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!

Music Industry Suits Could Bankrupt Pirate Party Members

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the joint-and-several dept.

Piracy 215

An anonymous reader writes "Music industry group BPI has threatened legal action against six members of the UK Pirate Party, after the party refused to take its Pirate Bay proxy offline. BPI seems to want to hold the individual members of the party responsible for copyright infringements that may occur via the proxy, which puts them at risk of personal bankruptcy. Pirate Party leader Loz Kaye criticized the latest music industry threats and reiterated that blocking The Pirate Bay is a disproportionate measure."

cancel ×

215 comments

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

Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304585)

NT

i dont want to go to school (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305065)

with some nigger kids.

Good riddance (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304589)

Down with piracy!

"Disproportionate?" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304599)

Right and wrong is an either/or thing, not a matter of degrees.

Re:"Disproportionate?" (3, Insightful)

scarboni888 (1122993) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304645)

Is that why there's first, second, and third degree murder charges and convictions then - because it's not a matter of degree?

Re:"Disproportionate?" (4, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304673)

Is that why there's first, second, and third degree murder charges and convictions then - because it's not a matter of degree?

No, because of mens rea and culpability.

Re:"Disproportionate?" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304857)

Is that why there's first, second, and third degree murder charges and convictions then - because it's not a matter of degree?

What a bunch of niggers.

Re:"Disproportionate?" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305893)

We don't kill someone for shoplifting, but the pirates are complaining that they are being stopped from piracy, which is wrong. The punishment cannot be disproportionate when it is directly a result of the wrong behavior. Saying it's "disproportionate" is a lie the pirates say so they can get away with doing bad things.

Re:"Disproportionate?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42306105)

There is nothing bad about what these 'pirates' are doing, in my opinion.

Re:"Disproportionate?" (1, Troll)

ProPropertyRights (2796019) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305937)

Either murder is wrong, or it isn't. The pirates in this article have called themselves "the Pirate Party," while engaging in contributory and vicarious copyright infringement to take the rights of creators away from them. They then they are complaining about first degree vs. second degree, when they shouldn't be engaged in criminal activity in the first place. The fact that there are degrees doesn't mean right vs. wrong doesn't exist, which is what the pirates want you to think, and is why they are trying to convert the issue into one of degrees when it's extremely clear they are in the wrong.

You may be right. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42306189)

Perhaps the solution is to change the name from "Pirate Party" to the "Totally Respect Other People's Stuff Party" or the TROPS Party.

Likewise, "The Pirate Bay" should change its name to "The We Totally Have Nothing That Belongs To Anyone Else Here Bay"

That'd fix it.

Re:"Disproportionate?" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304667)

Right and wrong is an either/or thing, not a matter of degrees.

No, it's all a matter of degree.
We don't punish a murderer tthe same way we punish someone who is shoplifting. Both things are wrong/illegal and yet one comes with a harsher punishment than the other. A matter of degree. So some things are more wrong than others.

Re:"Disproportionate?" (1, Funny)

johnsnails (1715452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305233)

Your new to Christianity aren't you...

Re:"Disproportionate?" (0)

johnsnails (1715452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305255)

although im speaking holistically, not leviticus "with a cherry on top" punishment

Re:"Disproportionate?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42306133)

Your spelling proves it - Christianity makes you dumb.

Re:"Disproportionate?" (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305251)

Theft is bad. It's never a good thing. But, you become a judge for a few minutes.

First case - you have a young man from a wealthy family who is charged with embezzling tens of thousands of (dollars, pounds, euros, whatever) from the local bank. The facts are all in, your jury has returned with a verdict, there is no doubt of his guilt, there is no doubt that he has caused tremendous harm to the community. It's time for you to sentence him.

Second case - a young parent has a kid or six at home, who are hungry all the time. The parent has a history of working hard, but work is scarce these days. (S)he is having a string of bad luck. (S)he is charged with stealing a couple dollars worth of food. The jury has returned it's verdict - guilty. Now, judge.

Re:"Disproportionate?" (1)

Genda (560240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305429)

If the world were fair, "Les Miserable" would be a comedy. As long as there are people who think the response to being barred from your pocket is nuclear war, you can't be surprised to see their paid minions (mostly legal or political) serving up humanity like chalupas from Taco Bell.

Re:"Disproportionate?" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305451)

Well, I'm golfing buddies with the first man's parents. He's a good kid, I'll let this one slide.

Re:"Disproportionate?" (-1, Troll)

ProPropertyRights (2796019) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305929)

The pirates are *willfully* violating the law - they are members of the Pirate Party. They are running into a sword, and we owe them no compassion.

Re:"Disproportionate?" (5, Funny)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305979)

I disagree. The so called "rights holders" have twisted the law to their benefit, over the past several decades. People such as Walt Disney have wined and dined, and bribed the lawmakers to pass ridiculous laws, extending copyrights far beyond anything that is reasonable. Sonny Bonehead did the same.

The "rights holders" have even thrown a wet blanket over the use of "Happy Birthday" by little children at private parties.

I see the Pirate Party as a modern day Robin Hood, standing up to an unreasonable Sheriff of Nottanyfun.

Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (3, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304603)

If so, the money they get from the SLAPP-back lawsuits could fill the Pirate Party's campaign coffers for the next century. This is a very stupid move for any large group of companies to pull. If BPI has even a mote of legal sense, they need to fire their lawyers now, pull out of the suit, and offer a settlement in exchange for the Pirate Party not countersuing.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (3, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304705)

IIRC, the UK has a rule where the winning party is paid their legal fees by the losing side.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (4, Informative)

Grumbleduke (789126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304859)

Yes, but they tend to only recover 60% of their costs, and that's only after they win. But to get to that point, they have to spend £100,000 plus in costs, which the Party doesn't have right now.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304893)

And if 20 different companies file major lawsuits with rooms full of lawyers each, all at the same time? It's hard to win a court case when you can't show up to court because you can't afford to put gas in your car.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304853)

Hint: The music industry is tiny. The whole global revenue of the music industry (2011) is about as much as the profits of a single German construction company (Holzwinkel) were before they went bankrupt. It's insane. The whole German revenue of the music industry is as "big" as the revenue of the public transportation company (KVB) of one single 1 million people city (Cologne)!

That is nothing! If I were a big company, I would just buy the big three [wikipedia.org] , fire them all, and be done with it. I could file the expenses under "bought new toilet brushes for the entire company", and nobody would even blink. I'm surprised Google and Apple haven't already done it. I mean the cartel watchdogs won't complain. It already is a cartel.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304967)

The whole global revenue of the music industry (2011) is about as much as the profits of a single German construction company (Holzwinkel) were before they went bankrupt.

Based on the numbers listed for tax purposes.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (5, Informative)

fostware (551290) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305683)

+1

Remember their imaginative lawyers are second only to their imaginative accountants - just ask the artists...

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305815)

Someone mod the 2 parents up a trillion :D

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (2)

wild_quinine (998562) | about a year and a half ago | (#42306183)

Remember their imaginative lawyers are second only to their imaginative accountants - just ask the artists...

Everybody imagines accountancy and the legal professions to be dry, bookish jobs dealing in facts, history and obscurae.

But the truth is that those jobs are just as creative as writers, painters or musicians.

If anything, we should be paying them more!

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (4, Informative)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305917)

That is nothing! If I were a big company, I would just buy the big three, fire them all, and be done with it.

The big three are Universal Music Group Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group.

UMG in turn is a division of Vivendi and WMG a division of Access Industries.

Access Industries is one those blandly named, incredibly rich --- and all-but-invisible --- privately held conglomerates that seem to have a hand in almost everything: Russian oil, petrochemicals, aluminum, broadcasting, mobile communications, hotels, real estate and so on.

Vivendi's assets, which include 61% of Activision Blizzard, are worth about 56 billion euros, which is by no means pocket change.

It may have escaped the geek's attention, but companies that actually make big investments in popular entertainment --- not fantasy buy-outs on Slashdot --- tend to be very protective of their IP.

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (4, Informative)

Grumbleduke (789126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304869)

The UK doesn't have SLAPP laws. In theory, frivolous lawsuits are supposed to be shut down by the judges before they get that far. While there's no real way to counter-sue, this sort of behaviour is usually dealt with through costs orders (making the side wasting the other's time pay all the other's costs).

Of course, if the BPI win (or the Party runs out of funds first), that's another matter...

Re:Does the UK have SLAPP laws? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305809)

They are stupid - nothing to see here, move along

Seems like... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304615)

...BPI wants to create some martyrs and boost the UK pirate party right to the parliament.

Hmm (4, Insightful)

meglon (1001833) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304621)

Bribing, threatening, or extorting, public officials should be a no-no. Perhaps Scotland Yard should crawl up BPI's ass with a microscope, and start tossing people in jail.

Re:Hmm (3, Informative)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304709)

Bribing, threatening, or extorting, public officials should be a no-no.

Well, yes, but what's that got to do with this? Being a member of a political party doesn't make you a public official, and the only thing being threatened here is legal action, which is perfectly, well, legal.

Re:Hmm (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304777)

Since when is a torrent/magnet link illegal or a copyright infringement?

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305053)

Since US judges tried to say it was the same thing.

Re:Hmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305763)

Just as soon as someone can buy that bit of legislation.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304849)

oh please yes while it is all legal it is most definitely extortion

Re:Hmm (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305075)

Bribing, threatening, or extorting, public officials should be a no-no.

Well, yes, but what's that got to do with this? Being a member of a political party doesn't make you a public official, and the only thing being threatened here is legal action, which is perfectly, well, legal.

On the contrary. Threatening legal action as a form of extortion is called "Barratry" and is illegal.

And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304791)

Because by doing that, one supports this very organized crime that does shit like that to keep up their artificial delusion of scarcity of information, to make infinite money based on the works of artists they ripped off.

They are an outdated industry that nobody needs anymore, and they know it, but they refuse to give up their nice criminal get-money-but-do-no-work business model, because it finances their cocaine needs.

So do not ever give those criminals money ever again! Give it right to the artists! Especially those you discovered via file sharing and e.g. YouTube. E.g. by going to concerts or supporting them on Kickstarter.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (0)

petsounds (593538) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305289)

There certainly have been excesses in the recording industry's past, but these days the record industry -- record labels, recording studios, and most importantly music artists -- are just struggling to survive. This is not to say that the RIAA is an organization many people in the industry want, but there has been very real damage caused by a generation of people who grew up thinking copying music without paying for it is totally acceptable, or even worse, their "right" as the Pirate Party seems to believe.

You are incorrect that "nobody needs" record labels. They do many jobs that artists are not necessarily good at, especially promotion. There's also marketing, album design, physical copy distribution, legal representation. These things not only require some inherent talent or ability, but often require upfront money and lots of time. Some artists can successfully not only work on new material and organize tours, but also do all these other necessary things. But that is the rare minority. Artists that were already established prior to torrents are still doing alright, but new artists? Very difficult. The bands you see playing on Saturday Night Live? Most of them are not making money, many still have day jobs.

Oh, and "supporting them by going to concerts"? -- ha ha! Bands very rarely get a take from the door these days. Many places they have to PAY money to the club to play (for instance, I'd guess over 80% of the venues in Los Angeles are pay-to-play). Sure, if you buy a t-shirt from them or a CD, that's great. But when you tally up tour costs (club fees, gas, lodging, food) and the merch they sell, most bands barely make even. To some degree this was always the case with indie bands, but at least they got some money out of album sales if their record label cut them a good deal. Nowadays with file sharing even that income is gone. Maybe if they're really lucky they can sell out and get their song on a commercial or tv show.

So who do all of you file sharing proponents think you're 'sticking it to' exactly? Sure, there are a few major labels backing the RIAA who are still greedy and still treat the artists like shit. But most of you aren't listening to those bands/labels anyway.

And Kickstarter? KS typically only works if you're already an established artist, unless you have the talent/resources to make a clever video that goes viral. Promotion is not easy, it's very time-consuming, and most music artists aren't good at the dog-and-pony show. They're good at making music.

TL;DR -- Don't try to justify your selfishness with "zomg evil cocaine-snorting criminals". Don't vilify the whole recording industry because of the RIAA. You're hurting the artists you supposedly care about and listen to all day. Most of all, buy their music. Support indie record labels. Support your local, independent record stores. Support artist-focused online shops like Bandcamp.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (2)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305387)

from the way you're spinning it you might as well pirate all their shit, they're gonna get fucked anyway

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305397)

but there has been very real damage caused by a generation of people who grew up thinking copying music without paying for it is totally acceptable

And just how much damage? Care to cite your facts and figures? Care to explain to me how copying certain data is objectively not acceptable?

Don't try to justify your selfishness with "zomg evil cocaine-snorting criminals".

I don't think they should try to do that, either; justifications are 100% unnecessary. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, copyright is failing. People will eventually have to find viable business models or die off like anyone else would rather than tell the government to give them monopolies.

You're hurting the artists you supposedly care about and listen to all day.

You have not hurt someone if the only thing you did was not give them money (i.e. they didn't perform a service for you, didn't lend you any resources, etc.).

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305403)

also: if you're saying the major labels aren't staffed by a bunch of blood thirsty cunts looking to steal every dollar they can from the artists they you're a dirty god damned liar.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305443)

There certainly have been excesses in the recording industry's past, but these days the record industry -- record labels, recording studios, and most importantly music artists -- are just struggling to survive.

Good. Hopefully that won't last and the labels will all die. The artists... well they don't exactly have a RIGHT to make millions. If they can't even make enough to survive I guess they'll have to find a different business model or a job. It's funny how nobody cares that small time artists can barely make any money, but if some big name artist doesn't make as many millions as he wants that's somehow a problem and society as a whole must give him the money.

Back in reality, though, the music industry profits are still high. There's no chance they'll go under any time soon.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (1)

mSparks43 (757109) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305595)

So who do all of you file sharing proponents think you're 'sticking it to' exactly?

The sell outs in favor of local artists.

.

^ see that
It's the worlds smallest, quietest violin playing for the sell outs.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305615)

There certainly have been excesses in the recording industry's past, but these days the record industry -- record labels, recording studios, and most importantly music artists -- are just struggling to survive.

I guess that's why Nielsen Soundscan is reporting that overall music sales were up 4% [scoopmarketing.com] in first half of 2012 compared to same time last year. And the 2011 [businesswire.com] report said overall music sales were up 6.9% and: "For the first time, total music purchases reached the 1.6 Billion mark for the year." And there's still more than 75000 albums released per year so there's no mass death of artists, the rumors of the impending doom of the music industry are wildly exaggerated.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (4, Informative)

mSparks43 (757109) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305649)

Actually, that's a bit of a naughty use of numbers.
Your link says:
Album sales ($15?) each are down 3.2%
and
and single track sales (99c) are up 5.6%

That is not the growth you purport it to be.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305839)

OVERALL sales are up. Which is *what matters* in the end.
Album sales are practically the same at -0.6%, the increase in single track sales more than covers that.

and no where does it talk about concert sales, broadcast royalties etc.
So this report is a little bit incomprehensive and can be misleading. I'm quite certain that concert sales, broadcast royalties etc. are up quite significantly.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (3, Informative)

mSparks43 (757109) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305887)

Nope, it quite clearly says overall album sales are down 3.6%.

That does not equate to growth. In any way shape or form. They may be selling 4% more "units" - but the average value of those units is down significantly.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305915)

Nope, it quite clearly says overall album sales are down 3.6%.

That does not equate to growth. In any way shape or form. They may be selling 4% more "units" - but the average value of those units is down significantly.

Yeah, because people stop buying full 12-tracks bundles of music, preferring to go after the ONE song they want.

So instead of spending $15 for a CD or digital download of an album ($10), they're spending $0.99 to get the one song they want, and ignoring the 11 other pieces of crap they don't want. The album isn't dead - there's a lot of genres of music where the album is the preferred form (e.g., soundtrack scores), but for popular music, most people just want the song they heard on the radio. Perhaps they may want others, but they'll buy the one song they want rather than pay $9 or $14 more for a collection on them to get the one song they want. (And many people have complained of just this - having to buy a whole CD just for one song. And singles at $5?)

Obviously, the solution is to raise single track prices. Yeah, that'll fix it.

And yes, even the most reluctant of bands eventually caved into single track sales - deciding that the "integrity of the album" was costing them sales and better to sell the song the listener wants at 99 cents than have their $15 album downloaded for free just to get the one song.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305447)

This argument is stupid. If an artist wants to sell copies of their work, you have three ethical options:

1) Decline to purchase a copy, and do without a copy of the music. You do not need a copy of Britney Spears' or Metallica's latest track.
2) Purchase a copy, and abide by the terms of the sale;
3) Negotiate directly with the artist (or their representatives) for mutually agreeable terms that you and the artist can both live with.

Anything else is pure rationalization for you initiating force against someone else and trampling their rights because you feel "entitled" to something they have not agreed to give you a copy of. It takes time, money, and effort to produce a piece of music. It takes planning, promotion, distribution, recording gear & expertise, mixing and a lot of "infrastructure" to sell it, and coordinate tours, and run a merchandise store - presently the labels do a lot of that work for the artists, and if you destroy labels today, *somebody* will still need to do that work.

If an artist is cool with distributing free copies of their work, then AWESOME - patronize the shit out of them. But if they're not cool with you taking a copy, you do not have an ethical argument for taking a copy without compensation. You can live without their music - so put your money where your mouth is, and refuse to do business with ANYBODY who runs their business in a manner you don't agree with.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305819)

Anything else is pure rationalization

The word 'rationalization' is incredibly overused. I could just as easily claim that you're rationalizing because you made that comment. In reality, I have no idea what's going through your head.

That said, what is right and wrong is subjective, so for some people, there might be a fourth option: download it for free.

Re:And this is why "buying" media is a crime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42306145)

rationalization (noun) - to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

I wrote, "any other option you take is simply rationalization," and then proceeded to explain what was being rationalized pretty fucking clearly.

Rationalizing what? Why, if you look back, you'll see I said, "For initiating force against someone else and trampling their rights because you feel 'entitled' to something they have not agreed to give you a copy of."

I didn't stutter. Words have definitions. I used the word the way it's defined, and I explained quite clearly what I meant. The fourth option is a bullshit argument that has no business in a human society. You have no right to take something from someone else against their wishes - you can rationalize "download it for free" all you want, but it is a cheap, shoddy rationalization for misappropriation of something that is not yours to take. What's funny to me is that people rationalize taking something from someone else against that other person's wishes, but then get all indignant when the other person petitions the court for redress, and the court orders them to give something in return.

It's almost as if the pirates believe, "whats mine is mine, what's yours is mine, and you better just shut the fuck up and learn to live with it," and almost as if they believe that this is an ethical way to live. (And, guess what? If you want to play subjective word games and claim it's ethical for you to take something from someone else against their wishes, it's also ethical for the person you took something from to take something from YOU against YOUR wishes.)

LLC (1)

SpiralSpirit (874918) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304635)

they should incorporate.

If only... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304641)

BPI together with RIAA, MPAA, SIAE, SAGEM etc... are the scum of this earth.
Why oh why do people massacre kids insteads of these fucking cunts ? They'd do a service to humankind.

Re:If only... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304811)

BPI together with RIAA, MPAA, SIAE, SAGEM etc... are the scum of this earth.
Why oh why do people massacre kids insteads of these fucking cunts ? They'd do a service to humankind.

If you add to that list the national government officials, both elected and non-elected, of the UK and US, I'd agree.

I pray every day to whatever deities or forces that may exist in the universe for meteors to simultaneously impact Washington, D.C. and London and turn them into huge smoking holes on a day when all the leaders of both nations are in their respective capitols, or for Iran or N. Korea to succeed in their nuclear programs and nuke them both.

Either way, it would be the best thing that's happened to the people of the US and England since WW2, maybe even farther back than that.

Re:If only... (1, Funny)

The Master Control P (655590) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305163)

*the White House and 10 Downing Street are vaporized by terrorist nukes*

The CIA/NSA/MI6/etc: "My god, we brought this on ourselves by taking actions that made other people hate us! We have to immediately restore the bill of rights tenfold, dismantle the illegal spying programs, and recall our troops from around the world!"

Were you dropped on your head as a child, by any chance?

Re:If only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305311)

You fail reading comprehension.

Were you dropped on YOUR head as a child, then ate lead-paint chips until you were 21?

Re:If only... (4, Funny)

Entropius (188861) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305181)

I have occasionally said only partially in jest that the best thing that could happen to Washington DC would be for the British to come back and finish the job they started in 1814.

This can be a good thing! (4, Interesting)

Lisias (447563) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304707)

This will open a precedent.

Just think : "Individuals are being charged for felonies committed by the organization".

Microsoft, Exxon, MPAA, RIAA et all !!!!

Man, I can't hold myself in the chair, this can be great!!!

Re:This can be a good thing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304723)

Operating a proxy is a felony in the UK?

Re:This can be a good thing! (2)

Lisias (447563) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304737)

Does it matter?

The charging is the precedent, not the veracity if the charge!

Re:This can be a good thing! (3, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304919)

First, its civil so no charges being filed, just lawsuits for liability. Second, this happens all the time. A corporation does not shield someone from their own actions. It only shields those who took no part in the actions and those where the evidence isn't sufficient to show someone took part in an action. There is no precedent here other then you knowing about it. Most of the suits will likely be tossed because there won't be enough evidence to show they took any specific actions regarding the claims giving the appearance that no one in a corp gets busted when the corp does.

This is really a form of harassment and there will likely by some serious judicial blow back once it starts. That is if it is more then a bluff attempting to get party members to pressure the party to drop the proxy. There might even be some blow back if it's a bluff too.

Re:This can be a good thing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304955)

A corporation does not shield someone from their own actions. It only shields those who took no part in the actions and those where the evidence isn't sufficient to show someone took part in an action.

ROFL. Wealth and power shield their own. No one who is actually responsible is ever held to account in the corporate state. The buck stops at the 99%.

Re:This can be a good thing! (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305285)

read the rest of what was written. the reason you think that is because there isn't evidence connecting people with the actions. Its not because they aren't held accountable. And BTW, they are. search for CEO goes to prison.

Re:This can be a good thing! (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304959)

It's a lot worse than that. A corporation acts as a shield for *personal liability*. Basically, even if you sue an individual and win, their liability for what they did is still limited.

It's like if you make up a character in an online game, and make the character commit crimes. What's the worst that can happen to you? A bit of inconvenience. If the character dies, you can just make a new one.

Re:This can be a good thing! (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305423)

Wrong-- this is a misnomer that needs to stop. a corporation will not shield any personal liability for your own actions. It will only shield for liability due to not causes of yours-. In other words, if you fuck up, a corporation will not shield you from any liability but if your employee fucks up, it limits the liability to the corporate assets. The only personal assets that are shielded are the ones owned by owners and employees who did not participate in the act.

You will find no law saying "a corporation acts as a shield for *personal liability*" or even resembling it. What you will find is a legal doctrine "Respondeat superior" that allows the employer to be liable for the acts of employees. Most companies are sued in stead of the employee or officer of the company because the likelihood of collecting a judgement is way better. In some instances, you will see the employee sued as well as the company through vicarious liability but generally they attempt to not sue the employee so that it becomes easier to gain information from then to help in the suit.

Re:This can be a good thing! (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305507)

And that's why all the potentially risky or legally dubious activity is always performed by employees as part of their normal duties for the company. And that includes company directors, who are employees as well, even though they do the bidding of silent shareholders.

Your caveats mean very little in practice, they only apply when the corporate shield is being used by amateurs.

Re:This can be a good thing! (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305925)

I'm not going to argue this with you. If you start a business and incorporate it, go out and you break the law or do something that makes you liable for damages, your personal financials are not shielded. Its the same for any corporation, those who break the law or do something that makes them liable, they are/can be liable personally too.

All you have to do is pay attention to detail and you would know this is true. The management of worldcom, tyco, and a few other big name mismanaged companies ended up getting criminal charges and some of them got sued for losses.

Re:This can be a good thing! (2)

Grumbleduke (789126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304895)

Iirc the only felony left in the UK is the treason felony [wikipedia.org] , which was last used in the UK in the 1880s.

As for the original question, this is a threatened lawsuit, not a crime. And the issue of holding individuals liable is due to the fact that political parties in the UK aren't automatically incorporated, so it is technically impossible to sue them.

Re:This can be a good thing! (2)

Cederic (9623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304907)

The term 'felony' isn't really used here. However, operating a proxy may or may not be illegal, depending on circumstances.

Offering a proxy to TPB shouldn't be illegal, but certain companies are obliged by court order not to provide direct access to that site. Whether the proxy can be deemed contempt of court (for subverting that order) would be an interesting challenge, but probably not.

Expansion of the court order to include the Pirate Party is more likely, but hasn't yet happened.

Suing the members of the party could have serious fallout, including within the more mainstream parties. Even so, it could be difficult to prove that there is a justification for that action, or that losses have resulted.

Re:This can be a good thing! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42306097)

It's almost certainly not a contempt of court. The order was against ISPs to block access specifically to that site, not to any site on the *.pirateparty.or.uk domain. The ISPs aren't in breach, and the Pirate Party wouldn't be in breach either. The BPI would of had a far better chance of winning that case anyway if that were the case.

Re:This can be a good thing! (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305339)

This will open a precedent.

Just think : "Individuals are being charged for felonies committed by the organization".

Microsoft, Exxon, MPAA, RIAA et all !!!!

Man, I can't hold myself in the chair, this can be great!!!

Just think, a morally bankrupt organization trying to financially bankrupt another. Neil Young may have something to say about that.

Re:This can be a good thing! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305955)

This will open a precedent.

Just think : "Individuals are being charged for felonies committed by the organization".

Microsoft, Exxon, MPAA, RIAA et all !!!!

Man, I can't hold myself in the chair, this can be great!!!

And do the same thing to bank executives? Good idea - not a $1.9bn fine for HSBC ... a $1.9bn fine for the board and executive of HSBC ... personally.

How about getting personal on the BPI (2)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304739)

Take names, kick ass.

Don't forget: (1)

archer, the (887288) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304915)

Chew gum.

Re:Don't forget: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304947)

And blow some bubbles while your at it.

Also Duke Nukem was about a badass kicking the lizard aliens off the planet and saving all the babes.

Could Bankrupt ...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304883)

Isn't that exactly what is intended?

EU is not U$A. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304927)

Su*k di*k u$tards.

Re:EU is not U$A. (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305143)

Sorry this offends your kooky views that all bad things come from the U.S., and that the EU doesn't have a shitpile of problems of its own.

Re:EU is not U$A. (-1, Troll)

Entropius (188861) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305417)

The US has, in general, done a better job of protecting freedom of speech than the EU.

Just sayin'.

Re:EU is not U$A. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42306019)

The US has, in general, done a better job of protecting freedom of speech than the EU.

Just sayin'.

The EU has done a better job of protecting individual freedoms than the US. Oh and it has a judicial system that is designed to protect the individual, rather than throw him in jail arbitrarily under some false excuse.

Time to take up a collection, then. (3, Funny)

rastoboy29 (807168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305159)

Shall we?  I'd be happy to organize it.

Re:Time to take up a collection, then. (5, Informative)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305277)

OK, so your comment is Funny...

...but here is how you can help [pirateparty.org.uk]

duh (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305211)

Maybe you shouldn't base your party around stealing other peoples products that they've invested millions in.

Re:duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305415)

stealing

Stupid misconceptions like this are one of the reasons why we need a Pirate Party.

Music industry could bankrupt every one of us (5, Interesting)

jsepeta (412566) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305413)

at $200,000 a song, and not being held to prove intent to distribute, the music industry could prosecute anyone into bankruptcy. fuck them. i paid piracy taxes on blank cd's and blank cassette tapes, taxes which go straight into the RIAA's coffers. yet i record my own music, and am blamed ahead of time for crimes i haven't committed. so yes, fuck the music industry, fuck them all the way.

Re:Music industry could bankrupt every one of us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305849)

Yeah here they collect those taxes too (Finland), and they tried to pursue adding that tax to *all* digital devices capable of playback. Including computers, phones etc. and they were quite close to succeed in the sense that the government actually spent time to look into this, and there was quite a bit of talk about making that happen!

One pays tax to be allowed to copy music - yet when you do that you are criminal. Such bullshit.
The very original intent of that tax was allowing individuals to copy music freely!!
Yet, just a little bit while ago they wanted to sue a little girl for downloading *single torrent file*, and not even the actual song!

With "Pirate" in the name, do they expect to win? (1)

109 97 116 116 (191581) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305461)

Do these people really think when a trial goes to jury or even just judgement, that the jurors or judge is going to catch the "too cute by half" nature of their name and let them off?

Re:With "Pirate" in the name, do they expect to wi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42306111)

It would be no different to it being against the MRLP, it's an official party recognised by the UK Electoral Commission. The judge will rule on the basis of the law. I don't believe there is a jury for civil cases though.

Vexatious litigation is nothing new (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305509)

It's really nothing special. They'll get their costs back from the BPI, their lawyer will hold off on bills as long as he thinks they can ultimately pay, or the case will be won. If the litigation is vexatious (the litigation process is designed to be the punitive, rather than the court decision), then they can do serious damage in return to the BPI.

As it is, this lawsuit is a good thing, since it will test whether a ban on a website that doesn't actually infringe copyright itself, is worth so much that you ban a *gateway* to a website that doesn't infringe copyright itself... I mean how far do we go with this?

See, EVERY proxy does this to the nth degree. EVERY proxy lets me access some sites that are banned somewhere for some reason.

So what they did was say "here's a proxy that lets you access pirate bay", but actually EVERY proxy outside the UK does that. What they're doing is nothing special and thus the consequence of this lawsuit succeeding would collapse the net.

Thus it won't succeed.

But then when it fails, it opens the doorway for everyone to introduce proxies to sites that also link to copyright infringements but don't infringe themselves*.

* See when we go down this road, it becomes difficult to even explain. Bob committed a murder, Anton runs a tour of the murder scene, Anton is prosecuted, because they can't get Bob and Anton is an easier target. Dave continues to sell tickets to Anton's gruesome tour. So they sue Dave for .... well.... Bob's murder. Having already prosecuted Anton for that murder.

Right idea, wrong follow through. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305571)

What the Pirate Party needs to do, rather than run their own proxy, and thus invite this kind of attention, is educate people on how to use Tor, and how to route their TRACKER communications through Tor (NOT their p2p communications, as this breaks both the Tor network AND doesn't actually work very well at securing privacy simultaneously, due to the way Bittorrent works). Then watch the recording industry sit back and figure out how to threaten the Tor network itself.

Not to say there isn't merit in making a stand symbolically and publicly as they're doing, as frankly, they should prevail IF sanity is being adhered to by the legal system. But, back in reality, it's good to recognize that you can't always fix structures that engage in and protect bullying, and nor can you fix the ignorance by a system that is supposed to keep said structures/entities in check.

Re:Right idea, wrong follow through. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42306129)

The proxy was put in place to assist PPNL with bandwidth issues with their own proxy. The Party continued to run the UK proxy even after PPNL was forced to terminate theirs. The proxy was also in place prior to the court orders against TPB. That's the only reason it was there in the first place.

A new McLibel trial? (2)

Cassini2 (956052) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305691)

The McLibel [mcspotlight.org] trial was widely regarded as the biggest publicity disaster [wikipedia.org] to every hit McDonalds.

This case is so peripherally connected with file sharing, that it could sour the public on the recording industry. Specifically, if England, if they go to trial, the can subpoena the record company executives to testify at trial. There is no end of embarassing documents that might come up.

Low voter turn out (1)

jago25_98 (566531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305957)

If politics changed anything they'd ban it.
Can it be made any clearer to terrorists and extremists that there is no room for change within the system.

Purchasing music, movies, or paying for cable (5, Insightful)

Sean (422) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305961)

Purchasing music, movies, or paying for cable TV is immoral. Just don't do it, and try your best to stop your friends and family from doing it.

Am I really that extreme? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305967)

Doesn't the idea that assisted assisted file sharing violates copyright law suggest a problem with the law?
Doesn't the fact that a political party is struggling to raise the funds it needs to protect itself from a copyright lawsuit hint at a problem with the justice system?
Perhaps I've been reading Slashdot too long but I have a hard time imagining a mentally healthy adult that sees no real problem here.

Torches and Pitchforks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42306071)

Seriously.

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>