making you a bad citizen of the Internet.

A better approach would be to use UDP packets where the source IP address is spoofed or erased. Thus, the receiver doesn't know who the data came from (the target for the request is free to pick a random machine to delegate to even if they can satisfy the request).

Even this has some problems in that getting through firewalls won't be easy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?