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 Founder Released From Solitary Confinement

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the out-of-the-cage dept.

Crime 150

TrueSatan writes "Pirate bay founder Gottfrid Svartholm is set to be released from solitary confinement but is still to serve the remainder of a one-year sentence relating to Pirate Bay activities. Five months remain of that sentence and they are to be served in a normal prison with far fewer restrictions on his confinement — assuming no new charges are brought against him. He had been accused of involvement in the hacking of Swedish IT firm Logica, but no charges have been substantiated in that case. He was later implicated in a second case but, once more, no charges have been substantiated against him."

cancel ×

150 comments

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

Recursive link? (1)

pokoteng (2729771) | about 2 years ago | (#42239073)

Recursive link?

Re:Recursive link? (1, Troll)

auntieNeo (1605623) | about 2 years ago | (#42239111)

Recursive link?

It's what Slashdot is using now to drum up ad revenue. It's like printing money!

Re:Recursive link? (2, Funny)

game kid (805301) | about 2 years ago | (#42239129)

Just don't tell their salespeople the submitted version [slashdot.org] has a working link!

Re:Recursive link? (2)

cffrost (885375) | about 2 years ago | (#42239259)

Recursive link? [slashdot.org]

Whatever you say, buddy.

Re:Recursive link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42239359)

Technically that's iterative, not recursive.

Re:Recursive link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42239285)

very much like his sentence....

He was never IN solitary confinement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42239201)

Jesus christ, torrentfreak, your editors are shit.

Re:He was never IN solitary confinement (5, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 years ago | (#42239231)

He and his mother have described it as such [torrentfreak.com] . I guess it depends on your threshold. He was allowed to receive occasional family visitors, but was held in a cell by himself 23 hours/day, which is a typical solitary-confinement setup.

Re:He was never IN solitary confinement (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42239367)

Having only my own company 23 hours a day and being fed and watered for free sounds... absolutely awesome.

Which crimes can I commit in the UK to get this?

Re:He was never IN solitary confinement (2)

bonehead (6382) | about 2 years ago | (#42239637)

Well, first you have to actually get INTO prison. That's the easy part. Get creative.

Once your there, assaulting a few of the guards ought to buy you some time in solitary.

Re:He was never IN solitary confinement (3, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#42240381)

Well, first you have to actually get INTO prison. That's the easy part. Get creative.

Once your there, assaulting a few of the guards ought to buy you some time in solitary.

Its perfectly possible to get them to pay for your flights to the US too (and return flight on expulsion at the end of the sentence). It appears that the best crimes to commit are to provide links to torrent sites or to release US government information. You could take some tips from Julian Assange. WHat you don't want to do is anything like funding or encouraging terrorism or the courts will fight to keep you from the USA for years [bbc.co.uk]

Re:He was never IN solitary confinement (2)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#42242383)

Having only my own company 23 hours a day and being fed and watered for free sounds... absolutely awesome.

Which crimes can I commit in the UK to get this?

Try blowing your brains out wih an unlicensed firearm, we're pretty hot on gun control.

Re:He was never IN solitary confinement (-1, Troll)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 2 years ago | (#42239407)

Interesting
When Brad Manning is held in a US prison cell by himself for 23 hours a day, it is "OMG! TORTURE!!" This guy, held in a Swedish prison cell by himself for 23 hours a day..."meh".

Manning was totally isolated (2)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 2 years ago | (#42239669)

Manning was (is?) totally isolated from his family and only got to see a guard every few hours that came to check on him being alive and people interrogating him. That's a bit different from being able to sleep and meet your family. Both aren't a situation where I'd would want to be in, but if I had to choose....

Re:Manning was totally isolated (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about 2 years ago | (#42239995)

they're both fucking retarded situations.. would you prefer to have 1 finger cut off or 2? or should people be leaving your fingers the fuck alone?

Re:Manning was totally isolated (0)

backslashdot (95548) | about 2 years ago | (#42240185)

You changed the real situation which is mild stress situation versus major stress situation into a comparison of major stress situation vs major stress situation. Therefore your analogy fails.

--
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.

Re:Manning was totally isolated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241509)

What the hell are you smoking? A year or two of your life are easily worth more than a finger.

Re:Manning was totally isolated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42240313)

Manning was (is?) totally isolated from his family and only got to see a guard every few hours

Yup, that's the definition of Solitary Confinement alright.

Re:He was never IN solitary confinement (3, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42240255)

What is interesting, to me, is the fact that charges of fraud and hacking seem to be handled in much the same way that treason and leaking state secrets are dealt with. In the case of treason, I can go a long way toward justifying solitary confinement, especially when the suspect has shown some possibly suicidal tendencies. In the case of mere fraud - no way. And, the suspect is far from suicidal, removing that little justification for close monitoring. More, there is no mention of solitary for his own protection, as was mentioned with Manning.

Tell me again which judicial system is more corrupt.

Re:He was never IN solitary confinement (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#42240593)

As treason is effectively working against the interests of the government, these days copyright infringement probably qualifies.

Re:He was never IN solitary confinement (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about 2 years ago | (#42241155)

But then wouldn't tax evasion also fall into the same category?

Re:He was never IN solitary confinement (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42240241)

As a person who have myself been in the same situation as Gottfrid, in solitary confinement in a Swedish jail (häkte), I can assure you that it is a very demanding and unpleasing situation. The psychological and emotional effects of being in a small cell is very hard, much harder than it is possible to understand by reason. These cells are used by Swedish police to break people, to break hardened criminals, and for a normal person it is no easier.
Amnesty International has even issued criticism towards Sweden for the way solitary confinement is used by prosecutors, and this is no laughing matter.

Re:He was never IN solitary confinement (4, Insightful)

dissy (172727) | about 2 years ago | (#42239735)

He was never IN solitary confinement

You have an interesting description of being locked in a small room for 23 hours a day and not being allowed visitors, including his lawyer.

What pray tell do you personally believe solitary confinement would be?

Re:He was never IN solitary confinement (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 2 years ago | (#42241687)

He was never in solitary confinement because Swedish jails do not have solitary confinement, therefore he couldn't have been in solitary confinement. No, regardless of if he was, in fact, confined to a cell barely larger than a twin sized bed. That's irreverent, because as I said, they don't do solitary confinement in Sweden. It's also immaterial that he was, in fact, kept out of contact with other people; that certainly doesn't mean he was in solitary confinement.

The sad thing is that I feel the need to add this disclaimer that I am making fun of the people who fail at logic so hard. I meant it to be woefully obvious parody, but in re-reading it I see little difference between it and what at least a few people have posted in all seriousness.

Re:He was never IN solitary confinement (1)

del_diablo (1747634) | about 2 years ago | (#42241955)

The fact that Sweden does not define its cell as "Solitary confinement" when they are in fact such, is a good example of classic political jokes.

Re:He was never IN solitary confinement (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#42240043)

I take it you aren't familiar with what solitary confinement actually is.

Why solitary? (5, Interesting)

markdavis (642305) | about 2 years ago | (#42239227)

Why would a non-violent criminal be thrown in solitary immediately and also denied access to all but one visitor? I doubt it was to protect him from other inmates.

"Since then the Pirate Bay founder has been kept in solitary confinement, locked up 23 hours a day for weeks on end."

"Gottfrid wasnâ(TM)t allowed to meet anyone except his mother during his solitary confinement"

Re:Why solitary? (4, Insightful)

DreamMaster (175517) | about 2 years ago | (#42239277)

According to previous articles, it was to prevent him either directly using his 'leet' computer skills to destroy evidence relevant to the case, or co-ordinating with others to do so. Which I thought was a bit of a croc. After all, they could always monitor any computer use to ensure that he didn't, and if he was going to conspire with any others to destroy any purported evidence, he could do so just as easily through his mother as in person.

I can't help but feel that it seems like, more and more, we're seeing cases around the world where prosecutors abusing pre-trial incarceration to make it a de-facto sentence irrespective of a person's eventual guilt or innocence. But I also recognise that I don't know the full details of the case, so it's always possible that the prosecutor fears were legitimate.

Re:Why solitary? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#42239379)

After all, they could always monitor any computer use to ensure that he didn't,

I have no idea if this is true in Sweden, but in California prisons he could easily get a cell phone without the guards noticing. From there he could ssh into something and do something, assuming that were his desire.

Re:Why solitary? (3, Informative)

wwalker (159341) | about 2 years ago | (#42239463)

Who the hell cares if the prosecutor's fears were legitimate? What happened to the whole "innocent until proven guilty"?! I can see placing someone in solitary because he/she can potentially cause someone to get killed or do other serious harm. We are talking about goddamn computers here. I have legitimate fears that my neighbors are piggybacking on my WiFi, should we place them in solitary as well?!

Re:Why solitary? (1)

Miseph (979059) | about 2 years ago | (#42239519)

It happened in Sweden. The US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is irrelevant to his situation. So far as I am aware, Sweden doesn't even use Common Law, so the entire concept is simply moot.

Re:Why solitary? (5, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | about 2 years ago | (#42239643)

But the DMCA, which is US law, had a lot with putting him there.

Almost ten years ago I said that when your "product" can be reproduced in the millions by a single kid using a $100 device and a mouse click, and hundreds of millions of ten year olds have that device, the ONLY way to stop it would be to create a global surveillance network capable of detecting these millions of people clicking their mouse... ...and then a global fascist government to go after them.

It's scary when I make such predictions and see them starting to become true.

It hasn't been mentioned on slashdot yet, but this week has seen a MASSIVE attack on NZB indexing sites, several have been taken down, others have been flooded with so many DMCA requests (despite not being in the US) that they can't cope with the load of them.

This is the beginning of the end of the internet.

Welcome to your new ComCast Internet, where for the low price of $79.99 you can get our "basic" set of internet web sites, or for $249.99 you can get "unlimited" use of HUNDREDS of approved websites.

New websites being added yearly to new service level tiers!

Re:Why solitary? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42239757)

I know it's cool to not read the entire list of things he's being charged with that have nothing to do with the DMCA, but before you go on a rant you probably should.

Re:Why solitary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241809)

Do you ever think you shouldn't have gotten off of your meds? You live a pretty miserable life as is.

Re:Why solitary? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#42241935)

more like for $79.99 you can get 250GB use and $10 for each 50GB after that. our $250* 50/10 plan has no caps. *2 year lock in with a big ETF.

Re:Why solitary? (1)

reub2000 (705806) | about 2 years ago | (#42240339)

Touche. However human rights violations are human rights violations no matter what legal system you have.

Re:Why solitary? (2)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#42240355)

Innocent until proven guilty may be enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, but it is also a much broader legal principle that should be expected in any civilized legal system. The U.S. founding fathers didn't just make these things up all by themselves.

Swedish Law/Constitution (3, Informative)

andersh (229403) | about 2 years ago | (#42240377)

it is also a much broader legal principle that should be expected in any civilized legal system.

It is guaranteed by law in all European countries including Sweden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_6_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights [wikipedia.org]

Re:Swedish Law/Constitution (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42240821)

Sweden's use of "häktning" has repeatedly been criticised on human rights grounds as it is repeatedly used to keep people in detention without bringing charges for a long time without charges brought, often under stricter conditions than in prison. It is one of several features of the Swedish judicial system that is cause for concern.
A person can be put in häkte as soon as a degree of suspicion is established (in an objective manner the law says, circumstantial evidence is OK for this). The purpose of the detention is basically to keep the suspect from interfering with the investigation or legging it, hence the quite severe restrictions on interaction with anything outside of the cell. It is a prosecutor's wet dream.
For the lower of the two degrees of suspicion, the detention order has to be renewed every 7 days, for the higher degree every two weeks. Repeat as necessary. This can (and does) cause people who are merely under suspicion (that is, has not yet been charged with a crime) to be held in häkte for extensive period of times.
For some really worrying bits of the Swedish judicial system, look at the practice of lay judges, or for that the professional judges, the obsession with procedure rather than justice being served.

Overly Concerned (2)

andersh (229403) | about 2 years ago | (#42240917)

Sweden's use of "häktning" has repeatedly been criticised on human rights grounds

Yes, criticised on the basis of the convention. It's a cause for concern, but it doesn't diminish the importance or value of the treaty in general or with regards to Swedish law. I'm also a Scandinavian (Norwegian/Swedish family) and a trained lawyer.

That you would attack the practice of "lay judges" surprises me! I find that it gives our system a democratic element without burdening the average citizen too much and avoids making a mockery of due process with American style juries. I think our system is excellent, full juries are not needed in courts of first instance. Are you Swedish by the way?

Re:Swedish Law/Constitution (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42240935)

Not to mention there's no upper limit on how long a person can be "häktad" (detained). There was a recent case of a guy who was detained for ~3 years before being released (the case was dropped).

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/folkmordsmisstankt-slapps-ur-hakte_6352020.svd [Swedish]

Fully Protected, High Risk Convict (3, Informative)

andersh (229403) | about 2 years ago | (#42240411)

There are very few countries in the world in general that use Common Law, it is however no requirement for a bill of rights or human rights. All European countries have equal protections [to the US Bill of Rights] and more by way of the European Convention on Human Rights.

What I find strange is that none of you considered the fact that he is convicted of the crime for which he is serving time. He subsequently fled the jurisdiction and is obviously not only a flight risk, has the ability to and great interest in destroying evidence against himself. It's perfectly understandable that the police would want him isolated.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case (adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, access to legal representation, right to examine witnesses against them or have them examined, right to the free assistance of an interpreter).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_6_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why solitary? (1)

bonehead (6382) | about 2 years ago | (#42239663)

What happened to the whole "innocent until proven guilty"?!

That's something that academic types talk about amongst themselves.

In the real world guilt/innocence is mostly determined by the amount of cash you can raise to hire the right lawyer. (Hint: A low cost lawyer is a waste of money, and a court appointed lawyer will frequently do you more harm than good.)

Outside the Court (2)

andersh (229403) | about 2 years ago | (#42240449)

The presumption of innocence applies to the trial, not when gathering evidence. In the previous case for which he is serving time, he was awarded his freedom pre and post trial. He fled the country to escape justice afterwards! Now, they have every right to ensure he does not make arrangements to have evidence destroyed in the ongoing investigation [of the Logica case].

You may disagree with the conviction and the evidence in the previous trial, but it's a valid conviction as it stands. We have to respect the law and authority of Swedish courts.

Re:Outside the Court (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241193)

And IIRC in the US you are considered guilty for purposes of bail

Re:Why solitary? (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 years ago | (#42239483)

Reminds me of why Kevin Mitnick was put [cnet.com] in solitary confinement:

Dubbed the "most dangerous hacker in the world," Mitnick was put in solitary confinement and prevented from using a phone after law enforcement officials convinced a judge that he had the ability to start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone.

Re:Why solitary? (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | about 2 years ago | (#42240397)

he had the ability to start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone.

Yeah, really, how could law enforcement be so dumb to mix up Kevin Mitnick and Captain Crunch [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Why solitary? (5, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 2 years ago | (#42239707)

It's why you setup a dead man switch. If you don't interface with you servers/network for X amount of time, a low-level format process starts automatically.

Not that I've ever done such a thing. Just saying...

Re:Why solitary? (2)

tommeke100 (755660) | about 2 years ago | (#42240993)

aah, the Myth of the dead man switch :)
Back in my C64 and Amiga days (talking '89-'90), we went to this local 'computer club' where you could 'rent' pirated games (and copy them yourself) for 50 cent a game or something like that.
It was really small scale, just the local town kids with Amigas/C64's went there (the guys operating the club were in my high school).
Rumor has it they had some type of pulley lever with a huge magnet at the front door so if there was trouble at the door they could just pull the switch and lower the big magnet on the stock of floppy/3" disks in the back room to erase them :-).

Re:Why solitary? (1)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about 2 years ago | (#42240073)

Ladies and gentleman, a most unusual Slashdot post!

"I can't help but feel that it seems like, more and more, we're seeing cases around the world where prosecutors abusing pre-trial incarceration to make it a de-facto sentence irrespective of a person's eventual guilt or innocence."

Here's part 1 - the stereotypical slashdot bit - "more and more" - inferring or at least suspecting some rate change without substantial evidence.. but then...

"But I also recognise that I don't know the full details of the case, so it's always possible that the prosecutor fears were legitimate"

Shock and horror! Actual reasonable measured humility! Wow! We should gold plate this post. Well, done, sir! Well done!

/ now, back to reading the overbroad cocksure outraged conclusions drawn by the usual suspects.

Re:Why solitary? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42240283)

I can't help but feel that it seems like, more and more, we're seeing cases around the world where prosecutors abusing pre-trial incarceration to make it a de-facto sentence irrespective of a person's eventual guilt or innocence. But I also recognise that I don't know the full details of the case, so it's always possible that the prosecutor fears were legitimate.

well, this sucks. Aresting people for doing mostly nothing (did he kill anybody? did he hurt anybody) is not normal.
Laws should protect the people, but now they are made to protect corporations. This is the sad thruth.

Re:Why solitary? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42240393)

prosecutors abusing pre-trial incarceration to make it a de-facto sentence irrespective of a person's eventual guilt or innocence

One of Sweden's most senior prosecutors have even stated in public that the solitary confinement can and should be used this way, in the context of sexual abuse. It would not be a surprise if the prosecutor would use it the same way in other cases.

http://oldwolf-vindenviskarmittnamn.blogspot.se/2012/06/julian-assange-advokat-per-e-samuelson.html

Re:Why solitary? (1)

TheHonch (1390893) | about 2 years ago | (#42240901)

As someone who spent some time in police custody I can tell you that it's standard practice in Sweden. About 1700/year are put in custody and then found not guilty or not charged with any crime at all (like me). Most lawyers find our system far too harsh, here's one lawyers view on the issue [google.se]

Re:Why solitary? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#42241133)

According to previous articles, it was to prevent him either directly using his 'leet' computer skills to destroy evidence relevant to the case, or co-ordinating with others to do so.

Wow, and they only kept Kevin Mitnick away from phones because the dumbass prosecution lawyer said he would start a nuclear war with one and the dumbass judge believed it without question...now we throw computer "criminals" in solitary just to be safe. Progress.

Re:Why solitary? (5, Insightful)

Swampash (1131503) | about 2 years ago | (#42239311)

Betcha he's wishing he'd just assaulted, raped, and/or killed a bunch of people rather than running a legal information-sharing website.

Re:Why solitary? (3, Interesting)

wwalker (159341) | about 2 years ago | (#42239471)

It's a good thing they didn't find pot on him, he'd already be serving life without parole...

Re:Why solitary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241085)

Not in Sweden.

Re:Why solitary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42240529)

Pfft, he should have just came to the UK and spoke his mind, thousand billion years in prison for obscene comments.

Re:Why solitary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42239353)

Hackers can turn your home computer into a BOMB. Do you want your family to be blown to smithereems?

Re:Why solitary? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 2 years ago | (#42240789)

Hackers can turn your home computer into a BOMB. Do you want your family to be blown to smithereems?

Couldn't they just put him in a Loki Jar, and keep his head wrapped in tin foil to keep him from blowing up the interweb with his mind?

Re:Why solitary? (3, Informative)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#42240753)

Sweden seems to have a hardon for solitary confinement, that's why, and it's been criticised for it's overuse of it on a number of occasions:

http://www.thelocal.se/1927/20050822/#.UMXFq4Yyryg [thelocal.se]

http://www.thelocal.se/22620/20091013/#.UMXFuIYyryg [thelocal.se]

They even asked the UK to hold Assange in solitary confinement whilst he awaited the outcome of his extradition appeals (bear in mind, Assange still, to this day, has not been charged with anything so they were asking for solitary without even a charge being brought) but luckily British justice is at least not quite as backwards as in Sweden.

It's weird because their neighbour, Norway, has arguably the most progressive justice system in the world in contrast and the countries otherwise have a lot of shared history and culture. I don't know why the Swedes handle justice in such a barbaric backwards manner in comparison.

Re:Why solitary? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 years ago | (#42242099)

They even asked the UK to hold Assange in solitary confinement whilst he awaited the outcome of his extradition appeals (bear in mind, Assange still, to this day, has not been charged with anything so they were asking for solitary without even a charge being brought) but luckily British justice is at least not quite as backwards as in Sweden.

What you say is misleading. In some countries, charging you is the first step. In Sweden, it is the last step. Since "being charged" is something completely different in Sweden, it is just fine that he hasn't been charged yet.

Re:Why solitary? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 2 years ago | (#42241151)

Depends on the part of the world. Many legal systems have some 1980's vision of voice and retro dual-tone multi-frequency signaling/Touch-Tone with a 2012 CPU doing voice to commands if a skilled person can get to a phone. Any phone 'gifted' or 'loaned' for a few mins could be used to do amazing things to computer networks still online and not yet found.
Or another country offered paperwork - from a national security or just chilling point of view to see it was done.

Give them a break (4, Funny)

Y-Crate (540566) | about 2 years ago | (#42239245)

They thought they had Gilbert Gottfried in custody. An immediate trip to solitary seemed to be the only humane thing they could do for the rest of the prisoners.

Re:Give them a break (2)

Sulphur (1548251) | about 2 years ago | (#42239393)

They thought they had Gilbert Gottfried in custody. An immediate trip to solitary seemed to be the only humane thing they could do for the rest of the prisoners.

Especially if he told the one about life in prison not being too bad.

Re:Give them a break (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42239763)

Not funny yet

Re:Give them a break (1)

Y-Crate (540566) | about 2 years ago | (#42240121)

Not funny yet

Sometimes humor is the only sane response to an insane situation.

When Cameron was in Egypt's Land... (3, Interesting)

cffrost (885375) | about 2 years ago | (#42239279)

Let my

    Pirate

        Goooooo...

Re:When Cameron was in Egypt's Land... (4, Insightful)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 2 years ago | (#42239725)

There are untold societal benefits for piracy. Sure the funding of creating new media would have to be worked from the ground up, like Kickstarters. But you can't deny that if every work of man was available online for free, that good things wouldn't happen immediately and set yourself up for a more cultured/educated society down the road. And free books alone would save K-12 schools a fortune(10,000$ a student) when they move to ereaders and could be the solution we need. I don't need to preach to the choir(Slashdot), but it is easy to see there are lots of benefits for allowing everything online for free. While the only argument every kneejerker gives is,"If you can't make money on media, no one would ever write a book again! We might as well just abandon civilization."

Re:When Cameron was in Egypt's Land... (1)

Corbets (169101) | about 2 years ago | (#42241275)

While the only argument every kneejerker gives is,"If you can't make money on media, no one would ever write a book again! We might as well just abandon civilization."

Which, if taken as true, pretty much undermines every argument that you made, as media and textbooks would never advance and people would be stuck using 2012 textbooks forever. Just sayin'. It's not the quantity of arguments that counts, it's the quality.

AAPL OPENS UNDER 500 !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42239423)

The winds of putrid shit come early for Apple !!

reply (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42239437)

Shanghai Shunky Machinery Co.,ltd is a famous manufacturer of crushing and screening equipments in China. We provide our customers complete crushing plant, including cone crusher, jaw crusher, impact crusher, VSI sand making machine, mobile crusher and vibrating screen. What we provide is not just the high value-added products, but also the first class service team and problems solution suggestions. Our crushers are widely used in the fundamental construction projects. The complete crushing plants are exported to Russia, Mongolia, middle Asia, Africa and other regions around the world.
http://www.sandmaker.biz
http://www.shunkycrusher.com
http://www.jaw-breaker.org
http://www.jawcrusher.hk
http://www.c-crusher.net
http://www.sandmakingplant.net
http://www.vibrating-screen.biz
http://www.mcrushingstation.com
http://www.cnstonecrusher.com
http://www.cnimpactcrusher.com
http://www.Vibrating-screen.cn
http://www.stoneproductionline.com
http://www.hydraulicconecrusher.net

Re:reply (0)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42240275)

In China crushers are high tech. I guess it's reasonable that someone from China posts adverts for crushers and vibrators on slashdot. Only 50 years ago, EVERYTHING in China was done by hand! (well, except for getting pregnant, maybe, but we can't be to sure of that)

hypocrisy exposed again (5, Insightful)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 2 years ago | (#42239451)

The powers that be are clinging hard to their ownership "paradise", demonstrating yet again that they are willing to simply trample upon the law when they can't change it enough to suit themselves. Decency and the good of society be damned, when they aren't clothing themselves in fake morality.

History is full of reactionary, entrenched interests struggling mightily to hold back change for the better, and failing every time but not before causing a great deal of damage and misery. A few people were burnt at the stake for using the Gutenberg press to print unsanctioned Bibles. Monarchists executed many democrats. The US Civil War was one of the most extreme cases. Today we have Big Oil fighting to deny that there is a global warming problem, to the point it seems they really would rather see hundreds of coastal metropolises drown or go to the prohibitive expense of building dikes along the entire coast, if that meant they could keep selling oil. Otherwise they would have to develop and tap new sources of energy. They might have to hire more engineers and scientists, and even train more, heaven forbid!

Big Media's hypocrisy is exposed again. What next? Would be nice if humanity advanced to the point that reactionary moves were immediately discerned and those trying any dirty pool were swiftly censured. Then these kinds of differences would be resolved before the mud or bullets flew.

Re:hypocrisy exposed again (4, Insightful)

BeanThere (28381) | about 2 years ago | (#42239659)

The problem is that the average man on the street lacks morality. I mean here in the US we just voted in the same president again that signed in Indefinite Detention - how is that better than this? - and we still continue to believe in (and vote for) violently arresting and locking up innocent people for victimless crimes like smoking a little weed, or prostitution, or violating their natural rights based on their sexual preference ... it's easy to point fingers at "the media" but really the core of problem is ordinary folk like those around us with immoral beliefs, we're the same immoral people who go work in 'big media'. It's not just "the powers that be" that are corrupt - we're all corrupt - we all have 'fake morality'.

Re:hypocrisy exposed again (2)

Tom (822) | about 2 years ago | (#42240731)

Yes, but - and (in the words of Ben Goldacre) it's a big butt - you are judging after the fact, while those people who did those things had to judge while the story was still developing.

I'm sure there are just as many examples of extremist, reactionary, counter-revolutionary or just plain evil changes that were (successfully) fought off, if you were just looking for them. You select strongly. Not every change is positive, just because it is a change. Think of Stalinism or the Nazis, of the plague (brought to Europe by changes in trade routes) or Global Warming. Those are changes, too.

So basically, we are still at the same spot. Not every change is good, and quite often you don't know until later who was right and who was wrong. Abolishing slavery turned out to be right, even though many people at the time thought it was wrong. Abolishing the regulations on banks turned out to be wrong, even though many people at the time thought it was right.

I stand on your side regarding this particular case. But I don't think that everyone fighting against a change is automatically on the side of evil, or that we can find the truth just by checking who is for and who is against change. It's not that simple.

Assange was right after all (5, Insightful)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 2 years ago | (#42239479)

I think I now understand why Assange prefers the Colombian embassy over going to Sweden to explain trumped up charges. If someone gets chucked into solitary before trial for running a business that is essentially similar to Google search, then I can't imagine what they will do to a guy that was accused of rape by two bar floozies. You are not paranoid if they really are out to get you.

Re:Assange was right after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42239765)

Google hacks IT Logica?

"But it's never been proven!"

Well that's what a trial is for, you know, the one he's in custody pending?

Re:Assange was right after all (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#42240057)

Google hacks IT Logica?

"But it's never been proven!"

Well that's what a trial is for, you know, the one he's in custody pending?

Logica just needed a good explanation for why their uber expensive for government contracts failed to deliver the product they promised...

Re:Assange was right after all (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about 2 years ago | (#42240395)

Pretending to be Swedish seems to have helped cover their arses when it came to clients in other countries. But as the name's soon to be confined to the history books, I doubt it matters....

Ecuadorian embassy. (3, Informative)

mapuche (41699) | about 2 years ago | (#42239767)

Ecuadorian embassy. Colombia has a right wing govnt. Ecuador a left wing one.

Re:Assange was right after all (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42239819)

Hopefully someone beats Ass-sausage to death... and his faggot friend too.

Re:Assange was right after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42239833)

I think I now understand why Assange prefers the Colombian embassy over going to Sweden to explain trumped up charges. If someone gets chucked into solitary before trial for running a business that is essentially similar to Google search, then I can't imagine what they will do to a guy that was accused of rape by two bar floozies. You are not paranoid if they really are out to get you.

It's still a Swedish prison, I think you might be getting them mixed up with ones in other countries.

Re:Assange was right after all (-1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#42240031)

"Bar floozies"? How in the name of all that is holy did these misogynist shaming words get moderated up to +5? They were not "bar floozies", they were respected Swedish feminists.

Re:Assange was right after all (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42240215)

Being a respected Swedish feminist and being easy to pick up in a bar are not mutually exclusive things...

Re:Assange was right after all (-1, Flamebait)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42240295)

Bar floozies. Both of these whores put the move on Julian, both seduced him, then both accused him of "misconduct". Whores. Bitches. Low life cunts. Sluts. How many synonyms do you need, to get the idea?

Respected feminists? FFS, there are other people who worship lowlife drug addicted pedophiles such as Michael Jackson. Respected? We should be impressed that someone is respected? The question is, "Respected by whom?"

Toss both of those cum guzzling gutter sluts back into the ditches where they were found.

Re:Assange was right after all (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42240409)

Im a swede, and I do not respect the feminists. I do agree on some of thier standpoints, but.. respect them.. oh never.

Re:Assange was right after all (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42240651)

I'm a US citizen, and I both understand and agree with your position. Women have been kicked, spit on, shat on, slapped around, taken for granted, denied human rights, bought and sold and given away since time immemorial. They need to stand up for themselves. But - feminazis are no better than the swine that real feminists are fighting against.

The same argument applies to downtrodden races whose members suddenly want to see all white men put to death. They are the same bigots that their races are fighting against.

Re:Assange was right after all (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#42241817)

I'm a US citizen, and I both understand and agree with your position. Women have been kicked, spit on, shat on, slapped around, taken for granted, denied human rights, bought and sold and given away since time immemorial. They need to stand up for themselves. But - feminazis are no better than the swine that real feminists are fighting against.

The same argument applies to downtrodden races whose members suddenly want to see all white men put to death. They are the same bigots that their races are fighting against.

That's all well and good, but "feminazis" essentially don't exist, and are a myth constructed almost entirely whole cloth to delegitimize feminism. There are maybe, at most, a couple voices out there proclaiming the need for matriarchy, and thousands of people in positions of power who assert that women need to be in the kitchen, and subservient to their husbands. People can and do go onto national television, and blame social problems on woman suffrage, and face no consequences at all.

By buying into the "feminazis" argument, you are tacitly supporting the lies that allow these people to exist.

HA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241993)

I seen it. With my own two goddamn eyes. You can't fool me, babylon.

Re:HA! (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#42242353)

Yep, sure. O.K. Your single unspoken anecdote, unsupported by evidence, a description, or even the word of a pseudonym totally undermines my point. That sure is a strong argument.

Slipping through their fingers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42239729)

The more they try to tighten their grip, the more will slip through their fingers.

Disgusted (1)

backslashdot (95548) | about 2 years ago | (#42240201)

It's disgusting that they would put him in jail over this.

He should be getting an award for founding The Pirate Bay, not punishment.

Re:Disgusted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241859)

Your personal views vs the views of law makers. Good thing you're still on your couch eating cheetos.

beer (1)

anonieuweling (536832) | about 2 years ago | (#42240623)

At HAR2009 (see their website) I bought him a beer.
Will I be able to do so again at OHM2013?

Ran from a 12 month sentence? (1)

morgauxo (974071) | about 2 years ago | (#42241711)

No surprise they had him in solitary, they are going to make it rough on him because he ran. The guy went to Cambodia to avoid a 12 month sentence! Maybe things are a lot worse for prisoners in Sweden? I had a friend in the US who was sentenced for 20. He was out in 2. He would have been out even sooner but they were giving him classes and they wanted him to finish first. Now he has a new career from those classes! He also had access to an exercise yard and a playstation.

Never forget (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42241917)

Never forget: We live in a world in which those who work for freedom of access on the Internet are captured and locked down in solitary confinement.

I'm amused when people say that 2001-09-11 happened because "they hate our freedoms". They completely ignore the fact that the people who run OUR countries hate our freedoms just as much. They become red-faced with anger when we defy their authority and trade amongst ourselves without their authorization. And, conveniently for them, their bosses are paid handsomely to create an oppressive regime -- by the corporations whose financial interests are threatened by our freedoms. They most assuredly had smiles on their faces when they tossed Svartholm into the hole -- it's a wonderful thing to get paid for expressing your anger and hatred.

This is the world you live in. Do not forget it for one instant.

Whistling into a phone (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#42242153)

Obviously they had to prevent him form whistling into a phone and starting WW3.

Sickening (1)

Dunge (922521) | about 2 years ago | (#42242183)

Governments can't do thing like this any longer. Revolution is coming
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?