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!

Swedish Supreme Court Refuses Appeal In Pirate Bay Case

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the end-of-the-line dept.

Piracy 175

concertina226 writes with sad news for Swedish pirates. Quoting the article: "The Swedish Supreme Court will not hear an appeal from the founders of The Pirate Bay against prison sentences and fines imposed by the Swedish Court of Appeals, the court said on Wednesday. Over a year ago, the Court of Appeals sentenced Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde, and Carl Lundström to 10 months, eight months, and four months of jail time, respectively. The court also said they must collectively pay a 46 million kronor (£4.3 million) fine." The Pirate Bay has issued a response: "With this said, we hear news from our old admins that they have received a verdict in Sweden. Our 3 friends and blood brothers have been sentenced to prison. This might sound worse than it is. Since no one of them no longer lives in Sweden, they won't go to jail. They are as free today as they were yesterday."
Update: 02/01 15:15 GMT by U L :Reader think_nix helpfully copied the Pirate Bay response in a comment for those who cannot access the site.

cancel ×

175 comments

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

Hilarious, in a sad way. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38890559)

Remember every time copyright industries thought they had finally shut down The Pirate Bay? Yeah, just popped up again. Them not serving time because they aren't in Sweden? Not a perfect analogy but close enough for me!

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way. (2)

indre1 (1422435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38890613)

So now every small copyright infringement will lead to detainment until the decision has been reached as pirates are "highly more likely to flee the country"? Or at least the record labels would like to see it that way...

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38890887)

Sweden. No longer free, now an entirely owned and operated subsidiary of the USA and their MafiAA overlords.

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way. (4, Informative)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891585)

You: Overreacting greatly.

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way. (2, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891717)

No longer free, now an entirely owned and operated subsidiary of the USA and their MafiAA overlords.

Besides being a little bit over the top, it's also fundamentally incorrect.

The USA and Sweden are owned by the same conglomerate. "Crime family" is such a nasty phrase, don't you think?

La Cosa Nostra is kicking themselves for not thinking of the term "job creators" to describe themselves.

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way. (4, Insightful)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891279)

*shrugs*

They could just do something similar to what the movie industry pulled a long time ago (in order to nerf Edison's patents): move someplace where their actions are not illegal. Let's be honest, whichever country ends up with that many pirates (programmers, etc.) is going to bank. And not just a little, as these people tend to be some of the more skilled in the industry (they will make it rain). Fortunately, the vast majority of countries are not joining in (just yet) on this global witch-hunt, so such measures are (for now) unnecessary. However, if and when it should happen, I project that the countries involved in said persecutions will experience a brain drain that will set them back only a century or so.

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way. (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891587)

The world is too connected for that. Any country that tried would instantly become the distribution hub for the rest of the world, which would bring the collective wrath of copyright pundits in all other countries down on you. Reminds me of that East European politician that wanted to lower the age to star in porn to match the age of consent, he got a massive international shitstorm. Now why would all these countries give a shit about what a fart of a country a continent away does? Because if it's legal to watch two 17yos fuck there, you can bet those movies would go all over the world via the Internet. That's why after the DMCA they pushed the EUCD and continues to push anti-circumvention laws everywhere they can, it does them no good if they're only illegal in the US if they're ripped abroad and already unencumbered when they're downloaded in the US. Same with YouTube when they refuse to comply with anything but US law, unless you want to go Chinese on them you just have to realize that your citizens will go there and see whatever it is you don't want them to see. It's a nice idea but the time when your country could do it your way and my country could do it my way and they actually stayed independent is long past. It has its good sides but it also makes it almost impossible to be the one country that radically cuts copyright.

Re:Hilarious, in a sad way. (5, Insightful)

MadTinfoilHatter (940931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891655)

They could just do something similar to what the movie industry pulled a long time ago (in order to nerf Edison's patents): move someplace where their actions are not illegal.

They did. They performed all their actions in Sweden where their actions were not illegal. This is also why there for a long time were no action taken against TPB, despite the site being far from unknown to the prosecutors of that country. Then after a few years the MAFIAA started pressing for US politicians to do something about this. They in turn put pressure on Swedish politicians (behind the scenes, since in Swden it's illegal for the politicians to tell the prosecutors what to do). Suddenly their servers are confiscated and they're put into a courtroom before a judge who conveniently happens to have close ties to the Swedish MAFIAA-equivalent...

Or not? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38890563)

How are you as free today as yesterday if you can't enter a country or it's allies?

Staying out of Sweden maybe simple but that doesn't mean someone won't take you to Sweden.

Re:Or not? (2)

HapSlappy_2222 (1089149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891943)

I saw Batman do that once. Shit just got real.

Re:Or not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891997)

Batman took someone to sweden? O.o

That wont stop an arrest warrent going out... (2)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38890579)

Caught in the web that is drawing other threats to the status quo into the Swedish "justice" system [theiet.org] .

Re:That wont stop an arrest warrent going out... (3, Informative)

Yaotzin (827566) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891807)

Swede here. It's a matter of perspective I guess. The chaplain's largest complaint seems to be isolation, which is pretty bad. On the other side, the cells are pretty comfortable, looking almost like a small hotel room. You get your own bed, tv, desk. Computers are allowed and in some cases video games. Also, prison rape is virtually unheard of.

Not living in Sweden (5, Informative)

bernywork (57298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38890609)

Pretty shit not being able to go home though.

I guess they could probably go in and out fine (EU passport will mean that unless they are on a watch list in the country they are going to they probably won't get caught) but if they get stopped by Police when there and checked then they will have to serve their time.

Re:Not living in Sweden (3, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38890701)

What's even worse is that there aren't many places they can go where they can ever be safe. U.S./Hollywood power pretty much owns every government and legal system in the world. There are only a few countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, etc. that would stand up to that power, and they all have issues of their own.

Re:Not living in Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38890831)

U.S./Hollywood power pretty much owns every government and legal system in the world

Yeah, in your dreams.

Re:Not living in Sweden (4, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38890981)

More like nightmares. And if you think that power isn't real, just ask the guys from Megaupload--or Julian Assange, or Gary McKinnon.

Re:Not living in Sweden (2)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891359)

Yes, and your point is? The technology industry is why the entertainment industry is even as strong as it is today.

Take away their cameras, their lighting, their ability to reproduce their films a thousand times with very little if no degradation, and the maximum audience size for a performance is at most around a thousand (as many as you can pack in a large theater for a single night). If the MPAA is so desperate to put their collective heads in front of that cannon, by all means, let them -> we can make pretend that technology doesn't work for a week, and see how much money they hemorrhage. No TV broadcasts, no radio, no internet, no electric lighting...

 

Re:Not living in Sweden (3, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891705)

I think his point was in the "every country" bit.

Those who have been extradited have made the mistake of going to nations that are either loyal to the US, or puppets of the US. The only Western nation where you might get away with it is Switzerland - it worked for Polanski just about, despite massive US pressure.

It's unlikely the US would get a succesful extradition from a few of the South American nations, Russia, or perhaps even China or India, and frankly if you have money, which it's likely the TPB guys do, then you can still live a pretty damn nice life in these places.

The key is to avoid North America, European nations, Commonwealth nations, and states that defend on US money and weapons for defence like Saudi Arabia and South Korea. As I say - that still leaves much of South America, some of Africa, and some of the biggest nations and ex-soviet states, where again, with a bit of Western money you can still live at least as comfortably as you would in the West.

Re:Not living in Sweden (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38890953)

Waaah wahhh wahhh. A bunch of nerds with aspergers for years thought they could get away with flagrant violation of international copyright laws. Instead, they got smacked down hard and are now whining like little bitches about it. It's fucking hilarious.

Re:Not living in Sweden (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891081)

Agreed. I have nothing against the legitimate Aspergers crowd but you geeks who self-diagnose and use it as a crutch for why you don't have a life make me sick. Worse yet are those who wear the disorder like a badge of pride.

Re:Not living in Sweden (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891331)

I wasn't aware of any international copyright laws...

Re:Not living in Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891611)

Berne Convention of which Sweden is a signatory. It has the force of law amongst the signatories. Nice try aspergers boy.

Re:Not living in Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891805)

?!?! They were an operation based in sweden and thus under SWEDISH LAWS not international... That international companies and officials blackmailed Sweden into judging them is something completely different.

Re:Not living in Sweden (0)

nashv (1479253) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891019)

You don't have to go that far. Countries like India, China, Russia cover a very large area of the world , and these three have a history of not putting up with U.S.- , well B.S.

It is unlikely, for example that Sweden , the EU, or the US would be able to make India extradite them even if they were caught - and India is a big country to get lost in.

Re:Not living in Sweden (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891113)

india?? they're the US's bitch, too!

you gotta be kidding me. corruption in india makes the rest of the world look tame.

no safety there!

Re:Not living in Sweden (1, Informative)

nashv (1479253) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891239)

Your knowledge of India-US geopolitics, is tentative at best. As an example from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93United_States_relations [wikipedia.org] ,

"According to some analysts, India-U.S. relations have strained over Obama administration's approach in handling the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and Pakistan.[15][16] India's National Security Adviser, M.K. Narayanan, criticized the Obama administration for linking the Kashmir dispute to the instability in Pakistan and Afghanistan and said that by doing so, President Obama was "barking up the wrong tree".[17] The Foreign Policy too criticized Obama's approach towards South Asia saying that "India can be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem" in South Asia and suggested India to take a more proactive role in rebuilding Afghanistan irrespective of the attitude of the Obama administration.[18] In a clear indication of growing rift between India and the U.S., the former decided not to accept a U.S. invitation to attend a conference on Afghanistan.[19] Bloomberg reported that since 2008 Mumbai attacks, the public mood in India has been to pressure Pakistan more aggressively to take actions against the culprits behind the terrorist attack and this might reflect on the upcoming general elections in May 2009. Consequently, the Obama administration may find itself at odds with India's rigid stance against terrorism.[20]

Robert Blake, assistant secretary of United States' Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, dismissed any concerns over a rift with India regarding United States' AfPak policy. Calling India and the United States "natural allies",[6] Blake said that the United States cannot afford to meet the strategic priorities in Pakistan and Afghanistan at "the expense of India".[21]"

So who exactly wants to be friends here? And yes, there is corruption. Yes, there are safety issues. But these exist mainly for lower income groups in India. I am not saying this is an acceptable, but the fact is that the upper-middle and upper classes in India is doing fantastically well, enjoying a standard of living in some ways higher than that in the Western world. And ex-pirate bay admins, in all likelihood , easily fit in the upper middle class (at least) in India.

Re:Not living in Sweden (3, Interesting)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891381)

india?? they're the US's bitch, too!

No, they are not. Here is some evidence to counter your claims: The US's biggest ally in the region is Pakistan, who, coincidentally, is India's arch rival, and has been since the Partition in 1948(or was it 47, can't really remember); India either develops it's own weapon systems or purchases them from Russia, who happen to be the US's biggest rival in the geo-political and arms trade spheres; India went against the Non-proliferation Treaty and has nuclear weapons. Just because India doesn't openly antagonize the US like Iran, China, NK, or even Pakistan do, or that many US companies have call centers there does not mean that they are the US's "bitch".

Re:Not living in Sweden (1)

dargaud (518470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891857)

Indeed, India is currently running a big media circus of purchasing over a 130 Rafale fighter planes from France, where all the politicians today are running around like maniacs creaming their pants in delight. It's probably just an way to tell Russia or the US to provide similar planes at a 30% discount. As usual.

Re:Not living in Sweden (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38890711)

Does it actually work like that? For me, being convicted of a crime resulting in jail time, would warrant being on a watch list. Isn't passport numbers verified against something when you pass a border in many cases (at least when flying)?

Re:Not living in Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38890839)

Isn't passport numbers verified against something when you pass a border in many cases (at least when flying)?

Sweden is part of the Schengen area so mostly no. Would have thought there were European arrest warrants that would affect them though, like in the Assange case?

Re:Not living in Sweden (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38890847)

Within the EU you do not need to show a passport when flying, you do need an approved picture ID however. If you are on a watchlist you are likely to end up being caught on arrival since they cross-check passenger manifest.

Being caugt traveling by car, train or boat is unlikely, since customs only check vehicles randomly for restricted goods or if they know a certain vehicle will carry something illegal, like a sentenced man who has not checked in to his 3 star hotel.

Schengen agreement. (1)

Bigfield (742477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891017)

This is true they don't need to show passports due to the Schengen agreement. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement [wikipedia.org] .

And it is not even clear that they reside in Europe at all.

Re:Not living in Sweden (1)

bernywork (57298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891043)

In regards to the Schengen Borders, nope, not allowed:

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l14514_en.htm [europa.eu]

> When crossing an external border, European Union (EU) citizens and other persons enjoying the right of free movement within the EU (such as the family members of an EU citizen) undergo a minimum check. This minimum check is carried out to establish their identity on the basis of their travel documents and consists of a rapid and straightforward verification of the validity of the documents and a check for signs of falsification or counterfeiting.

> However, on a non-systematic basis, when carrying out minimum
checks on persons enjoying the Community right of free movement,
border guards may consult national and European databases
in order to ensure that such persons do not represent a
genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to the internal
security, public policy, international relations of the Member
States or a threat to the public health.

All they typically do is look at your passport to determine whether it's counterfeit. Not allowed to systematically record, lookup or otherwise any EU citizen. While they can periodically look stuff up, if you aren't a threat to the member state you are going to, they probably still won't stop you.

Within the EU:

> Irrespective of nationality, any person may cross the internal borders at any crossing-point without checks being carried out.

If you go to the UK / Ireland, you will have the same treatment, quick look at your passport and keep walking. If you hold an Irish passport and go through the airport in Dublin, it seems holding your passport up to the officer in question is enough, don't even break step as you walk through. In London, they will hold and look at your passport but usually won't ask you a question.

Re:Not living in Sweden (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891465)

Eventually their EU passport will expire and they will have to go home to renew. Unless they got a foreign passport or seek for political asylum.

Re:Not living in Sweden (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891847)

Bummer. People on Slashdot would be screaming to high heaven about the travesty of justice if these were white-collar criminals/CEOs/basically anyone who'd been convicted of a crime that /. readers didn't approve of and was able to stay out of jail by skipping to a different country.

What about Google and Youtube? (5, Insightful)

Trracer (210292) | more than 2 years ago | (#38890689)

This will basically be precedent for this type of case (in Sweden). So I guess Google, Youtube etc etc can fall under being an accessory to copyright violation?

Excuse any spelling/English errors, non-native here.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38890817)

Well, one thing Google has that TPB doesn't is lobbyist dollars.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891415)

Yes, that's why Google threw themselves in front of SOPA / PIPA.

It's not for lack of lobbyist dollars, it's simply that those companies who will have their quarterly returns so greatly impacted are completely unaware of it. If their Chairman / CEOs were aware of the probable damage the entertainment industry was going to do to their bottom line, they would advise their lobbyist to perpetually terminate any legislation coming out of that sector for the next century. But like all things, it will only be after these companies begin to bleed red that they're realize where their revenues went.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (5, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38890855)

Excuse any spelling/English errors, non-native here.

Didn't see any spelling/English errors, actually.

That particular problem seems to be more common for Americans than for non-native speakers...

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38892311)

non native typers.

FTFY. Gawd u ppl.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#38890877)

So I guess Google, Youtube etc etc can fall under being an accessory to copyright violation?

Sure, if they flagrantly violate the law and do nothing when they are told about infringing material being uploaded to Youtube. Except that Youtube takes down infringing material when notified about it and thus, no, they aren't doing the same thing as the Pirate Bay.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38890977)

Unless MAFIAA can claim copyright on the torrent files (possibly through claiming that a checksum of the original data is a derived work, but I think that's a stretch and would open a wholly different can of worms), then there has never been any infringing material for TPB and other torrent sites to take down. Remember, the only the torrent files can be gotten from TPB, the files that they point to cannot.

In fact, TPB is probably infringing less than Youtube, since when Youtube contains infringing material it actually hosts that data.

Maybe a more apt comparison would be Google, Bing, etc.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (2)

Trracer (210292) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891015)

So I guess Google, Youtube etc etc can fall under being an accessory to copyright violation?

Sure, if they flagrantly violate the law and do nothing when they are told about infringing material being uploaded to Youtube. Except that Youtube takes down infringing material when notified about it and thus, no, they aren't doing the same thing as the Pirate Bay.

Alright, I can buy that for Youtube since it's actual content being uploaded that they remove.
But how about Google search? TPB just serves the torrent file which is basically pointing to the file you want to download (and thus becoming an accessory to copyright violation), same as Googles search index. Neither hold any content...

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891391)

I wonder if there's child pornography in Google's index?

That would make for an interesting case.

But I'm not willing to go there.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891451)

On the other hand there were/are no infringing material on The Pirate Bay, just torrents.

Now you've done it, by mentioning (referring to) Youtube on Slashdot, this site will be taken down!!

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (1)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891657)

So what? Facilitation of copyright infringement is against the law and the Swedish court upheld this. You can keep repeating that lame defense but the law doesn't care.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891893)

That's garbage - facilitation of copyright infringement? Where does that end? People who make blank CDs/DVDs/hard drives? People who make recording devices? People who make pens and paper? ISPs and computer manufacturers? (No downloading at all without these guys). Hell, technically even people who make the content "facilitate copyright infringement" by creating something to be copied. It's a deliberately vague term and it's being applied in a manner that lets the courts go after those the MAFIAA order them to (i.e. the ones less likely to fight back and win, Google, etc) instead of being applied with any kind of equality.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (2, Informative)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891023)

Google and Youtube respond to DMCA request. They follow the laws and can easily claim plausible deniability.

Pirate Bay never took down any content due to copyright violations and boasts about it. There is no comparison.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (2)

Trracer (210292) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891261)

Google and Youtube respond to DMCA request. They follow the laws and can easily claim plausible deniability.

Pirate Bay never took down any content due to copyright violations and boasts about it. There is no comparison.

DMCA isn't valid in Sweden, where TPB was hosted. IANAswedishL but the reason why TPB "lived" so long in Sweden is because there were no legal hindrances at the time. The point is still, they did not host any content, no content passed TPB servers.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (1)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891463)

Sweden has its own copyright laws and the Pirate Bay does not even try to follow them.

IANAL, so I don't know what legal loopholes they could use to get around Swedish copyright laws, but it would be much harder to claim plausible deniability when you boast that you hosts torrent files from copyrighted work and that is your main source of Internet traffic.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891735)

they used the legal loophole which made the court invent the crime of "assisting copyright infringement". Before this case the general understandning was that if any infringement occured it was because someone made something (which they had no rights to) avaible to others. eg, me hosting an ftp server with "Captain America the first avenger" on my computer and telling you how to log in - that would have been illegal. However, me telling you of a server not operated by me (essentially what a .torrent file does, execpt it doesn't use ftp etc.) or even giving you a http link would not have constituted criminal copyright infringment *against me*. Only ones who'd be investigated would be the person(s) uploading the infringing material and the persons downloading it.

The piratebay case changed that to make it possible to prosecute me under the second scenario for assissting in the infringement. Which is why some of us are worried that when rights holders turn out to be unable to identify downloaders they'll turn to have ISP:s held accountable - after all, they are assisting by providing the bandwith (which to my understanding is exactly the reason why one of the "piratebay guys" was implicated for).

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38892001)

Are you a swedish lawyer specialized in swedish IP laws ? Or are you one of those know it all that think they know more about Swedish IP laws than judges and lawyers ?

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891297)

Perhaps because they are in the US and the DMCA is their laws, while TPB is not? Okay so they did a lot of other things too but I'd also tell someone acting like US law is world law to fuck off.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891467)

And how fast a website responds to DMCA requests has what to do with how Swedish law handles copyright issues?

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (1)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891815)

The point is that Google and Youtube make an effort to follow copyright laws. The Pirate Bay doesn't.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (3, Informative)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891035)

So I guess Google, Youtube etc etc can fall under being an accessory to copyright violation?

Other than for the sake of trolling and FUD-spreading, why would you conclude that? The two cases couldn't be more distinct. TPB flagrantly promotes the ripping off of people's works, and operations like YouTube have entire staffs dedicated to rapidly investigating and dealing with reports of abuse.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891039)

Eh? AFAICT the supreme court essentially decided that this case isn't unique enough that it needs a precedent.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891185)

The possibility is being discussed in Swedish media [google.com] (via google translate), in fact they specifically mention Google and YouTube. There's nothing specific in the ruling that clearly says that they wouldn't be liable, basically it seems to criminalize all sites that make copyright infringement easier and faster. The wording is very broad and vague, maybe they didn't see anything worth reviewing with regards to TPB but they certainly didn't make things clear on where illegal services end and legal services begin, or even what separates them.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891485)

Google and Youtube are being good citizens [salem-news.com]

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891659)

Strictly speaking, precedent is irrelevant in roman style court (as opposed to the common law court type in Britain or the US) court. Each case is handled individually and each judge has to cite the law that is being violated and has to judge on his own. That doesn't make precedence completely irrelevant in practice, but no judge can put up a verdict claiming this case as a basis.

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (1)

jpw72 (2509082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891897)

While it's possible that the services that Google and YouTube (and others) provide could infringe on copyright, this was actually discussed in the original court of appeals ruling (Svea hovrätt: dom 2010-11-26 i mål nr B 4041-09, see pages 24-25) and the reason given that makes Google et al. different from The Pirate Bay (TPB) goes to the intent of the service provided and legal theories that states that a service provided can be free of liability if the benefit to society is great enough; the primary purpose of Google isn't to facilitate copyright infringement. The court concluded that TPB was used almost exclusively for file sharing so the same grounds for absolving liability wasn't deemed appropriate.

A quick Google translate of the applicable part from the ruling:
"If a search provider is by nature such that it in the first place is a valuable tool for lawful activity and generally socially beneficial, if the legitimate use dominates, distribution or transmission of illegal materials despite precautions can not be ruled out, the operation of such a service in objective point of view be regarded as permissible under the aforementioned theories."

Re:What about Google and Youtube? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38892209)

This will basically be precedent for this type of case (in Sweden). So I guess Google, Youtube etc etc can fall under being an accessory to copyright violation?

No, they are companies who are directed at marketing, so they will not be accused of anything.

Very dissapointing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38890775)

Well, at least we have a way to change things, by voting for the pirate party. It must suck to only have two choices, you americans.

Re:Very dissapointing (2)

NEDHead (1651195) | more than 2 years ago | (#38890845)

Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul? Not what I would call a choice. It is a lot like playing Russian roulette with a loaded machine gun.

Re:Very dissapointing (3, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891447)

And while Obama is not campaigning for the role of anti-Christ nearly as hard as any of the republican contenders, he isn't exactly a friend of liberty and sane copyright law either.

Re:Very dissapointing (5, Funny)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891067)

yes, it does suck, but the alternative could also be like our friends north of the border, where there's something like 4 liberal parties and 1 conservative party so the 1 conservative party gets all the conservative votes, which puts them in power even though they're technically a minority, and they then proceed to enact a bunch of shit legislation like banning mp3s and dvrs.

or at least, that's what the facebook status of my canadian friends tell me.

I've long been a proponent of just abolishing the two political parties we've got here, and having a 7-way draft. we can separate along more logical distinctions.

We can have:
The tree-hugging hippie party
The financial, corporate, and industry party
The religious extremist (pardon me, I mean evangelical) party
The backwoods-montana survival-oriented libertarian party
The inner-city violence and drugs party
The suburbia party
The illuminati

Every one of those hates every other, and nothing would ever get done since any coalition would dissolve within days. From where I sit, that'd be a better situation than the one we're in now.

Re:Very dissapointing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891499)

It's called "proportional representation" [wikipedia.org] and I believe *all* democracies but 4 have this.

The 4 exceptions are the former British empire countries of USA, UK, Canada and India.

But you in the USA also have a Green Party, except nobody ever talks about them. Would be interesting if Ralph Nader becomes POTUS. Copvince him to amend the constitution to allow proportional representation, while you're at it!

Re:Very dissapointing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38892287)

Comparing the Swedish parliamentary system and the U.S. system is not an apples-to-apples comparison. You must remember that the U.S. is a federation. Congress is supposed to be a representation of the member states of the federation.

not a good answer (1)

waterbear (190559) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891529)

We can have:
The tree-hugging hippie party
The financial, corporate, and industry party
The religious extremist (pardon me, I mean evangelical) party
The backwoods-montana survival-oriented libertarian party
The inner-city violence and drugs party
The suburbia party
The illuminati
Every one of those hates every other, and nothing would ever get done since any coalition would dissolve within days. From where I sit, that'd be a better situation than the one we're in now.

Yes but just think, as soon as two of them suss it out (like maybe the evangelicals and the suburbanites ....) then their coalition would be in power for ever .....

-wb-

Canadian party system (was:Very dissapointing) (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891627)

We used to have four parties, equally spaced:

  • New Democrats on the left
  • Liberals in the left center (roughly equivalent to the Democrats)
  • Progressive Conservatives in the right center (ditto the Republicans)
  • Reform on the right

Reform did an "unfriendly takeover" of the PCs (full disclosure: I was a PC at the time), with the slogan "unite the right"
They then renamed the party to just "Conservative" and retained enough members to be able to defeat the NDP and Liberals, who were still splitting the center and left between themselves.

Now it's skewed, and the parties don't line up with the U.S. parties, even approximately... Liberals seem to be the centrists, NDP has become the left-moving-towards-the-center and Conservatives are moving back right to align with the old Reform position.

I seem to be living in exciting times (;-))

--dave

Re:Very dissapointing (2)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38892337)

I live in Belgium and we have the word record in government formation. I still prefere it to have a 7-way draft (Actually much more then that. 7 parties where invited to the table, some were not)
That way I can vote pro-gun and pro-gay mariage and pro-abortion (or any anti or combination) if so much desire.

Re:Very dissapointing (2)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891177)

More like zero choices. The Republican candidates are a Wall Street muppet, an adulterer, or a frothy mix of feces and anal lube. The Democratic candidate will be the incumbent Obama, whose track record I am not entirely pleased with. I want someone new, but not one of the Republicans. And voting for a third party candidate is like throwing your vote away.

Re:Very dissapointing (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891413)

"And voting for a third party candidate is like throwing your vote away."

And will be until enough people change their attitude and actually do just that.

Re:Very dissapointing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891767)

"And voting for a third party candidate is like throwing your vote away."

And will be until enough people change their attitude and actually do just that.

i.e.: Never

Re:Very dissapointing (1)

Real1tyCzech (997498) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891933)

Thank you!

Re:Very dissapointing (2)

groslyunderpaid (950152) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891801)

And voting for a third party candidate is like throwing your vote away.

I believe that is a fallacy, otherwise anytime you vote for any candidate that doesn't win, you are just throwing your vote away,

Re:Very dissapointing (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 2 years ago | (#38892315)

What he really means is voting for a third party is like voting for the candidate in the top two that you dislike most. Your vote for the third party candidate is being taken away from the candidate you dislike least.

Re:Very dissapointing (2)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38892283)

And voting for a third party candidate is like throwing your vote away.

It never ceases to amaze me how you guys haven't figured this out yet. We have a very simple system in place, here: if no one got more than 50% of the total votes, the election enters a second stage, with just the "winner" and the runner-up. It's not perfect, but it's quite functional. You can vote for whoever you want, then if your candidate didn't even come close to winning, you can pick the one you dislike less. That way no one fears "wasting" their votes.

I know the ones in power don't really want more competition to be viable, but it's something the populace really should be pushing and news never got to me about anyone from up there voicing such a proposal.

Double negative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38890791)

"no one of them no longer lives in Sweden" means they all live in Sweden.

WTF ? (5, Insightful)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 2 years ago | (#38890853)

The supreme court in Sweden is supposed to hear important test cases and cases where there is presently ambiguity in law. As encouraging copyright infringement has never before been tested in court, refusing to hear this case just shows how little spine our justice system has.

Re:WTF ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891949)

Whats the difference between Norwegians and Swedes????

Swedes have nice neighbors.

Triple negative (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38890879)

Since no one of them no longer lives in Sweden, they won't go to jail.

I'm so confused, I think they're saying that because they don't not no longer live in Sweden, they won't not be going to jail?

My head hurts :(

Re:Triple negative (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891323)

Since no one of them no longer lives in Sweden, they won't go to jail.

I'm so confused, I think they're saying that because they don't not no longer live in Sweden, they won't not be going to jail?

My head hurts :(

Minor correction: They're not trying to say they won't go to jail if they no longer don't live in Sweden.

I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted! (5, Interesting)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 2 years ago | (#38890895)

I've never been affected first-hand by government censorship of websites, but when I clicked on the piratebay.se link to read his blog entry, I just got:

The access to this website is blocked in conformity with a decision of the Antwerp Court of Appeal dated 26 September 2011.

For any additional information, you can contact the Belgian Anti-piracy Federation (BAF), at Almaplein 3 P.O. Box 10, 1200 Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe - http://www.anti-piracy.be/en/ [anti-piracy.be] .

I'm currently in Belgium.

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891009)

Try this IP [194.71.107.15] . They actually changed the .se to stop the US from taking their domain from them (which I assume the will do now?)

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted! (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891155)

Didn't work for me. I get redirected to the blocked page (thepiratebay.se/blog/204).

BTW, if there's a working IP address, is there an easy way to configure my GNU/Linux box to automatically go to that IP address when an application makes a request to "thepiratebay.se"? (I did this before but don't remember the file)

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891207)

/etc/hosts

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted! (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891563)

Please turn in your geek card.

You are running linux, and don't know what a hosts file is?

What is this is?

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted! (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891909)

/etc/hosts file allows you to manually assign domain names to IPs.

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted! (5, Informative)

think_nix (1467471) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891099)

I've never been affected first-hand by government censorship of websites, but when I clicked on the piratebay.se link to read his blog entry, I just got:

For those who are behind censored networks, here is original blos post from this taken from http://thepiratebay.se/blog/204 [thepiratebay.se]

Year of the storm

2012 is the year of the storm.

The Pirate Bay will reach an age of 9 years. Experiencing raids, espionage and death threats, we're still here. We've been through hell and back and it has made us tougher than ever.

The people running the site has changed during the years. No sane human being would put up with this kind of pressure for 8 years in a row. An insane hobby that takes time from our families, our work (sorry boss) and our studies.

What binds us all together is a strong belief that what we do is good. That it is something we one day can tell our grandchildren about with pride. People from all over the world confirm this. We read testimonials from people in Syria longing for freedom, thanking us for what we provide. We receive more than 100 visits daily from North Korea and we sure know that they need it. If there's something that will bring peace to this world it is the understanding and appreciation of your fellow man. What better way to do that than with this vast library of culture?

With this said, we hear news from our old admins that they have received a verdict in Sweden. Our 3 friends and blood brothers have been sentenced to prison. This might sound worse than it is. Since no one of them no longer lives in Sweden, they won't go to jail. They are as free today as they were yesterday.

But what enrages us to our inner core is that the system, the empire, the governments, are still allowed to try to boss you and us around with one law crazier than the other. Do you think they will stop with SOPA/ACTA/PIPA? They will not. Because you won't stop sharing those files. Because we will not stay down. Because no one can turn back time. Together, we are the iron that hardens with each strike.

In this year of the storm, the winners will build windmills and the losers will raise shelters. So flex your muscles, fellow pirates, and give power to us all! Build more sites! More nets! More protocols! Scream louder than ever and take it to the next level!

Posted Today 09:11 by The Pirate Bay

Best regards,

The 'free' internet

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted! (2)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891129)

Cached copy [googleusercontent.com] for all the unfortunates.

Although your post is informative on the state of Belgium government idiocy, a little effort on your part is suggested. If you don't know how to search for cached copies of web pages, perhaps you should turn in your /. account.

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted! (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891253)

If you don't know how to search for cached copies of web pages

Us nerds being able to circumvent these measures isn't the point.

Most people (non-techs - think of your family and friends) *don't* know about cached copies, and we don't know when courts will get smarter and propose dynamic lists for "equivalent" pages/urls that also have to be blocked to comply with whatever law or court decision.

There will always be ways for the nerdiest 1% to access these pages, but that doesn't change that for most people in Belgium, this blog entry doesn't exist.

Re:I can't see the blog. It's blacklisted! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891317)

surf to http://depiraatbaai.be (dutch for the pirate bay)

There is a DNS/Domain name block in effect with some providers in Belgium due to a court order
It is basically ineffective if you use openDNS/googleDNS servers

Quid Pro Quo? (1)

alreaud (2529304) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891471)

So has anybody heard any news lately about DOJ and IRS investigations of banks in Switzerland being used as tax havens?

Just a thought to get the rabble thinking deeper. Realpolitik is sometimes like that 3D Star Trek chess game combined with submarine warfare.

no one of them no longer lives in Sweden (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891783)

"no one of them no longer lives in Sweden"

So they do all still live in Sweden?

HA !! CHICKEN SHITS !! SWEDE/DANES ARE !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891841)

Swedes and Danes are chicken shits !!

Neil Young confirms it !!

Brilliant idea (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38891887)

no longer lives in Sweden

That worked out well for Assange, too.

Call To Action (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38891921)

In this year of the storm, the winners will build windmills and the losers will raise shelters. So flex your muscles, fellow pirates, and give power to us all! Build more sites! More nets! More protocols! Scream louder than ever and take it to the next level!

No, why hide? Why go underground if you believe you're doing nothing wrong? If laws are unjust, move to change them. In order to do so, you will need to rally the troops. Votes are the only things that trump bribery/campaign donations. MegaUpload did one thing right: enlist the help of popular artists and make a video go viral. Use it for a Call To Action. They'd be wise not to do it under their own name but create a foundation with Copyright Reform being one of their main goals.

The awkward bit is that everyone KNOWS... (2)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38892055)

...that the purpose of sites like PB is purely to spread content without paying the producers. There are some tiny percentage of legal files more by accident than intent. They don't affect the business model.

What such sites do is help "chum the market" with content people should not want in the first place.

Want to fight the power? Don't run free Windows either or avoid it as much as possible. Ditto all other shit corporate content.

Free crack is still crack.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>