×

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!

The Pirate Bay Seeks Interesting Route To "Pay" Fine

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the crowd-sourced dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 545

Drivintin is one of many who have written to tell us about how The Pirate Bay has taken an interesting approach to the 30 million SEK fine levied in their recent court case (which they said they wont pay). "The bill inspired anakata to devise a plan involving sending money to Danowsky's law firm, but not to pay the fine of course which they say will never be paid. Anakata's clever plan is called internet-avgift, internet-fee in English. Anakata encourages all Internet users to pay extremely small sums around 1 SEK (0.13 USD) to Danowsky's law firm, which represented the music companies at the Pirate Bay trial. The music companies will not benefit from this, instead it will cost them money to handle and process all the money."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

545 comments

Awesome (4, Informative)

NerdyLove (1133693) | more than 4 years ago | (#27911905)

So for winning the court case, they still have to pay. I approve.

Re:Awesome (5, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912111)

The summary is incomplete here. They also asked users to request their payment to be reversed as 'false payment', and thats where the extra fees come from, as the swedish law firm is obligated to process them and send back to the payer.

text (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912497)

Pirate Bay Founder Devises DDo$ Attack [rorr.im]

Pirate Bay founder Gottfrid Svartholm (aka anakata) recieved a bill for the 30 million SEK that he, along with Peter Sunde (aka brokep), Fredrik Neij (aka TiAMO), and Carl Lundstrom, was fined in the verdict of the Pirate Bay trial just over three weeks ago. The bill inspired anakata to devise a plan involving sending money to Danowskyâ(TM)s law firm, but not to pay the fine of course which they say will never be payed. Anakataâ(TM)s clever plan is called internet-avgift, internet-fee in English. Anakata encourages all Internet users to pay extremely small sums around 1 SEK (0.13 USD) to Danowskyâ(TM)s law firm, which represented the music companies at the Pirate Bay trial. The music companies will not benefit from this, instead it will cost them money to handle and process all the money.

The plan can be called a Distributed Denial of Dollars attack (DDo$). The plan is an away-from-keyboard DDoS attack. DDoS attacks involve lots of users overloading the victim with internet traffic damaging their ability to provide services. Money, instead of Internet traffic is used in this case. The victim is Danowskyâ(TM)s law firm which represented the IFPI at the Pirate Bay trial.

A friend of anakata told Blog Pirate that the bank account to which the payments are directed has only 1000 free transfers, after which any transfers have a surcharge of 2 SEK for the account holder. Any internet-fee payments made after the first 1000, which includes the law firmâ(TM)s ordinary transfers, will instead of giving 1 SEK, cost 1 SEK to the law firm. Since Danowsky & Partners AdvokatbyrÃ¥ is a small firm, all the transactions are handled by hand. Handling all payments will be time consuming, costing the law firm in productivity. Maybe it will even affect their success in other cases.

Make direct payments to
Danowsky & Partners Advokatbyrå KB. Plusgiro 79 31 21-5.

Additionally if after paying the internet-fee you determine that your payment was erroneous, Swedish law states that you can request the money back, putting an additional load on Danowskyâ(TM)s law firm.

Since the Pirate Bay crew was provided with such clear, logical, and well explained methods for calculating the damages in the trial, an explanation on how the internet-fee was calculated is provided. Use the formula below, substituting anything anywhere, to check that the internet-fee really is 1 SEK.formel

[MATH DIAGRAM GOES HERE]

The name internet-avgift, as well as the layout of the site is based on tv-avgift and they layout of its site. Radiojanst, a state owned company, is responsible for collecting TV license fees in Sweden.

Re:Awesome (5, Insightful)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912531)

Sounds like fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. My guess is the TPB guys are asking for more fines and jail time.

I'd also be interested how it is that someone sending me some kind of wire transfer would obligate me paying the costs of that transfer. I could understand if I was running some kind of online service where you gave me your credit card info and my software then turned around submitted that information for billing. I can't imagine a law firm providing that kind of billing service.

Re:Awesome (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912611)

Really? What's the fraud, technically they might be able to say something about costing man-hours, but really the same 1 sek is going both ways. In fact if the money given out wasn't returned at the "accidental charge" request, they would very likely be legally obligated to return the money. Of course the catch is that I imagine there are ways for this to be done to TPB as well.

Re:Awesome (5, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912671)

It's not a wire transfer. It's internet banking, and in North America, the majority of banks charge businesses for transactions above whatever number they've paid to be able to accept, akin to going over your minutes on a cell phone. apparently, Sweden has a similar banking system. But I do agree, it sounds like fraud on the part of the people who give the payments and ask for them back. However, based on TPB trial, TPB people would be the one held accountable for the actions of others.

Idiots (4, Interesting)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | more than 4 years ago | (#27911909)

Does Sweden have contempt of court?

Re:Idiots (5, Funny)

meerling (1487879) | more than 4 years ago | (#27911941)

I'd say a lot of people are rather contemptuous of the court that 'convicted' the T.P.B. people.

Re:Idiots (-1, Offtopic)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912043)

Bad justice or not, I'm contemptuous of people who think taking work product from anyone without compensation is a valid and moral way of correcting a bad business model.

A complete boycott of sales combined with no illegal copying would have a much greater significance.

Re:Idiots (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912123)

Bad justice or not, I'm contemptuous of people who think taking work product from anyone without compensation is a valid and moral way of correcting a bad business model.

A complete boycott of sales combined with no illegal copying would have a much greater significance.

Well then it's a good thing TPB guys didn't download anything. Maybe you should go after the actual copyright infringers? What's that? This may not be right but is easier? That's fine, just make sure your bribe is big enough to get your personal law enacted since that would be "good" business in your world as that's what's being done here.

Re:Idiots (4, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912129)

I'm contemptuous of people who think taking work product from anyone without compensation is a valid and moral way of correcting a bad business model.

I'm contemptuous of people who think penalties imposed by flawed, politically tainted trials are a valid and moral way of defending a bad business model.

Re:Idiots (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912229)

I'm contemptuous at everyone and everything. except a tuna sandwich.

Re:Idiots (2, Funny)

Kemanorel (127835) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912657)

I'm contemptuous of tuna sandwiches. I'd prefer a nice MLT - mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe...

Mmmmm...

They're so perky, I love that.

Re:Idiots (0)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912425)

What about the trial was flawed and what was politically tainted?

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912499)

Uh, a judge that sits on the Intellectual Properties board in Sweden isn't flawed and/or politically tainted in the scope of 'judging' a case involving copyright infringement?

Man, I woke up in the twilight zone today. Where the hell have you been during these last two months, hijacked?

As seen on right here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912519)

To quote an earlier slashdot article...

"The judge is member of two copyright lobby organizations, something he shares with several of the prosecutor attorneys (Monique Wadsted, Henrik Pontén and Peter Danowsky)."

Re:As seen on right here... (5, Informative)

Burkin (1534829) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912669)

He wasn't just a member he was on the board of directors of one of the copyright lobby groups.

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912535)

What about the trial was flawed and what was politically tainted?

The court applied law that the parent poster believes is unfair. Thus, only a court that ignored the law would be fair, in the mind of the parent poster.

Re:Idiots (0, Flamebait)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912685)

What about the trial was flawed and what was politically tainted?
The court applied law that the parent poster believes is unfair. Thus, only a court that ignored the law would be fair, in the mind of the parent poster.

Hijacked, don't reply to your critics with AC. It shows you up as the stooge you are!

Re:Idiots (4, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912645)

Perhaps you didn't read that the judge is drinking buddies with the prosecution? The judge belongs to several - uhhh - "fraternities" whose goal is to enrich the *iaa's of the world? Perhaps you missed the fact that a jail term was handed down for what amounts to a civil matter? Or, maybe the fact that this court (let alone the judge) has no jurisdiction over the servers? (I'm not certain whether the court has jurisdiction over the company or not, but the servers are definitely beyond the court's jurisdiction - I should find out where TPB is incorporated as a business)

I'm not savvy enough to explain a whole lot more, but, yes - this kangaroo court is so flawed and tainted that any lawyer in the world should be embarassed to even read about it. Everyone involved in the prosecution whored themselves out shamelessly.

Wrong country, wrong court, wrong judge, and most definitely the wrong complainants.

Re:Idiots (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912673)

Regardless of the merits of the case, TPB have done themselves no favors with their behavior and have done nothing to advance the debate over copyright.

Can't get to the article .... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27911933)

...but sounds like a juvenile response to a serious issue.

I hope they do it!

Re:Can't get to the article .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912053)

Juvenile indeed.

What's next? Is TPB going to call for everybody to phone the local Papa Johann's to send the law firm pizzas for lunch?

Sure, pay in pennies. (3, Funny)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#27911949)

Just remember they'll make you sit there while they count it.

Re:Sure, pay in pennies. (5, Interesting)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912183)

This does not scare the unemployed college student :-)

I had a friend in grad school whose credit card company screwed up his billing to the tune of 56 cents. He turned on the TV, poured himself a drink, and sat on the phone talking (wasting the time of) various people for hours over days until they just gave him the 56 cents (they never admitted wrong doing).

I remember this because I visited his apartment on the second day of his quest and thought to myself: "He's still at this?". While he was on the phone, the TV cut to breaking news of OJ Simpson leading police on a chase in a white Bronco. The CC company gave up about the same time as OJ.

Re:Sure, pay in pennies. (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912271)

I would say he's losing more money to his cell phone bill, but he may have had minutes to spare. I only used 18 last month...

Re:Sure, pay in pennies. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912361)

Or he could have had, y'know, a landline.

Re:Sure, pay in pennies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912443)

Ahhh dammit. I wanted to mod you funny but I hit overrated instead. I have to undo that somehow :/

Re:Sure, pay in pennies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912377)

Parent never mentionned the guy was using a cellphone. And in some countries, landlines have unlimited local calling.

Re:Sure, pay in pennies. (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912409)

Most likely it was a toll-free 800 number, to which landlines also have unlimited calling.

(But it does cost the recipient of the call money...)

Re:Sure, pay in pennies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912419)

...your nightly calls to Domino's are down to 36 seconds a night? Wow. Do they have a drop slot in the basement window as well?

Re:Sure, pay in pennies. (1)

Chabo (880571) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912423)

Not many people had cell phones back in the day when OJ Simpson was being pursued in his white Bronco.

Re:Sure, pay in pennies. (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912481)

Note the OJ reference that dates the incident to 1994. Not many college students could afford cell phones back then.

Re:Sure, pay in pennies. (1)

ktappe (747125) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912517)

I had a friend in grad school whose credit card company screwed up his bill to the tune of 56 cents. He turned on the TV, poured himself a drink, and sat on the phone talking (wasting the time of) various people for hours over days until they just gave him the 56 cents. I remember this because I visited his apartment on the second day of his quest and thought to myself: "He's still at this?" While he was on the phone, the TV cut to breaking news of OJ Simpson leading police on a chase in a white Bronco.

I would say he's losing more money to his cell phone bill, but he may have had minutes to spare. I only used 18 last month...

Notice he said this happened the same time as the OJ pursuit. That means it happened in 1994. Cell phones were rare luxuries then--you absolutely never used them at home. They were the size of bricks and were for emergency mobile use only.

Re:Sure, pay in pennies. (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912557)

...losing more money to his cell phone bill

1994 called on this [att.com] to say this particular unemployed college student had only a land line ;-)

Re:Sure, pay in pennies. (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912429)

I had a friend in grad school whose credit card company screwed up his billing to the tune of 56 cents. He turned on the TV, poured himself a drink, and sat on the phone talking (wasting the time of) various people for hours over days until they just gave him the 56 cents (they never admitted wrong doing).

I remember this because I visited his apartment on the second day of his quest and thought to myself: "He's still at this?". While he was on the phone, the TV cut to breaking news of OJ Simpson leading police on a chase in a white Bronco. The CC company gave up about the same time as OJ.

So you mean to say the credit card company is still out there looking for the real overbiller?

Excellent (3, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#27911983)

To help pay for compensation, I shall contact my banking establishment to inquire if there is any possible way to make daily recurring payments of Superman III sized amounts [wikipedia.org] of money to Danowsky's law firm.

Re:Excellent (1)

McNihil (612243) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912417)

I guess this would technically be a "Reverse Salami Slice" , money flowing the other way an all.

Would be interesting to see if they can pull it off and the amount of paper work needed will be epic!

smart? (4, Insightful)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 4 years ago | (#27911995)

I assume there's an equivalent of "contempt of court" over there, and probably that would let the firm on the receiving end sue for damages. Is this really the best time for them to be just digging themselves in deeper?

Are they working on the assumption that the Law and the Government are basically impotent?

(No, I did not RTFA. It's broken already.)

Re:smart? (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912009)

and probably that would let the firm on the receiving end ...

Er, and probably something that would let the firm on the receiving end ....

Paying in Pennies (4, Interesting)

rednip (186217) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912023)

Reminds me of people who try to pay the government in pennies, or I guess that dimes would be more appropriate in this case. However, it's the pirate bay who owes the money, and need to pay, not 'random people'. I suppose that they could collect the (I'm guessing) coins and haul it to them in wheelbarrows, but it's likely that's been done to lawyers already and it's somehow prohibited.

Re:Paying in Pennies (1)

mmandt (1441661) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912075)

I think this is even better because you can demand a refund of your $0.13. That's when things could get interesting.

Re:Paying in Pennies (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912133)

Can you not pay "on behalf of"? It's not like T-Mobile won't let me pay my friend's bill. They say "Money is money".

Re:Paying in Pennies (4, Interesting)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912235)

I have a hard enough time remembering all of my details enough to satisfy the people at whatever utility I'm trying to pay. I've had a conversation on several occasions with the operator about "I just want to pay my bill. I don't need a balance, I don't care the due date, I don't want any information. I just want to give you money." And they can't help me without my PIN, password, elementary school, etc.

Re:Paying in Pennies (2, Funny)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912259)

That's crazy. What has it come to when you have to fight for them to take your money =)

Re:Paying in Pennies (4, Insightful)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912359)

It took me a while to figure it out, but it really is in their best interest long term to make it as difficult as possible for me to pay a bill. They then get to add on late charges, etc. The credit card companies all just got reamed for similar.

Re:Paying in Pennies (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912511)

(Quite offtopic, but tangential ... ) Yes and no. They'll let you pay the bill, if you know exactly how much it is. They won't tell you how much it is, citing privacy (and reasonably so).

Typically, though, don't court-ordered payments get made to the court, then to the payee? So, y'know, you can't say "Yes, Your Honor, here is a check I'm making out to them for $x", judge says thank you, everyone walks away, and three days later your check bounces. I'm fairly sure this is the case, though it may be different a) in Sweden, b) in civil cases, c) depending on the type of award, d) any combination of the above, e) a combination of the above, and other unmentioned factors, etc, et al.

Re:Paying in Pennies (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912491)

It is (prohibited), at least in the U.S.

People selling goods or services are free to require payment in a set method or increment (cash only, bills only, etc) of their choosing. They don't have to accept that barrel of pennies.

IANAL, but I'd bet it's the same for settlement money in court cases.

Re:Paying in Pennies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912691)

It is about as funny as bombarding homeless people with a hundred pennies when they ask for some change.

That's an interesting way to bankrupt a company. (5, Interesting)

process (447778) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912047)

Now there's a flaw in our economy that's waiting to be exploited. Handling fees that are higher than the amount received, effectively draining the company of cash.

It would also drain resources and create massive amounts of paperwork. Even though the process may be mostly automated I'd hate to revise those books, assuming enough people had done this.

Kind of like a distributed denial of service attack.

Of course it's easily remedied by blocking all cash transfers under a certain amount. I guess you're not obliged to accept money, but still it'd cause some extra work. Probably not enough to bring any given company down, but an interesting thought nonetheless.

Re:That's an interesting way to bankrupt a company (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912269)

Depending on the law in your jurisdiction, you might be obligated. At least in the US, businesses aren't obligated to sell you goods or services for legal tender if they don't feel like it; but creditors are obligated to accept legal tender as payment for debts.

"The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.""

TPB are, obviously, not in the US and the law may well be different and paying in the equivalent of pennies might fall under some sort of "court's discretion to smack down raging assholes" provision.

Re:That's an interesting way to bankrupt a company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912399)

Depending on the law in your jurisdiction, you might be obligated. At least in the US, businesses aren't obligated to sell you goods or services for legal tender if they don't feel like it; but creditors are obligated to accept legal tender as payment for debts. "The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."" ...

But they are proposing paying with neither coins nor currency.

EFT is not legal tender according to 31 USC.

Re:That's an interesting way to bankrupt a company (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912545)

Of course it's easily remedied by blocking all cash transfers under a certain amount. I guess you're not obliged to accept money, but still it'd cause some extra work

As the sibling comment says, if you're claiming a debt, and seeking relief (in the form of payment, or otherwise), then you are legally obliged to accept attempts at payment thereof, at least in cash. (I believe you are obligated to accept financial instruments, such as checks, though I know that some collection agencies will try to convince you that they won't accept a check, only a cashier's check, etc).

How can we help? (5, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912051)

^^^ Just my 2 cents.

Re:How can we help? (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912127)

no no!

just your 2 Øre - can you _please_ respect different cultures :)

Re:How can we help? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912393)

no no!

just your 2 Øre - can you _please_ respect different cultures :)

Oh, please. Öre... Can you please respct different cultures?

Re:How can we help? (1)

Heddahenrik (902008) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912683)

Are you telling me that Slashdot eventually fixed so that Ã...ÃÃ- works! Whee! That only took 4711 trolls like me to fix.

Eh, no... Mine aren't working in the preview. You must be cheating with some kind of HTML-skills.

Something doesn't quite make sense, here... (1)

pla (258480) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912093)

The music companies will not benefit from this, instead it will cost them money to handle and process all the money.

Come again? Anyone who wants to "punish" me by sending me 13 cents, by all means feel free.


a plan involving sending money to Danowsky's law firm, but not to pay the fine of course which they say will never be payed

If 30 million people each pay one Sek, how does that not pay the fine? And does Sweden not have some sort of teeth to their court-imposed penalties whereby simply not paying means people go to jail?



Finally, I don't know about Sweden, but US courts have a pretty dim view of people playing games like this, and generally allow certain reasonable limits on how people can pay fines and taxes. If you walk into your county seat hoping to pay a speeding ticket in pennies, you can expect (at best) security to show you the door and tell you to come back with a check. They just don't play along, and not a damned thing you can do to "make" them, no matter how much you whine about the meaning of "legal tender for all debts".

Re:Something doesn't quite make sense, here... (4, Informative)

Burkin (1534829) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912171)

Come again? Anyone who wants to "punish" me by sending me 13 cents, by all means feel free.

If 30 million people each pay one Sek, how does that not pay the fine? And does Sweden not have some sort of teeth to their court-imposed penalties whereby simply not paying means people go to jail?

There are these things called processing fees. The point is to send them an amount that is less than the amount it takes the process the incoming amounts and as such they use money on each transaction. This is pretty standard for services like Paypal or other internet money transfers.

Re:Something doesn't quite make sense, here... (1)

Burkin (1534829) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912213)

That was supposed to be "they lose money on each transaction". Also after they've lost money on each transaction they want the people to demand the money back which adds further processing fees on top of what they've already lost. Basically you get 30 million people doing this and they end up losing more money than the fine is.

Re:Something doesn't quite make sense, here... (1)

infalliable (1239578) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912489)

I believe this only works if you are in Sweden though. I'm not sure of their legal requirements to send refunds to ppl outside the country.

Re:Something doesn't quite make sense, here... (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912207)

If 30 million people each pay one Sek, how does that not pay the fine?

It pays the fine, but the company loses it all to handling fees. Ever been charged a dollar or two when getting cash or checking your balance at an ATM other than one owned by your bank?

Re:Something doesn't quite make sense, here... (2)

EvilToiletPaper (1226390) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912237)

Come again? Anyone who wants to "punish" me by sending me 13 cents, by all means feel free. If 30 million people each pay one Sek, how does that not pay the fine?

The time honoured reply: RTFA! RTFA RTFA!

Re:Something doesn't quite make sense, here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912293)

oh and they forgot to tell you about the part where everyone request to get the money back in false payments.

i think the law gives them 3 bussnies days to give back the money, and since the people paying does not owe the law office anything they have to give the money back.

1. they need to pay money for each transaction
2. they have to give all the money back
3. their bookeping will be a mess
4. ?????
5. negative progit!!!

Re:Something doesn't quite make sense, here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912331)

In the US, actually, unlike most of the rest of the world, all US currency is legal tender for all debts public and private, period!

Now, outside the US, governments put restrictions on payment methods. For example, where I live, you may be refused if you attempt to pay with more than 20 pennies and the debt still requires payment.

I believe in the US when someone tries to pay a large sum in pennies, though, there are procedures to make it incredibly uncomfortable. For example, a single person may be assigned to handle the task of counting the money, by hand. They will not count the money unless you are watching. You may not have someone else stand in for you. They will lock the (public) washrooms up. And they'll make you wait for hours, if not days to complete it.

If you do plan to "protest" like this, bring a port-a-potty and some drinks, maybe even some food, and don't forget to schedule vacation time with work.

Re:Something doesn't quite make sense, here... (1)

b0bby (201198) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912349)

If 30 million people each pay one Sek, how does that not pay the fine?

It costs them two Sek in processing fees, plus their own manual handling of the charges, in order to get the one Sek. So theoretically it would cost them 60 million to get 30 million.

Re:Something doesn't quite make sense, here... (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912603)

I think it's hilarious that anyone thinks that the moment this starts happening, the law firm won't speak to the payment processor/bank, etc, and get a hold placed on all such incoming transactions unless pre-authorized by the law firm.

But hey... more power to them if they think they can get away with it. They're just likely to be sadly mistaken.

Re:Something doesn't quite make sense, here... (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912675)

And TPB would be open to a damages lawsuit from the law firm or whoever had to process the money.

I can see one of the two scenarios arising.

A. The lawfirm is paid its 20,000,000. But acrued 40,000,000 in damages due to the method, which they then sue TPB for.
B. The lawfirm returns the 20,000,000. TPB still owes the 20,000,000 and the lawfirm sues them for 60,000,000 in damage for the processing fees.

At this point, this is essentially a kid in a candy aisle crying about not getting candy from mommy. The kid is TPB, mommy is the court, and the candy is the case result they wanted. Kudos to them for going for appeals, but is petty stuff like this payment scheme really necessary? I can only think that it's going to hurt them.

Wow... (1)

Jeian (409916) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912145)

That's some pretty pro editing in the summary there.

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912337)

I think the 'editor' quietly corrected it and only after sending the fucking thing to front page, as is typical on slashdot these days. What garbage was submitted this time? So far, I spot only a missing apostrophe on line 2 at "wont".

Dumb Idea (4, Insightful)

gsslay (807818) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912215)

From TFA; "A friend of anakata told Blog Pirate"

Well, with that kind of authoritative inside knowledge, what could possibly go wrong?

Anyone who imagines this is a way to bankrupt a company, as opposed to just giving them money, is as dumb as this idea is. And any defendant who thinks that attempting to bankrupt the opposing party's law firm is a good response to losing their case... well, dumb doesn't go halfway far enough.

Re:Dumb Idea (1)

Burkin (1534829) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912263)

Anyone who imagines this is a way to bankrupt a company, as opposed to just giving them money, is as dumb as this idea is.

How is it giving them money when the transaction ends up being a net loss for the receiver when the processing fees are applied? To top that off they also want people to ask for the payment to be reversed which also adds further processing fees on the company receiving the money.

Re:Dumb Idea (4, Insightful)

gsslay (807818) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912389)

Just how many transaction do you think they'll allow to occur before the law firm, or more likely their bank, either closes the account to incoming cash, or more likely simply bounces all amounts under a certain figure? The bank is the one who would levvy this alleged 2 SEK fee, yet they have absolutely nothing to gain from playing along with this dumb game.

Just how stupid do you think the law firm and their bank is?

Re:Dumb Idea (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912405)

And any defendant who thinks that attempting to bankrupt the opposing party's law firm is a good response to losing their case...

I don't think they are trying to hurt the law firm at all: any costs to the law firm in the performance of their responsibilities in the case are, one would presume, billable costs to the client, who is the real target.

Re:Dumb Idea (1)

whitefang1121 (1432411) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912421)

Well it's not really a dumb idea. They are trying to make the company give up on the fine by causing them to go into the minus for handling such low amount of money. By doing this , the music company would give up and they wouldn't have to pay the fine

Re:Dumb Idea (0)

Plekto (1018050) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912607)

Well it's not really a dumb idea. They are trying to make the company give up on the fine by causing them to go into the minus for handling such low amount of money. By doing this , the music company would give up and they wouldn't have to pay the fine.
****

Since this is a civil case involving infringement and not physical theft(ie - actual crime you could do time for - at least not yet), this tactic would also work with the RIAA as well. The only reason the RIAA even bothers to go after people is purely because they think that they can make money off of it eventually. Make it too difficult to collect and watch them stop suing people.

Re:Dumb Idea (2, Insightful)

gsslay (807818) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912695)

Money that random people on the internet choose to pay the law firm has nothing to do with paying the fine. They are under no obligation to accept money from random people, or in anyway consider it payment of the fine.

And they will not go into a minus. It isn't going to happen. Banks in general do not chose to let themselves become stooges in schemes designed to annoy their customers. Particularly successful law firms.

Re:Dumb Idea (2, Interesting)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912641)

Indeed. I always find that the best target for my shenanigans is a law firm. It's not like they have a bunch of people sitting around looking for people to sue. These transactions are not covered under the traditional currency/check laws. At least in the US, even a penny is legal tender and can't be rejected because of its denomination (although you can for other reasons. ie: the credit union at work has stopped taking change citing floor weight restrictions). But then these aren't using currency at all. After the first 1000 the law firm can easily figure out what is going on and either stop taking payment altogether, make a minimum payment requirement, or back charge the fee. After which they would then sick their lawyers on TPB, or those who make payment and ensure that they lost a heck of a lot more in legal fees.

accelerando, anyone? (2, Interesting)

smegmatic (1145201) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912267)

they should have tried a legal ddos first.

Re:accelerando, anyone? (1)

fmobus (831767) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912597)

precisely. Have a script create multiple companies, randomly named, and move your files across companies every split second. Pure genious. Wish it was easy to implement =/

Torn (2, Interesting)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912371)

On the one hand, I applaud them as Magnificent Bastards for devising a plan by which they can stick it to the big corps.. but on the other hand, I wonder whether it's really wise at this point to poke them with a stick like that.

Possible repercussions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912465)

The RIAA has contracted another legal agency to prepare 30 million cases...

That's.... really not smart. (5, Insightful)

jimbudncl (1263912) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912475)

Car analogy: That's like using a bullhorn to tell the cops outside your house that you'll be out shortly to stick a banana in their tail pipe. When you get there, you'll find a 46" diameter tail pipe and you'll only have a one banana.

TPB may have gotten themselves in trouble, and been convicted by a biased court, but playing silly games isn't going to solve any problems. Childish acts, even if committed by thousands of kids on the inernet, will never amount to more than a flea on the war machine that is corporate greed. They have an organized team fueled by money, and you've got pent-up angst fueled by living in your mom's basement.

Who do you think will win?

How it Works (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27912509)

You should really read either TFA, or a better explanation at torrentfreak: http://torrentfreak.com/music-industrys-plea-for-pirate-bay-damages-backfires-090510/ [torrentfreak.com]

Basically what is ahppenning here is that low amounts of money are ebing sent to thsi law firm, and then they are requested back as a "wrong payment" - meaning that the firm still needs to collect them, accoutn for them, process them, and then mail them back. This is required by Swedish law. In fact, no one will lose a single cent, except the companies in processing fees :)

I know where they had the idaea from (5, Informative)

hubert.lepicki (1119397) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912585)

There is that priest-radical in Poland, who is known as Father Rydzyk, and all young people hate him and his movement. So they decided support him by sending 0.01 PLN (about 0.003 USD) each. Lots of students did just that, each one paying 0.01 PLN.

The case was that Father Rydzyk's movement was having special deal with banks, that they were paying all fees for incoming money. So, for each 0.01 PLN paid in, they had to pay about 1 USD - now this where Swedish guys had the idea from!

It would fail on several levels... (2, Insightful)

tommyhj (944468) | more than 4 years ago | (#27912649)

First, the law-firm would close down the account faster than lightning, only costing them the work to open a new one and sending out (handwritten) letters to their clients.

Second, the morals of this is equal to: "We didn't like the executioner, so lets burn down his house and kill his family, while we ignore the ones who gave the order"

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...