Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Pirate Bay Defendant Aims For Sweden's Supreme Court

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the but-yer-honor dept.

Piracy 98

justice4all writes with this news from eWeek Europe:"One of the defendants in the Pirate Bay trial says he will take his appeal bid to the Supreme Court in Sweden. One of the defendants of the Pirate Bay trial, the Swedish tech magnate Carl Lundstrom, has confirmed he will appeal the sentence imposed by a Swedish appeal court, by taking his case to Sweden's Supreme Court. Lundstrom, along with his three co-defendants – Peter Sunde, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, and Fredrik Neij – were found guilty of being accessories to copyright violations by a Swedish court back in April 2009. The copyright test case against The Pirate Bay was brought by the Swedish subsidiaries of leading music and film companies, including Sony BMG, Universal Music, EMI and Warner Brothers."

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

Does Sweden have laws? (0, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638634)

They seem to just make em up as they go along.

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638646)

Yes.

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34638676)

We don't make up laws in court, we implement them.

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638736)

No, no. They only make them up as they go along if people with money wish them to do so or it's in their best interest.

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (3, Insightful)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638850)

You mean, as opposed to your (US/UK) common law system where laws are made up by judges as they go along?

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (4, Interesting)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638970)

They're the same system. Seems like the US makes up their laws as they go along, and the US makes up Sweden's laws as they go along.

Not like I can talk though, as an Australian.

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34639540)

"Not like I can talk though, as an Australian."

To be fair, it's not like the US makes up Australian laws like they appear to make up Swedens.

It's just that they think US law applies to Australians even if they never have nor intend to step foot in the country out of choice.

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639824)

I was thinking more along the lines of enacting law via treaty - e.g. ACTA

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (1)

Derosian (943622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638972)

Laws aren't made in court, in US, they are interpreted. The difference is very subtle and often judges do make laws inadvertently.

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (3, Funny)

zarzu (1581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639068)

So what you're saying is that laws are made up by judges as they go along.

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34639476)

Laws shouldn't HAVE to be interpreted, EVER.
Laws should be laws, straight to the point with very strict boundaries as to what does and does not fall under said law.
This is exactly why almost every law system is utter bullshit, they are as vague as fuck so they can capture as many people possible. Which itself is pretty damn stupid since THEY PAY FOR THE PRISON THEY GO TO. (the government, that is)

So, yes, they are made up as they go along. Almost every law is made up as it goes to court.
Every year, even more weirder and downright stupid boundaries are set to unrelated laws, which is exactly what media companies abuse all the time to end up suing dead people, printers and even people WITHOUT A DAMN COMPUTER.
These media companies, and the lawyers that stupidly represent them (not generic lawyer, i mean people like ACS:Law), should be sued in to the ground, and further still.
It is atrocious that they are allowed to do stuff like this.

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34639646)

This is so incredibly naive, I have to wonder whether you live in a western society, or have even visited this site before. It is utterly impossible to write laws that cover every possible situation, and even if it was, there is no way to predict how things will change in the future. Look at the current state of practically all countries' laws with regards to IT: our law systems aren't designed to cope with rapid social or technological change, and the courts are so terrifically slow that they probably won't ever make gains with the current rate of progress.

At least common law is much better equipped to deal with this than the civil law system, which as Italy has shown, is far, far worse off in modern times exactly because of this lack of pragmatism and demand for "absolute laws". I would have thought that anyone with half a brain on Slashdot would have spotted a trend in the number of gross injustices carried out because the law can't keep up with the times.

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34640148)

Agreed - ideally what we'd have is better education of judges deliberating on specific topics and some system of protecting said judges from outside influence which might... sway their decision. Nevertheless, having a judge interpret law is the only workable system we've found so far for laws of any kind of complexity (and for laws that are not complex judges generally have little room for movement, they're meant to apply the law as it is written where it's clear and only "create" law where there is confusion). It's never reported on sites like this but I have read plenty of cases where shrewd judges have overturned unjust laws through a constructive reading/application of vague wording. Plenty of judges are clued up and actually do believe in an equitable system, it's the few who are either not knowledgable on the subject they're deciding or are open to corruption who spoil the system - if we could address those two situations the system we have would be as close to perfect as we're likely to get (the system for making the laws in the first place is another matter, of course...)

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639834)

If there is no reason to ever interpret a law, we could instantly throw out all judges. Because every trial would already be decided because for every possible incident there would be a law. Our law books would be heaps more heavy, but we'd cover every possible inch of our life with a law.

There are certain cases that are simply clean cut. Most are not. Killing should be punished. In the same way in all cases? Is there no difference between premediated, plotted and planned killing to get someone's money and killing because he insulted you and you pushed him over a cliff, not thinking in that moment that this will kill the person? Is there a difference between stealing because you prefer stealing to working and stealing because you need money NOW to pay for the life saving surgery of your child and nobody wanted to give you any?

Laws exist because we do not want people to do certain things. Judges exist because people still do them, and it should (and, at least in our law, does) matter WHY they did it.

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#34642312)

Where you said 'killing' I suspect you meant 'murder'. Because there are certainly many cases where killing should not be punished.

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (1)

StarsAreAlsoFire (738726) | more than 3 years ago | (#34649746)

Irony. We has it.

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (1)

StarsAreAlsoFire (738726) | more than 3 years ago | (#34649742)

"Laws shouldn't HAVE to be interpreted, EVER."

Either you failed high school civics, or high school civics failed you.

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644348)

You mean, as opposed to your (US/UK) common law system where laws are made up by judges as they go along?

Most US federal case law (judicial decisions) is rather negative on the existence of any US federal common law (judge-made law, as opposed to judicial application of written law to specific facts.)

OTOH, most US jurisdictions accepted the common law as it existed at the time of the formation of that jurisdiction (there are exceptions, particularly in Louisiana, whose legal system derives from the French civil law system rather than the British common law system), though even the common law jurisdictions have generally shrunk the domain of the common law greatly by superceding it by written constitutions and/or statute law.

The bigger difference, I think, is between the US on the one hand with its Constitution which is binding on the government and applied by the courts, vs. systems like the UK and, I think, Sweden which feature parliamentary soveriegnty; in the US system, an act of Congress may be "struck down" by the Courts because it conflicts with the Constitution, whereas in a system featuring parliamentary soveriegnty this is not the case, the defense of the fundamental order of government and liberty rests in the election of a national legislature that will not
violate that order.

Re:Does Sweden have laws? (1)

Grumbleduke (789126) | more than 3 years ago | (#34648826)

I quite like the UK common law system; if a judge makes a stupid ruling it can be corrected by a senior judge and the junior judge ends up looking silly. If some "made up law" makes it all the way past the High Court, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court and both European Courts it can't be all *that* bad. Plus, via lawyers if needed (as expensive and useless as they can be), the individual citizen can directly influence the judicial process.

If a politician makes a stupid law, it ends up stuck on the statute books until another politician can be bothered to remove it. And the law has to be really, really stupid for it to bring down governments/politicians; most people don't know what the law is anyway so don't care if a stupid one is passed (and even if some do, they are rarely localised enough to influence elections - kept a safe distance of 4-5 years apart to help us all forget).

I much prefer a system whereby politicians decide on the general policy and put in place a wide range of non-specific laws, leaving the judiciary to fill in the gaps and apply it - after all, parliamentary draftspeople can't cover ever situation when they write the laws, but the judge should have the specific details before them. Sadly politicians hate anything that might take some or all of their power away so seem intent on limiting the ability of judges to actually make decisions and instead leave them to just applying their increasingly convoluted laws and guidelines.

Aim for Sweden's Supreme Court? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34638666)

The headline made me feel quite elated for a short duration until I read the summary. You see, in some parts of the world, this head line means running for Supreme Court, in an election or getting appointed and becoming one of the Justices.

Don't just fight it, become one with it.

Re:Aim for Sweden's Supreme Court? (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639230)

Well , i hope they win.

Jump, Sweden! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34638670)

How high?

Re:Jump, Sweden! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639840)

Who said you may ask? Do as you're told! If it's not to our liking, we'll tell you.

Supression is futile (3, Insightful)

EmperorOuk (870377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638692)

Despite the fact that a Swedish court ordered an ISP to shut down service to The Pirate Bay in August last year, the website continues to function. The website is now apparently registered in the Seychelles.

It should be pointed out that Pirate Bay does not host copyrighted material itself, but instead links to a number of torrents elsewhere on the Internet.

These two paragraphs alone highlight the futility of the recording industry's crusade against piracy. I bet it's lawyers who love to hate piracy more than anybody else.

Re:Supression is futile (4, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638716)

I bet it's lawyers who love to hate piracy more than anybody else.

Lawyers love anybody who has a crusade and deep pockets. They're the only winners in any legal dispute.

Re:Supression is futile (1)

ShadowFalls (991965) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638858)

I know. To relate to another crime such as murder. If a person instructs someone to more easily and effectively use a firearm, does that person then become an accessory to murder because they helped the person to better use it? What about Google? Are they an accessory to murder if someone uses Google maps to find directions to the person who they intend to kill?

Never thought it was a crime to give someone directions... Next time someone asks me for directions, I will just have to tell them I cannot help them for risk of incarceration.

Re:Supression is futile (0)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639094)

I know. My firearms company "Assasin training incorporated" got all sorts of legal trouble. Maybe I shouldn't have mocked the police explaining how what I was doing was totally legal even though 90% of my clients then went on to commit murder. Likewise, Google's new "Murder Victim Finder" service is doing nothing wrng. It's purely coincidental that 90% of its users use it to find murder victims.

Re:Supression is futile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34639400)

I know. My firearms company "Assasin training incorporated" got all sorts of legal trouble. Maybe I shouldn't have mocked the police explaining how what I was doing was totally legal even though 90% of my clients then went on to commit murder. Likewise, Google's new "Murder Victim Finder" service is doing nothing wrng. It's purely coincidental that 90% of its users use it to find murder victims.

Which is entirely understandable, given that you are clearly unable to understand the difference between "civil" and "criminal", your country and someone else's country, and, stupidity and intelligence

Re:Supression is futile (4, Informative)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639214)

Actually, helping a murderer can make you an accessory to the crime if you know what his intent is (over here, at least. Not sure what the laws are like in other countries). If someone asks you "I bought this firearm, can you train me in using it safely?", and then goes off to shoot someone after you trained him, you can hardly be blamed. But what if someone drops by and states: "Those kids in the park have disturbed my rest for the last time! Can you explain how this shotgun works, and then help me saw off half the barrel?".

The latter case would be hard to sufficiently prove beyond doubt, if they'd charge you in court. In case of the Pirate Bay however, it should be abundantly clear to the owners that their tracker is used for sharing copyrighted materials, and little else. There's probably several laws they could be charged under. Aiding and abetting, membership of a criminal organisation, etc... Again, not sure what the laws are like in Sweden, but many countries have laws against this sort of thing. With penalties resulting in a cease and desist against the site at the least, fines, damages and perhaps even jail time.

Re:Supression is futile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34639698)

That's a poor analogy. The pirate bay owners would be more akin of an observer from a thousand km looking through a binoculars towards a bunch of people tell each other how they would commit (insert random crime) while standing on a property owned by the pirate bay. They neither witnessed the act, nor they could filter all the information that passes by themselves, nor they could easily determine weather each torrent contains illegal copies of copyrighted content.

Not that I'm saying they are innocent bystanders who were abused by the evil pirates, but anon's suspicions have no weight in court.

Re:Supression is futile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34639952)

Let's skip analogies. They're just getting confusing at this point.

Clearly, TPB have no obligation to proactively filter. I agree there. Personally, if I file is called tron_legacy_avi.torrent or whatever it is most likely a pirate copy of the Disney movie, but I'll accept that it's possible that it could be anything.

Still, when someone makes a complaint, they could have removed it from their index. They could have politely explained that they will only remove anything with a court order, explaining they are unable to determine the copyright status and would consider it censorship should they be mistaken. When it became clear that their service had such a huge piracy problem, they could have closed the entire thing down. They weren't completely powerless, and they weren't completely ignorant.

Was there still plausible deniability? were the possible actions they might have taken completely impractical? Well, the court didn't think so. I'd agree in this case but you might change my mind there. What I am absolutely certain about is that TPB are not the innocent victims people are portraying them as.

Re:Supression is futile (4, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34640258)

I don't think they're acting out of some kind of ignorance of how their service is being used - quite the opposite, I think this is people with an agenda (to bring down copyright) providing a service that is aimed at advancing that agenda. I might not agree with their approach but I'm not averse to the thinking behind it. Having said all of that, I think it's pretty clear that they've not committed any crime and that the law is being twisted by those with their own agenda to try and make them criminals. What they offered was realistically little different to what Google or Bing or Yahoo already do, albeit with a target user base with a more specific interest. I have zero issue with private individuals acting within the law to undermine what many people see as an unjust set of rules, I'm a little more wary of big corporations acting in collusion with government to twist laws to take said individuals down (it wouldn't even be so bad if they outright enacted laws to make their actions illegal, at least then we could hold them to account and ask why Google and MS have had a free pass, but this whole thing stinks of corruption at the highest level).

Re:Supression is futile (3, Interesting)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 3 years ago | (#34642950)

You can be sure TPB knows it is helping people copy information regardless of legalities.

"Bring down copyright" may have become the agenda, but I'm sure it didn't start out like that. This was just people being friendly by freely sharing information with any and all. It wasn't a problem until the copyright trolls started getting ugly over the loss of their artificial monopolies, and started extending the definition of piracy to treat any minor with a computer the same as a big time manufacturer of counterfeit goods. It is the copyright extremists themselves who have done more than anyone to help us all see how bad an idea copyright law is.

And would it be so bad if copyright was destroyed? What ever will we do without copyright? No more big budget movies, new books made better thanks to excellent editing, professionally produced and polished songs, or so the industry would have us believe. However, we really do not have a choice. I can't see any way to keep copyright viable in its current form. The day isn't far off when the entire Library of Congress will fit on a thumbnail sized memory chip, and in mere seconds can be copied in its entirety, and transmitted anywhere in the world. And most of all, without needing any agency that could monitor the event for any reason, including purposes of collecting a levy or tax. Maybe a network can be watched, though encryption and chaff throw doubt on the ability to make anything of the traffic. But how do you regulate two people who want to swap memory chips? It's like regulating sex between consenting adults. Can't be enforced.

Re:Supression is futile (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644070)

Having said all of that, I think it's pretty clear that they've not committed any crime and that the law is being twisted by those with their own agenda to try and make them criminals. What they offered was realistically little different to what Google or Bing or Yahoo already do, albeit with a target user base with a more specific interest. I have zero issue with private individuals acting within the law to undermine what many people see as an unjust set of rules

That's pretty much the difference between the USPS and a drug mule, one operates a general transport company and the other specializes in transporting drugs. If you want it applied to copyright I suggest you read the US Sumpreme Court ruling against Grokster, where they in a 9-0 verdict found targeting lawbreakers as a market gives you secondary liability for their actions.

Re:Supression is futile (1)

defaria (741527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34640056)

It's not abundantly clear at all. In the example you gave people were talking to you. In the Pirate Bay case nobody's talking to anybody. The HTTP request doesn't come in saying "Ya know I'll like to find some pirated illegal copyrighted stuff - you got any?". People could be using Pirate Bay to find and share legitimately uncopyrighted or open stuff. From Pirate Bay's perspective they just don't know for sure. And it's at least once removed too. A better analogy would be if say a steel maker was fulfilling and order for raw steel to be used by some manufacturing firm being held liable because that steel was used for guns and given to the Taliban. From the steel makers perspective he's just making steel and selling it. He does not know if that steel will be used for good or bad.

And while the US and other countries may have laws forbidding such things Sweden decidedly does not. That's why the Pirate Bay exists and that's why it's there. It's a sad day when countries like the US force their will and desires on other countries and the other country just bends. It's not like Sweden's waking up and saying "Ya know this law should be changed" it's the RIAA and the likes pressuring the US government who in turn is pressuring Sweden to bow down and do what the US RIAA wants them to do.

Re:Supression is futile (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34640296)

The saddest part is that this pressure often goes directly against the will of the people, whose interests government should be protecting, certainly over and above those of foreign governments and companies. Largely people see downloading and sharing as a non-issue, a handful will refuse to pay for anything, but for most people they're happy to download an album and buy a bunch more, and maybe that means the record companies can't squeeze every last penny out of society, but they're hardly cash starved either. If a status quo exists in which people are pretty happy and companies still make money, why the hell do we need governments interfering at all?

Re:Supression is futile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34640766)

Largely people support getting free food and clothing, therefore we should remove all shoplifting laws. Largely people see racial discrimination as a non-issue, therefore we should eliminate all anti-discrimination laws. Largely people see some gay guy getting the shit beat out of him as a non-issue, therefore assault should be legalized. Largely people see killing of a gang-banger as a non-issue, therefore it should not be a crime.

Re:Supression is futile (1)

tycoex (1832784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34641786)

I'd say that, largely, you're wrong. Most people aren't okay with all those things you listed.

Re:Supression is futile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34642214)

I didn't say they were OK with them, I said they were non-issues to most people, which is exactly what the GP said about filesharing. I think if you were to survey 1 million random people about what they think are important issues (to them), you will find that retailers (and not many others) are concerned about shoplifting. People in a discriminated against group will be concerned about discrimination, others will not. Gays will be concerned about violence against gays, others will not. Which is far different from people actively supporting shoplifting, discrimination, violence, etc. The GP was the one drawing the false conclusion that because people don't particularly care about a specific issue, the issue does not exist, and therefore we don't need laws addressing it.

Re:Supression is futile (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643216)

My biggest issue is that they go after four people who haven't (at least in this case) breached copyright and sue them for hundred+ of millions of SEK instead of the tens of million of people who actually do. Just because it's more convenient to go after these guys than more or less everyone.

Though they will go after, spy on and limit the freedom of everyone else to. Because that's the brand new world!

Re:Supression is futile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34641846)

Explain why/if Google / Yahoo / Bing should be allowed to do what they do? In particular media searches also point you at almost only locations where people share copyrighted content without license. Isn't that exactly the same thing as TPB does?

Re:Supression is futile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34642188)

Most search engines will make at least a token effort to remove links to copyrighted material, and only have a really quite small number of links to infringing content. The Pirate Bay gave a very strong indication that the entire purpose of the organisation was to facilitate distribution of infringing material. In fact, I find it hard to see any way someone may come to the conclusion that this was not the purpose.

Whether this does amount to a crime is another question, and whether it should is yet another matter which is certainly up for debate. I do think that suggesting TPB is just a search engine is deceptively oversimplifying.

Good for him (0)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638706)

Good for him, looking for Justice in a Swedish court. Let me know how that works out.

Sweden is a lie. They claim to have one of the most advanced legal codes in the world, but every law I read from there is completely ambiguous. This is going beyond the sex laws, just about anything can be a crime there.

Re:Good for him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34639232)

Ambiguity suggests he has a chance. Under our laws, whoever has the deepest pockets would win.

Re:Good for him (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639852)

They claim to have one of the most advanced legal codes in the world ... just about anything can be a crime there.

Yes? So what's wrong about this statement? Have you been off the planet in the past decade? I bet the US would love to have such 'advanced' laws.

Re:Good for him (1)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34656262)

While I understand the word advanced can be interpreted many ways, it's hard for me to reconcile what I know about the laws there with my concepts of individual responsibility.

The more things that are illegal, the less free someone is. The less well defined a set of laws is, the more things can potentially be illegal. Thus, in a very roundabout way, the more ambiguous the law is, the less free you are.

Now, if your idea of an advanced set of laws is that more activities are classified as illegal, Sweden definitely has that, along with everything else that comes with it.

Corporate media can die. Human rights must live. (5, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638732)

The world will go on without not-for-profit average joes buying every movie that shows up. Corporate media is not important to the human race as a whole.

If hearing a song without the proper license to do so gives a corporation the right to take someone's liberty and pursuit of happiness, this is a crappy set of laws to live under.

Re:Corporate media can die. Human rights must live (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34638764)

Posting to cancel accidental downmod.

Re:Corporate media can die. Human rights must live (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34639010)

Amen, Sir, Amen.

- Altho, the question should really be, must one *really* need a license to hear a song at all? - Nevermind the draconian penalties for such.

"Dont it always seem to go..
That you dont know what youve got, till its gone..
They paved Paradise, put up a pay-park lot."

(Above somewhat copyright Joni Mitchell - who probably doesn`t mind its usage here, really)

Re:Corporate media can die. Human rights must live (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34639264)

I also like this part of the song ( AC for obvious copyright related reasons ) :

"They took all the trees, and put em in a tree museum
And they charged the people a dollar and a half to see them "

Who do you think you are fooling? (2)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639632)

The world will go on without not-for-profit average joes buying every movie that shows up. Corporate media is not important to the human race as a whole.

It seems to be mighty important to the pirate.

Because that is where he is spending his time - if not his money.

The corporation does not exist independent of its investors, employeees or its customers. Their pusuit of liberty and happiness.

The geek fan fick in 2011 will most likely be based on the 45 year old Star Trek: TOS It seems to take a Pixar to produce something as good - as original - as The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Wall-E.

Re:Corporate media can die. Human rights must live (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34640220)

Well, neither free P2P piracy or Hollywood is necessary in any way for the human race to survive. Its just mindless entertainment.

The main difference is that Hollywood occasionally actually produces something that I enjoy, while the Pirate Bay is just a distribution system that isnt viable as a means of financing production of any even somewhat ambitious project and is entirely parasitic of Hollywood et al.

Also, defining the right not to pay for entertainment as a core "human right" just makes a mockery of the entire concept.

Re:Corporate media can die. Human rights must live (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#34646264)

Also, defining the right not to pay for entertainment as a core "human right" just makes a mockery of the entire concept.

I'm not saying that downloading for free is a human right. I'm just saying that people shouldn't have their human rights deprived if they didn't obtain a proper license for a movie.

Re:Corporate media can die. Human rights must live (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34640548)

I'd go further and declare that copyright is a crime against humanity.

A war against culture is in the long run more harmful than a war against lives.

Re:Corporate media can die. Human rights must live (1)

alexo (9335) | more than 3 years ago | (#34645416)

I'd go further and declare that copyright is a crime against humanity.
A war against culture is in the long run more harmful than a war against lives.

It is not a war against culture but rather a war for the control of it.

Re:Corporate media can die. Human rights must live (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34646470)

fuck me, well done.
thats the most ignorant childish bollocks I've ever read.
Grow up you dumb fucking hippy.

Copyright Infringement (-1, Flamebait)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638748)

I just smashed out my local corner store's windows and robbed them blind. I'm such a naughty little copyright infringer...

Re:Copyright Infringement (-1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638800)

Well, that was cheeky of you, Johnson!

Re:Copyright Infringement (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34638968)

Theft is not copyright inringement! Wait... What!?

Re:Copyright Infringement (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#34642378)

It is if you wear the hat, the eye patch, and carry a parrot while you do it.

are we all accessories? (1)

Nineteen-Delta (1892866) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638796)

If we read the story on /. then follow a link to the article, and floow a link to Pirate Bay then are we are all "accessories to copyright infringement?"

Re:are we all accessories? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638848)

If we read the story on /. then follow a link to the article, and follow a link to Pirate Bay [thepiratebay.org] then are we are all "accessories to copyright infringement?"

FTFY: no need to RTFA.. a lot easier now to act as accessories to copyright infringement, along with /.

Re:are we all accessories? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639082)

Are you doing so with deliberate intent to infringe copyright?

One action can be legal, another near identical one can be illegal, depending on intent. Intent is important. For example, if I buy stolen property, it depends on whether I know it's stolen property as to whether I've committed a crime.

Re:are we all accessories? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34639720)

How far removed should the links be. In this instance there is quite a level of regression from reading an forum post on /. to the article in question, to the Pirate bay site to the torrents in question. IS one an accessory for knowing the sequence but not following it to the very end?

Re:are we all accessories? (1)

defaria (741527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34640096)

I haven't seen any intent by the Pirate Bay guys to infringe on any copyright, do you? Show your work.

Re:are we all accessories? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34640144)

They call themselves The "Pirate" Bay. Pirate is a commonly used term to refer to copyright infringement.

Their service is used disproportionately for infringing activities.

When copyright holders requested they remove the links, rather than giving reasons, they simply refused and mocked the complainants.

I just find it hard to follow the logic of people who suggest that TPB were innocent victims here. They knew what they were doing and did so quite deliberately. If you think they didn't then I have a bridge to sell you.

Re:are we all accessories? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34640256)

They're hardly going to call themselves "The ninja bay".

Re:are we all accessories? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34640468)

In theory, they could at least have been responsive to complaints that put them on notice of violations of copyright law *in sweden*.

Given the common usage of a torrent, to facilitate the sharing of files, it can be easily established that TPB was aiding and abetting the sharing of anything whose torrents they were hosting. If that content was infringing, and TPB knew it under swedish law, then they have no defense.

"You're US, we're swedish, STFU" is no excuse if you are still violating swedish copyright laws in the process. Such legal notices, while being possibly frivolous in the US, may nevertheless have imputed mens rea in any cases actionable under swedish law.

In practice, the long arm of the almighty dollar will snuff out any semblance of justice long before issues like the above are even raised.

In particular, the blatant bias and conflict of interest in the justice system of Sweden is alarming.

TPB was convicted before the indictments were even taken off the printer.

Swedish Subsidiaries? (1)

markass530 (870112) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638810)

Or just Some Dude in an office so they can attempt to take down TPB. I Swear it's almost like The **AA's seem to have little dick syndrome with all their actions.

Re:Swedish Subsidiaries? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639878)

Doubt it. Personally, I think there's hardly any bigger dicks in the world.

Makes one wish (3, Insightful)

lostmongoose (1094523) | more than 3 years ago | (#34638906)

for the days when Sony was cool with personal copying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax_case [wikipedia.org]

Re:Makes one wish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34639648)

They are still OK with personal copying when they are getting money from it. They are just not happy with personal copying where they aren't getting money.

Re:Makes one wish (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644292)

Corporations are on whatever side their profits are. If they're selling land mines, they're opposed to a ban on land mines. If they're doing something that makes them appear to have a moral compass, it's just for the PR and involves making the greatest possible boast for the least possible cost. Actual results are irrelevant except as to use in further PR. Their money has changed side, so they changed side. Wave dollar bills if you want them back.

Accessory? (3, Interesting)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639130)

From the link in TFA: “The Stockholm district court has today found guilty the four individuals that were charged with accessory to breaching copyright laws,” said the statement from the Stockholm district Court.

Either Sweden has very weird laws or very bad translators. There was no mention of any conviction of breaching copyright laws. How can anyone be an accessory to a "crime" for which no one was convicted?

Re:Accessory? (2)

the_one(2) (1117139) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639290)

That was what their attorneys said as well. Didn't help them. The whole trial was very weird.

Re:Accessory? (4, Informative)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639542)

No the really wierd part was that he was convicted for accessery to accessery to copyright infringement.

Note that noone was convicted for copyright infringement. The others was convicted for accessory for copyright infringement and he was convicted for helping them.

Most think that the swedish supreme court will hear this case.

Re:Accessory? (3, Interesting)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34640504)

The weird part was how both the presiding judge and a key member of the judicial conduct committee had BLATANT conflicts of interest and failed to recuse themselves.

Re:Accessory? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644986)

Note that noone was convicted for copyright infringement.

Why doesn't wikipedia mention this? [wikipedia.org]

Re:Accessory? (1)

LuxMaker (996734) | more than 3 years ago | (#34642574)

How can anyone be an accessory to a "crime" for which no one was convicted?

It is called the Stockholm syndrome and it was invented in Sweden.

Re:Accessory? (1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 3 years ago | (#34642960)

Just because you don't catch and convict the actual person that committed a crime doesn't mean you can't catch and convict those who helped that person commit that crime.

And no matter how you spin this, those people did actually facilitate the commission of a crime by telling anyone who wanted to know where they could find and obtain content that in the eyes of the law it was illegal for them to obtain and possess because it was not obtained from the owner or their authorized agent.

I really don't see anything for the supreme court to strike down.

Re:Accessory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34644256)

Just because it looks like a crime happened, doesn't mean one actually did. That's why accessory to a crime requires first there to have been proven (in a court) that a crime occurred. That is usually done by getting a conviction of the criminal. If the person accused of the crime is found innocent, there is no accessory. That's what makes this so odd. Without convicting SOMEONE of a crime via using the PirateBay, who were they an accessory to?

Re:Accessory? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34644502)

Nonsense. Conviction of a criminal is absolutely not required to show neither that a crime has occurred, nor that there was an accessory to the crime. A dead body with a cut throat is found on the street. Examination of a traffic camera shows a car drive up, a masked person jumping out of the passenger seat, the passenger slitting the man's throat, jumping back in the car, and the car driving away. The license plate is traced to you, and your face matches the face of the driver in the picture. Do you really think you are not going to be charged as an accessory to murder just because they don't know who the masked person was? It is plainly obvious that a crime has occurred, and you had a part in it.

All they need to do to show a crime occurred in this case is to ask some copyright holder (in court) if they authorized any distribution of their work by a torrent, then use TPB to locate and download a torrent, and presto! copyright infringement has occurred. The don't know WHO committed the crime, but they sure as hell know there WAS a crime, and TPB had a part in it.

Re:Accessory? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34646482)

I'm afraid you're the one spewing nonsense. Something happened that you think looks like a crime, and certain people with deep pockets feel was a crime. But nobody knows for sure who did it, or where the action happened, and if it indeed were illegal where it happened. That's why you *need* someone convicted for a crime before you can get someone for helping out with it. Unless you happen to be on the right side in the Swedish political judicial system, because then you need fuck all, you won't even need evidence - unless you call screen shots from your own computer evidence. Be the right person, in the right position with the right friends, and you'll win by default, unless the defence manages to dig up some really good evidence proving that the prosecution is full of shit. Sometimes even that won't help. That's part of why we get dragged into the European court of justice every now and then.

Re:Accessory? (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34644386)

There was no mention of any conviction of breaching copyright laws. How can anyone be an accessory to a "crime" for which no one was convicted?

Even in the US -- both under federal criminal law and under the criminal laws of most states -- it is quite possible to establish the facts necessary to convict someone as an accessory to a crime independently of whether or not anyone has been convicted as a principal of the crime.

Otherwise, e.g., the death of the principals in a crime -- which would preclude their prosecution -- would also let all accessories off the hook.

bollecks to money junkies! (1)

wasabu (1502975) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639224)

Secrecy and individual monopoly are out, openness and communal glory are in!

Swedish..... what happened? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34639256)

At one time they were a ferocious tribe warriors that took sh!t from no one, who invaded and terrorised Britain, France and much of the rest of Europe.

Lately however they have become pussies... they were Hitler's bitch, and then England's bitch, and now they are USA's bitch.

So I ask you, O' sons and daughters of Vikings... what happened?

Re:Swedish..... what happened? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639408)

All the fighters took longboats over to Scotland (where they remain feisty to this day).

Re:Swedish..... what happened? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34639850)

So I ask you, O' sons and daughters of Vikings... what happened?

We decided that nothing good can come out of war, ever.

Re:Swedish..... what happened? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34639888)

I have a theory that goes along with central heating. Once you don't freeze anymore and all the pussies die off 'til only the hard badasses remain, they take over.

Re:Swedish..... what happened? (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#34640182)

Either that, or the Swedish were made of silicon and their brains stopped superconducting as they heated their houses.

Re:Swedish..... what happened? (1)

Iskender (1040286) | more than 3 years ago | (#34640316)

You reminded me of Rudy Rucker's crazy Ware tetralogy...don't know if that was an actual reference to it.

Oww, my brain hurts.

Re:Swedish..... what happened? (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34640878)

It was a direct reference to Terry Pratchett's trolls.

Re:Swedish..... what happened? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34647370)

Please feed Terry's Trolls.

Re:Swedish..... what happened? (1)

Sabathius (566108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34643604)

Actually, I think Errol backfiring was referencing the Trolls in Terry Pratchett's Discworld...

If so, kudos, sir.

And. (1)

stonecypher (118140) | more than 3 years ago | (#34640108)

And when the Swedish supreme court upholds his conviction, suddenly he'll claim they have no jurisdiction.

He's only interested in the courts while he thinks that he can win. As soon as he wakes up to that the law is not written by blog posts about how he imagines copyright ought to work, he'll go back to insisting that the courts are worthless.

The problem with warezers is that their belief systems shift to change their desires.

Re:And. (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#34642478)

The problem with warezers is that their belief systems shift to change their desires.

Isn't that much better than most people, like Christians, whose belief systems don't shift even in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence?

The wave'sa comin' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34641050)

As much as I'd like to see the Pirate Bay guy win in the end, I'm putting on my raincoat and boarding up the windows for the inevitable tidal wave of smug coming out of the Swedish slashdot posters

Carl Lundström, not Carl Lundstrom (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34646910)

C-a-r-l L-u-n-d-s-t-r-&-o-u-m-l-;-m

Vat vod jo fink if svids ståppt ljusing inglish spälling in inglish.
[What would you think if Swedes stopped using English spelling in English.]

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?