Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Trio Lose Appeal

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the lose-rinse-repeat dept.

Piracy 234

nk497 writes "Three of the four founders of The Pirate Bay have lost an appeal against their conviction last year of helping to share copyrighted material. It wasn't a total waste of time, however. The three have had their one-year jail sentences cut to between four and ten months. (The fourth founder was too ill to appear in court, and will appeal separately.) The foursome also had their fine bumped from 32 million kronor ($4.5 million) to 46 million kronor ($6.5 million)."

cancel ×

234 comments

Welcome to Sweden (1, Troll)

Stoutlimb (143245) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351326)

Where freedom is a crime.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (3, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351332)

Nope, apparently supporting piracy is a crime.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351356)

Profiting from the support of copyright infringement.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (3, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351444)

They don't support it more than our LKAB and SSAB support knife murder.

They just say "That's not our problem go fuck yourself! We aren't breaching any copyright."

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351422)

Rather not dealing with it.

Anyway, 46 million? Because they have continued? Inflation? The copies has spread?

There was a new idea now about adding like 10 SEK to 200 SEK / month ISP fee and make it legal to copy things. But I assume the idea is/will be just like the CD tax. Pay for something you're not allowed to and still aren't ... "Hey, you'll pirate on this CD / on your Internet connection, you better pay for not having the right to do so!"

Awesome ..

If it was an enforced "information spread tax" then I guess I could be fine with it.

Though I kinda haven't downloaded shit for years.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351362)

Freedom is not a crime. Aiding and abetting copyright infringement is.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351390)

Copyright is undue government interference in the market.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (4, Insightful)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351412)

However that may be, just blatantly disregarding the law is not the solution. At least not in this case.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351500)

If not in this case in what cases?

Re:Welcome to Sweden (4, Insightful)

the_womble (580291) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351600)

I tend to be instinctively law abiding, but I think its very clear that if the law is sufficiently widely disregarded it will become unenforceable.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351752)

It is still the law, though. The reason governments exist in the first place is because man cannot live in a vacuum of moral absolutes. Murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. Rape is wrong. Without government telling everyone that there are specific punishments for specific crimes, anything can and will happen. No laws on rape? Watch men and women be violated even more than they are now. No laws on murder? Watch the spread of fear as roving gangs of vigilantes and sociopaths start killing not only each other but everyone else they encounter. No laws on theft? Watch everyone drop into the poor house except for those good enough not to get caught by their victim.

Don't get me wrong. I think current copyright law is immeasurably wrong. It does nothing for promoting the arts and is all about making every last corrupt dime out of a work as they possibly can. It's not about protecting the pseudo property known as IP. It's about power and money and who does and does not have it.

By widespread breaking of the law you are only proving the point that current laws need better enforcement and bigger punishments. I really don't like the alternative (indy bands and groups at places like Vodo [vodo.net] , ClearBits [clearbits.net] , and Jamendo [jamendo.com] (and the like) or, you know, actually paying the RIAA for their artists' stuff (I'd rather pay the artist directly, thanks)), but if we are going to claim the moral high-ground of law abiding citizen and have a chance of being taken seriously, what is the choice?

No one sees copyright infringement as anything near revolutionary. To most people, those who willfully infringe are indeed nothing more than common criminals. Step up above that and walk the higher ground while lobbying your state and federal politicians. Otherwise, I don't want to hear about how unfair the system is. I know how unfair it is.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (2, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#34352006)

By that logic there would never be any civil disobedience. We'd still have segregation, Jim Crow laws, any number of statutes on the books that were bought and paid for by a small minority over the protests of the majority.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

Hylandr (813770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34352068)

His point is well made in your own post however, and I will cite but one of the most obvious example you made.

Rape is wrong

And illegal in Africa, where it's presently used as a weapon of war.
The law there has become so widely disregarded that it has become completely unenforceable.

- Dan.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34352174)

By widespread breaking of the law you are only proving the point that current laws need better enforcement and bigger punishments.

You're an oppressive government's wet dream, every time they impose another unjust law you just say "it's still the law" and obey it. Widespread breaking of the law probably means democracy is being circumvented and that politicians are lobbied or bought off to prevent the law from changing. Why would then stopping what you're doing change anything? It just means that those that want to suppress them has scored a massive victory and will continue to marginalize the need for change. You show a charming naivity when it comes to how most change comes about. Wnen people wanted to legalize gay sex, do you think it was like "So we've never done it seeing as we obey the law and all, but we think it maybe would be a nice change."? If so, I have a bridge to sell you. Enough breaking of the law has changed many laws like prohibition for example. Maybe it's not our "moral high ground" way of winning, but it works.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (2, Interesting)

NoSig (1919688) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351916)

It becomes impossible to enforce it against everyone, but it becomes perfectly possible to enforce it against just those people someone in power doesn't like.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351602)

"Undue" is subjective.. If you earned a living creating something which can be copied you would probably have a different take on it.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351912)

I earn a living doing just that. But I earn my living specifically because of people who believe knowledge should be shared. Almost everything I use is either GPL or MIT license (all except for the crappy Windows laptop work gave me, and even that spends most of it's time running Ubuntu though Virtualbox, and if it was mine, would be running Ubuntu natively). So I share mine as well (though I'll be the first to admit it isn't as useful to others as what I use, but that's because I'm not the best at what I do.)

Copying others is how humans learn. No one is truly self-invented.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

madprof (4723) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351746)

Great. Remove copyright and we can all forget about open source software.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351892)

If you are thinking about GPL enforcement then I would like to remind you that there is a big difference between open and free. GPL software is not necessarily free as in beer and never free as in speech.
Without copyright all software is free as in beer but for open source it will not be possible to enforce restrictive licenses like GPL, rather everything will be treated as under the BSD license. There is quite a lot of BSD license programs today so I don't really see where your argument is coming from, perhaps you would like to elaborate?

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351860)

Copyright created the market. If that influence is undue, feel free not to partake in copyrighted materials.

Weird how that's never the option, it's always "I want to gorge myself on the work of others at no cost to me."

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351930)

Copyright created the market.

Indeed, art requires copyright. As everybody knows, art was pretty much non-existent before copyright was invented, just 300 years ago... oh, wait.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351986)

You really want to go back to the patronage system?

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#34352050)

How about the system where artists create art for the sake of creativity. When you write a song it becomes part of our culture (except music in the 80's). It should exist for the enjoyment of everybody, not as a magic lottery ticket to provide infinite income for you and your descendants. If continuing infringement makes corporate rock unprofitable and we only get to hear artists who actually enjoy making music...I fail to see how that is a problem.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

GigaHurtsMyRobot (1143329) | more than 3 years ago | (#34352166)

+9000, Well said and I couldn't agree more.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351494)

Linking to content is not a crime. Even in the US you can't be held criminally liable for linking to content. They never hosted any content themselves, FYI.

Those individuals that infringed someone's copyright did so of their own volition.

It isn't over till it's over. I'm sure they have more appeals to go.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (4, Informative)

spyfrog (552673) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351656)

There is only one more court to appeal to and that is the Swedish Supreme Court. That court only tries special cases that is of importance so it isn't sure that they will try this case.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351664)

Seriously, isn't that just a cop-out?

Their site served only one purpose and they neve made the slightest effort to discourage that use.

It's about like a money launderer for the mob claiming that he doesn't actually commit the crimes that the mob is responsible for.

The Pirate Bay's only purpose was to enable copyright infringement. The rest is just splitting hairs.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#34352018)

Is that why I was able to find any number of Linux distros, OC Remix music, and tons of other legal content on TPB? Finding the same content using Google is trivial, by your logic would they be culpable for infringement? What is the magic ratio where a site no longer exists for the sole purpose of copyright infringement?

Re:Welcome to Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351416)

Idiot. Freedom isn't the right to steal games and movies. I'm not gonna act like I don't do it, but if I were to run a tracker where thousands of illegally shared files could be found, I'd expect to land in jail too.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351536)

Please, refrain from the ad homenin attacks. Copying games, music, and videos isn't stealing. It's copyright infringement.

By your logic just defending their position makes you a criminal because you are telling others that it's not a crime, it's a violation of copyright. In their case they didn't host nor distribute any copyrighted material. None of the copyrighted material was hosted on their site. They simply provided links to the bittorrent hash. So, by providing information that defends their position, you are saying we are guilty of a crime?

That's criminal thinking it its own right.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351440)

In cartel ridden RIAA land.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

Snufu (1049644) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351460)

You can run, but you can't hide from the long arm of the media corporations.

Re:Welcome to Sweden (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351970)

More like where they bend over backwards to please the US and its DMCA.

exchange (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351336)

So they basically exchanged time for money.

Welcome to Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351354)

In soviet Sweden, Fine bumps you!

Still standing (4, Insightful)

Robadob (1800074) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351358)

Yet the pirate bay still stands tall. We best start ordering some of those tshirt they advertise to help pay their fine.

Money == Time (2, Interesting)

HogGeek (456673) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351372)

So, based on 12 mos, to 10 mos, and 4.5 => 6.5. I'd rather do 16 1/2 months and not give them a dime.

I'm sure that's not a real option...

---

By the way, who gets the money (besides the lawyers)? Sweden, or the *IAA?

Re:Money == Time (1)

Lumbre (1822486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351408)

I'd rather do 4 months and not pay a dime, just like Sunde said. Then again, that' probably not a real option either.

If Sweden's courts are anything like our courts, the courts will adjust their fines to more realistic amounts on appeal.

Re:Money == Time (1)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351502)

This was the appeal. I think the next appeal option is the Supreme Court.

Re:Money == Time (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351628)

A friend got one month in prison or 5 (or was that? Maybe more likely? 50.000 SEK for not doing his military duty.)

Nowadays it's not obligatory longer and we kinda have no defense worth noticing compared to back in the 80ies or such. So now nothing would had happened.

So that was a waste, and the same goes for everyone else in my age doing it.

Anyway, he paid the money.

Copyright infringment is a crime. Get over it. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351376)

...and aiding and abetting a crime is also a crime.

Re:Copyright infringment is a crime. Get over it. (1)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351492)

I realize I'm responding to an AC who is probably just trolling, but I'd like to point out here that by definition, a crime is only a violation of criminal law. In the United States, copyright is covered under civil law, which is entirely different from criminal law. Therefore, copyright infringement is not a crime. Okay, that's only usually true, as there are very specific circumstances which constitute felony copyright infringement, but in the majority of cases, the police cannot just come and bust down your door and take you away because you pulled down a few songs.

Now, my stupid question is this: Is this also the case in Sweden? Or is copyright part of Swedish criminal law?

Re:Copyright infringment is a crime. Get over it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351576)

There are criminal laws governing copyright.

Taken straight from copyright.gov.

  506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement. —

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

(2) Evidence. — For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.

(3) Definition. — In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means —

(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution —

(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and

(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or

(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture —

(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and

(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.

(b)(b) Forfeiture, Destruction, and Restitution.—Forfeiture, destruction, and restitution relating to this section shall be subject to section 2323 of title 18, to the extent provided in that section, in addition to any other similar remedies provided by law.

(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(e) False Representation. — Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A(a).

Re:Copyright infringment is a crime. Get over it. (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351608)

What he fails to say is how the courts have interpreted these subsections--how the laws have been applied.

And, if you read it, it talks about distribution.

And, if you read it, it is US law, not the law of other countries.

Re:Copyright infringment is a crime. Get over it. (-1, Redundant)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351558)

Only copyright infringement isn't a crime. And no one stole a thing. The content creators and copyright holders still have their inventory.

Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (4, Interesting)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351398)

... Do you know where the nearest convenience store is?

Me: Yes, take this street to the first light, turn right, it's 3 blocks down on the left.

(later)

Police: You are under arrest for aiding in the robbery and murder of three convenience store clerks.

In Sweden, I would be very hesitant about giving directions since merely pointing in the direction a crime may take place can land you in jail.

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (5, Insightful)

mr100percent (57156) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351474)

That's a false analogy. Are you telling me that the founders of Pirate Bay are completely oblivious that their site mainly trafficked in copyright materials? Your analogy would be more apt if you were giving directions to where to find a drug dealer, or the people looking for a convenience store had a ski mask on and guns in hand.

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351534)

Why is knowing where a drug dealer can be found a crime?

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (1, Troll)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351630)

Because essentially you know there is crime taking place and not reporting it. That's a neglect of your civil duty. (Would you do nothing if you saw a robbery, rape, murder, etc...)

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351658)

I am not a police officer, nor in most places am I required to report non-violent crimes.

On moral grounds I would not report drug dealers anymore than prostitutes or homosexuals in the military. I also will not report those hacking devices they own for fun or profit. What police state do you live in?

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351826)

How many people have even without intent to solicit pointed out where the 'red light' district is in a given city?

Giving instructions or directions to another on where to go for something illicit should be protected speech.

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34352074)

I am not a police officer, nor in most places am I required to report non-violent crimes.

On moral grounds I would not report drug dealers anymore than prostitutes or homosexuals in the military. I also will not report those hacking devices they own for fun or profit. What police state do you live in?

I live in Canada, where, if you know where someone is selling drugs, you are expected to report it to the police - but there is not really a consequence if you don't, since usually there is no way to pin it to you.

If however, they found out that you were directing people to the drug dealer, with either an undercover agent or some paper trail or something - than you can be convicted as an accomplice.

I suspect it is very much the same way in the United States.

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (5, Insightful)

irishPete (21197) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351704)

Knowing is one thing, running a service that tracks where they are and gives directions to them might be a little different...

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (1)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | more than 3 years ago | (#34352002)

mapquest can give me directions to a drug dealers house. Sure, mapquest doesn't necessarily know that it's a drug dealers house, but neither does TBP necessarily know (or want to know) which torrents house copyrighted materials and which don't. It's the user's responsibility to know if what they're doing is legal or not according to their laws.

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351790)

It might not be. Having a business that gives directions to all the drug dealers might be.

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351876)

Well, not reporting crime could be an offense depending on jurisdiction but that's a bit farfetched. If you run a contact service for drug sellers and drug buyers to find each other, that might be a little different. Particularly if you show them ads as commission for your brokering service. I don't know how much ad income is these days but TPB is a huge, huge site with tons of pagehits and no staff to create content only the cost of running the system. I doubt they earned less per hit than trashy XXX sites so if they weren't making money then I doubt many places could. Let's face it, TPB enables a lot of non-commercial sharing but I'm not so convinced the site itself is that too. If non-commercial sharing was legal and you set up a non-profit organization with transparency and oversight it would be different. But right now, people don't even know *who* is running TPB because the founders claim it's not them, much less what their income statement looks like.

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (1)

HogGeek (456673) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351538)

I'm thinking the court room comment for that is:

Leads to speculation...

no?

How am I responsible for others action? I could document how to build, place and detonate a explosive device, but I don't believe that makes me responsible for the actions of another individual using those documents to commit a crime, at least in the U.S.

Not true in Sweden?

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (1)

Anarki2004 (1652007) | more than 3 years ago | (#34352086)

I do believe conspiracy to commit a crime is a real charge. Of course, you could say you are writing a novel or something too. It would really depend on how you approach the situation. Then again, you can't be charged for the crimes somebody else committed; if you were found to be encouraging it or that it was your intent, I'm sure you could be prosecuted for something.

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351918)

That's a false analogy. Are you telling me that the founders of Pirate Bay are completely oblivious that their site mainly trafficked in copyright materials? Your analogy would be more apt if you were giving directions to where to find a drug dealer, or the people looking for a convenience store had a ski mask on and guns in hand.

Don't you think that's stretching it a little bit too far? Copyright infringement is "a crime" because the media cartels have bought the lawmakers to MAKE IT criminal. With the DMCA and everything. And what about the ILLEGAL raid on the piratebay servers?

This isn't about piracy being legal or not. It's about Big Media buying the government into licking their boots, at the expense of the taxpayers.

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351966)

Are you telling me that the founders of Pirate Bay are completely oblivious that their site mainly trafficked in copyright materials?

Yes, of course you're being told that.

Perhaps you didn't know, but the site never, ever contained nor trafficked any copyrighted materials whatsoever.

Or are you trying to bend the facts to suit your argument? It's quite common, so it's difficult to know, but please be aware that your argument is not strengthened by either option. See, either you're just wrong (i.e ignorant) or you're lying (i.e an asshole.)

Have a nice day, now.

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34352070)

No more than google directly linking to torrent files too. Heck, when I'm trying to find old TV show episode guides I have to wade through umpteen torrent links first.

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (3, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351510)

Well if you want to twist it that way you can, but I have a feeling its more like

You: Excuse me sir, do you know where I could purchase some narcotics?

Me: Why yes, I know a follow, about 3 blocks down. Black hat, sunglasses. Usually a plaid shirt

(later)

Police: You are under arrest for being an accomplice in drug trafficking.

The main difference is sssentially the goods you are directing them to are illegal - thats their stance. A drug dealer might also sell you a pack of bubblegum - which is perfectly legal, so its hard to argue that just because torrents can be used for legit purposes that they are free of the guilt of illegal acts that might happen.

It's a complicated mess, but I hope you understand it a bit better. The issue is that when you go to The Pirate Bay and ask for directions to something illegal, and TPB dishes it out - thats the same as being an accomplice to the crime taking place. If someone had said to you "I'm looking for a convenience store to rob" and you told them where it is, that might also get you a visit from police, for not reporting something like that.

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (3, Insightful)

PseudonymousBraveguy (1857734) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351514)

You know, if you marketed yourself as the man to call if you want to know which store would be best for robbing, that you'd probably go to jail, too.

Its not so much about the technology, but about the clear intend to aid copyright infringment. I don't like the current state of copyrights, but to say TPB is "merely giving directions" is missing the point. (Notice how google has not been successfully sued, even though you can find illegal torrents on google, too?)

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (2, Interesting)

Darkinspiration (901976) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351690)

I would guess that google is a lot harder to crack legaly then three guys in a basement. Make no mistake the mafiaa is really interested in preventing anyone from getting to torrent files. They would love to force google to clean up it's database of "illegal" material. They are however aware that google can pay lobbyist to.

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351614)

The purpose of law is to make distinctions.

Re:Excuse me Sir, I'm lost... (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34352254)

Now I won't pay my bills in case they are frauds and I'm helping them out! :D

I don't get you lot (0, Troll)

zakeria (1031430) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351404)

I'm as big a geek as the next slashdot guy but I just don't see how you can support piracy, as a software developer that has to make a living from writing software my lively-hood depends on profiting from my own work. Why do so many people believe that the pirate bay is a good thing when clearly it is not.

Re:I don't get you lot (1, Insightful)

alphax45 (675119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351434)

Because free trumps (most) peoples morals :) Sad but true.

Simplistic rubbish (2, Insightful)

s-whs (959229) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351546)

I'm as big a geek as the next slashdot guy but I just don't see how you can support piracy, as a software developer that has to make a living from writing software my lively-hood depends on profiting from my own work. Why do so many people believe that the pirate bay is a good thing when clearly it is not.

Because free trumps (most) peoples morals :) Sad but true.

To be honest that's part of why people use it, but there are more issues involved:

1. Ridiculous copyright length. This means you have to pay again and again for stuff that's become part of culture, i.e. as I mentioned in a previous posting quite a while back, in my view the media companies get to have a stranglehold on your memories, on nostalgia. Stuff may not be great but may be nostalgic. Why should I have to pay (again!) to watch/use it? Why should people get to be rewarded for something that may not be good, but only be enjoyable for a reason not having anything to do with its 'real' value?

2. Attitude of the RIAA and similar groups in just about all countries.

3. Having to pay for media/printers/copying machines/video camera's because you might copy something with a copyright with/onto it. This happens in many countries, so why should I feel I'm doing something unethical if I'm paying for the 'just in case' scenario whether I do or not?

I can go on but this is enough to show your response is rather simplistic.

Re:Simplistic rubbish (2, Insightful)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351922)

Why does the fact that you remember something give you the right to have it for free? I mean I get that there are problems with copyright, but none of this works out to an entitlement to free entertainment. Call it culture, split hairs about the technical details, argue the semantics until you're blue in the face - it's still about gorging yourself on free entertainment that you've done nothing to deserve. In fact, the sheer amount of unrelated arguing is a pretty sure sign that the practitioners of piracy are aware that they need some sort of justification for their behavior.

It's like when Bill Clinton had all that bullshit about his blowjob. If he just stood up and said "Yes, I fucked her mouth. Leave me alone." things would have been nice and easy and I would have maintained his respect. Instead he went off arguing about the definition of sex, and the definition of the word "is", and firing missiles at people as a distraction. Same basic concept, really. Be proud of what you do, but you don't have to act like you have the high moral ground because you feel like watching a movie you don't want to pay for.

Re:Simplistic rubbish (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 3 years ago | (#34352020)

Why does the fact that you remember something give you the right to have it for free?

Why should something being "intellectual" property gives its creator the right to dictate how it is used after selling it ? Why should they be allowed all the benefits of an infinite supply, but none of the consequences ?

Re:Simplistic rubbish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351942)

I'm as big a geek as the next slashdot guy but I just don't see how you can support piracy, as a software developer that has to make a living from writing software my lively-hood depends on profiting from my own work. Why do so many people believe that the pirate bay is a good thing when clearly it is not.

Because free trumps (most) peoples morals :) Sad but true.

To be honest that's part of why people use it, but there are more issues involved:

1. Ridiculous copyright length. This means you have to pay again and again for stuff that's become part of culture, i.e. as I mentioned in a previous posting quite a while back, in my view the media companies get to have a stranglehold on your memories, on nostalgia. Stuff may not be great but may be nostalgic. Why should I have to pay (again!) to watch/use it? Why should people get to be rewarded for something that may not be good, but only be enjoyable for a reason not having anything to do with its 'real' value?

2. Attitude of the RIAA and similar groups in just about all countries.

3. Having to pay for media/printers/copying machines/video camera's because you might copy something with a copyright with/onto it. This happens in many countries, so why should I feel I'm doing something unethical if I'm paying for the 'just in case' scenario whether I do or not?

I can go on but this is enough to show your response is rather simplistic.

In response to your arguments:

1. This one is completely stupid to me. If someone wrote/created it, and wants to make money off of it, just because it's nostalgic to you doesn't give you the right to have it without paying for it. Buy it and keep it, then you won't have to "REBUY" it, as you say. Back in the day, before we had recordings, etc, people didn't get to have nostalgic memories like that anyway. It's a luxury of our time, not a RIGHT we have as people. Don't be stupid.

2. Yes, they have crazy attitudes. They are trying to make a profit in a culture that sees copyright infringement as just a part of every day life. I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, and think copyright law should be rethought through and reworked, but I don't know of a system that could replace it that would work much better. I'm sure there is something out there, but just doing away with it won't work. People need to be able to be paid for their work. I'm a linux user, and love open source software, but some things just don't work that way.

3. So because you have to pay a special fee because you "MIGHT" use it to break copyright law means you have the right to break copyright law? How does that work?

The real problem is that here in America at least, people feel they are entitled to own things that they haven't paid for because they want it, and use the argument that "well If I didn't get it for free then I won't buy it anyway so they aren't loosing out on the money". But that's a bogus argument. If you weren't going to pay for it then you don't deserve to have it. It's really pretty simple. People should stop being so self-righteous in their copyright infringement and be willing to shell out cash for the things that they want to have, and if they aren't willing to pay for it, then deal with not having it.

Re:I don't get you lot (3, Insightful)

tenchikaibyaku (1847212) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351508)

I see, it undermines your living so it's clearly a bad thing. Not saying you're wrong, but your argument isn't that persuasive as it stands..

Re:I don't get you lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351668)

Reading comprehension or logic fail, I'm not sure which category your comment falls into. They didn't say it was a bad thing BECAUSE it undermines their living, just that both happen to be true.

Re:I don't get you lot (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351706)

It's more persuasive to those of us who want to see content creators encouraged.

To those who don't care about content creation, invention, innovation, ethics, and general societal advancement -- a lot of what I have to say is just "blah blah blah".

Re:I don't get you lot (2, Insightful)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351554)

Your argument is: "What they are doing is wrong, because if what they are doing were right, I find it unlikely that I would be able to make money doing what I do"

Which is just as valid an argument against police officers as it is one in favour of current copyright law.

Re:I don't get you lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351846)

Your argument is: "What they are doing is wrong, because if what they are doing were right, I find it unlikely that I would be able to make money doing what I do"

Hear that, /.? Hope you remember that when your job is outsourced overseas or given to a H1-B. LOL

Re:I don't get you lot (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34352098)

You can reduce anything to the point of absurdity. I mean the anti-copyright argument reduces to the same argument my niece gives me when I won't buy her ice cream after every meal - "BUT I WANT IT!!!"

That's a lot less compelling.

I find it particularly useless, this whole go-round, because it distracts from the reality that there needs to be a societal discussion on the role of copyright in the age of such simple publishing. Instead, it's become two camps screaming at each other with positions that can neither be reconciled nor maintained. Genius!

Re:I don't get you lot (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351564)

Media bits can't be stolen so it's okay to steal media.

If someone is stealing your software you obviously don't have the holy seal of GPL on it because no geek would dare incur the wrath of RMS (blessed be his beard).

Re:I don't get you lot (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351582)

Pirate bay hosts no material, they only link. Not all torrent traffic is infringing.

The question for me is are they liable for what you do with a tool they provide. Just as guns don't kill people, pirate bay does not pirate software, people do both of those things.

I do not pirate anything, I use FREE software and netflix for my entertainment. I also buy some non-FREE software, mostly games, but I have not "pirated" anything in a great many years. I make my living by supporting FREE software in an enterprise environment. This is not to say I operate solely within the US copyright laws, I use libdvdcss and even rip all the CDs I buy, I find none of those activities morally incorrect.

Re:The bigger evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351586)

Its just that the RIAA and MPAA are the bigger evil. The judge in the first trial was member of a copyright lobby, but has still been found unbiased by other judges of the same lobby. There is also the behavior of the police before the trial.

This is not only about copyright this is about corruption.

Re:I don't get you lot (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351588)

The problem is with copyright law and the length of the copyright monopoly. Copyright should be for 5 years, wherein if you haven't eeked out a living from that in that time, then you loose. Otherwise, during that timeframe you should go hog wild.

Basically the copyright laws give too much to a creator and the copyright holder for too long a time.

As has been asked--why should someone get a monopoly for multiple generations (their lifetime plus 75 years) for something they created probably with just a moment's intuition.

Re:I don't get you lot (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#34352138)

I concur, it's not bad to give a license to someone so he can exploit his new idea, the present problem is the crazy duration of that period.

Re:I don't get you lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351592)

Except for the part where the Pirate Bay doesn't pirate anything?

Re:I don't get you lot (1)

Darkinspiration (901976) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351596)

Despite that, They have not been accused of piracy, they have been accused of facilitating piracy by running a unmoderated database of torrent files. Using this thinking all seach engine are at risk of similar jugement.

Re:I don't get you lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351676)

Yes, Next target would be Bing and Google - they do provide links more frequently and any monkey can use a search engine ( and think about all those pennies rolling in from banners displayed!).
But it is true that even the name "The Pirate Bay" has a certain ring to it that just brings the attention they kind of deserved.

Re:I don't get you lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351650)

Because copyright is theft from the public domain. It's trivially demonstrable that copyright hinders innovation and the economy. Food and clothing are not covered by copyrights and you would find it hard to suggest food and fashion industries are lacking creativity. Further, gross sales of goods in low IP industries vastly outstrip sales in high IP industries.

Johanna Blakley on the topic [boingboing.net] [Transcript [dotsub.com] ].

Copyright is unethical. And it harms the economy. Get rid of it.

Re:I don't get you lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351678)

as a software developer that has to make a living from writing software my lively-hood depends on profiting from my own work

Out of pure curiosity, are you working as a software developer for your own company ? I work as a software developer as an employee and I only get a monthly salary for my work, and comparing how much I earn with how much the company earns I can hardly say I benefit from my work.

Re:I don't get you lot (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351848)

You are providing a service being a programmer and that makes sense. The company needs you to develop the software so they have to motivate you to do it for them somehow. The trouble is that they are trying to sell the software afterward as a commodity. It doesn't make any sense economically(see infinite supply arguments). And saying that the only way that software would be developed is if it was copyrighted is misleading and insulting. Look at FOSS and the number of companies that employ people to develop software for it. They are motivated to do this because supporting a closed/license based system costs more then building onto FOSS to meet their needs.

As the saying goes... (1)

ewhenn (647989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351426)

You know what they about squeezing blood from a rock...

Good luck collecting.

TFA lacking on info (1)

edxwelch (600979) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351542)

The article is a bit sparse on info. Why did they lose the appeal?
Wasn't the origonal Judge working for the Swedish copyright lobby? Wasn't that good enough reason to thow out the case?

Re:TFA lacking on info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351604)

Swedish courts never throws out a case and the justice is based on a much less rule-based system than the us anglosaxon system. In Sweden, anything can be submitted as evidence and the court can consider it at will. This means that the court can say that the evidence submitted by the pirate bay folks is less important than the evidence submited by the riaa mafia. This is what happened. The court basically said "we don't like the way the pirate folks are looking at this case, we think it's a crime so we make something up that fits".
It's a real shame and very poor justice.

For more Swedish justice - look at the sexcrimes horror and Julian Assange.

The solution to pirary is of course... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351570)

......population reduction.

Anyone smart enough to wrap their head around this?

Millions? Fucking idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34351710)

Only the RIAA, MPAA and judges have millions in their bank account. Most people would need to live 500 years to be able to pay such amounts.

Legal system hijacked by media industry (4, Informative)

digithed (445564) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351720)

It's pretty plain to see that the Swedish legal system has been hijacked by the media industry.

Typical fines dished out recently by the courts in Sweden...
Murder: 75000kr (£6825)
Rape of a 14 year old girl: 50000kr (£4550)
Pirate Bay fine for aiding Copyright infringment: 46000000kr (£4.1 million)

I'm not saying that they haven't done anything wrong (although if they have done something wrong then it's hard to understand why Google haven't been indicted as their index contains many, many more links to torrent files than the Pirate Bay's does), but lets get this in perspective. The fine is outrageous and has absolutely no basis in reality. Another thing to mention is that this is not the end of the road. The Pirate Bays guys have already said they will appeal this ruling. There is one higher court in Sweden to appeal to and they have already said they will appeal to the European Court in Brussels if necessary.

Re:Legal system hijacked by media industry (2, Insightful)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351806)

Without going into sourcing, there's more to a crime than payment. Copyright infringement (theoretically) takes money out of the pockets of the holders, so it makes sense to levy a huge fine to pay that back while imposing limited jail time - the wrong has been righted. You can't unmurder or unrape someone, no matter how much money you throw at the family or victim. Besides, we're talking the difference between suits brought by rights holders and criminal proceedings brought by the government.

Info for non-Swedes (5, Informative)

denoir (960304) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351810)

Since little information is available in English, here are some points of clarification:

-The main charge was "aiding copyright violation". The decision of the court is mainly based on the fact that TPB did nothing to prevent it and that they in every way advertised that you could download copyrighted stuff on their site. The fact that this can be done with Google or any other search engine is beside the point according to the court. Google cooperates at least to a limited extent with copyright holders while TPB made a point of pissing them off.

- According to the court indifference to the possibility of the copyright violations occurring is not enough as an argument to let them off the hook. This is not so much a controversial point in the guilty verdict but a very controversial one when it comes to sentencing.

-According to Swedish law you can be found guilty of aiding even if the perpetrators of the main crime (i.e copyright violations) is unknown and the full extent of the crime is unknown as well.

-According to the court information provider neutrality as defined in among other things the EU's e-commerce law does not apply to TPB. Their main argument is that TPB was not a general service provider but a search service largely aimed at facilitating downloading copyrighted material.

-The most controversial point is the sentencing. The basic question is if the three specific persons could really be sentenced for crimes that they did not and could not have had information about (each individual download). The court's answer is yes and the reasoning behind it is fairly vague and general in nature. When it comes to the damages the reasoning is rather strange: Basically they say the following: The industry claims X million Euros in directly lost profits. This is clearly absurd as not all who download would have actually bought the product in question. So we'll split the difference and put the damages to X/2. X/2 turned out to be 46 million Swedish crowns. (€5 million)

Apart from the questionable reasoning one should put into context that a premeditated murder will in Sweden cost you on average 5 years in prison and 100,000 (~€10.7k) crowns in damages to the relatives. So although the guilty verdict of the court may be reasonable, the sentencing is very extreme by Swedish standards. As a rule damages are never in the millions and the idea is that the guilty party should have a chance to actually pay them. The sentence of 46 million crowns in damages is simply outside any Swedish legal practice.

Re:Info for non-Swedes (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#34351940)

-According to the court information provider neutrality as defined in among other things the EU's e-commerce law does not apply to TPB. Their main argument is that TPB was not a general service provider but a search service largely aimed at facilitating downloading copyrighted material.

For those old enough to remember, this is essentially what did Napster in. By exclusively linking to music files, they gave up any facade of neutrality and the courts nailed them on it. This, despite the fact that Napster never actually hosted any of the music being transferred.

Re:Info for non-Swedes (3, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34352186)

But in Sweden you don't pay money to pay for the crime you have permitted but rather for the damages.

And IP is much more valuable than peoples life :)

Re:Info for non-Swedes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34352194)

1. So, apparently pissing off the copyright mob is a criminal offence. And you're dead wrong btw, NO "download of copyrighted stuff" took place on their site. It might be a fine point, but the law is usually made up of such. It's apparent though that such does not apply when the political pressure is on and multi-billion dollar interests are on one of the sides, and the other side are just three normal guys.

2. Again, indifference to threatening mails about stuff that is not really your problem is a serious crime now worse than rape or murder, if the sender have enough money.

3. Here it goes seriously redicolous, ffs, it's not even established what happened exactly, who took part in it or if they even committed a crime (likely, but not proven), and again, _whatever_ happened tpb had _no_ part in it, beyond being the "bar" where these willing participants met.

4. This another silly argument for which there is no proof beyond some tendentious reading of the name of the site.

5. Weird indeed, as usually happens when someone orders you to come to some conclusion that you really can't find any basis for. Speaking of weird, one should note that a sure sign of how weak the prosecution is, is that they apparently can't rely on getting these guys in a fair trial, but just _have_ to stack the deck by having the court made up of moonshine copyright lobbyists or ex-lobbyists. Yep, they did it again.

I presume the only real outcome is that it is now well known and established abroad that Sweden is very corrupt and have political trials, so at least the constant "we're the best democracy in the world" bullshit should fall pretty flat from now on.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...