×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Pirate Bay Co-Founder Peter Sunde Arrested In Sweden

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the high-priority dept.

Crime 221

An anonymous reader writes "Peter Sunde was arrested today in a police raid in southern Sweden. The Pirate Bay co-founder was wanted by Interpol as he had yet to serve prison time for his involvement with the site. Sunde's arrest comes exactly eight years after the police raided the Pirate Bay servers, which marked the start of the criminal prosecution against the site's founders." From the article: "While details are scarce at the moment, the Swedish newspaper Expressen reports that the arrest has been confirmed by the Swedish authorities. According to Peter Althin, Sunde’s lawyer, the news means that his client will most likely be sent to prison to serve his 8-month sentence. Sunde’s prison sentence was made final in 2012 after Sweden’s Supreme Court announced its decision not to grant leave to appeal in the long-running criminal case against the founders of The Pirate Bay."

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

Euhm holysit batman (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138273)

First !

Re:Euhm holysit batman (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138283)

8 like in 8 bits in a byte ?! Gjez !

Sweden ... a client state of MAFIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138443)

MAFIAA is indeed a very powerful entity - it not only controls interpol, it has Sweden, a supposingly sovereign country, under its control

I do not know about the Swedes, but if I were one of them I would revolt against a government which has sold out the sovereignty of my nation to a blood sucking entity

Re:Euhm holysit batman (2)

Nehmo (757404) | about 7 months ago | (#47139523)

By American standards, 8 months is a very light sentence. Lots of people spend that much time just awaiting trial, while they are technically innocent by law. My wife, for example, just finished 40 calendar months (lost all good time for tobacco smoking) for possession of a tiny quantity of crack (which I don't do, btw). I could go on with examples that are even worse, but I wanted to show something near to me to demonstrate prevalence.

Re:Euhm holysit batman (0)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#47139723)

By American standards, 8 months is a very light sentence.

By European standards, it's 31.7 milibreiviks. That's quite a lot.

ha ha ha ha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138291)

Ha hah ah aha hah a ha

His 'role in the site' (5, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 months ago | (#47138301)

Or some trumped up charges that they can make stick? Running a site based on user content, ( remember they didn't house any files ) should not be considered a crime.

They really did nothing more than lets say, Slashdot..

That's not true and you know it. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138315)

Stop playing semantic games. "Data" is a highly abstract and generalized categorization of things that, for every practical difference, are worlds apart.

An anonymous posting on a blog is *not the same thing* as a musical piece that required a lot of talent and upfront costs to produce. Though both can be stored as data, they are as different as night and day.

The level of control asserted over data, by the wealthy entrenched powers, is precisely the level of control that the unwashed masses choose to abide. If enough people really and truly believed that information should be free, the amount of political and economic force they could bring to bear (with relatively little effort) would change the laws and the balance of power.

Individual acts of defiance might get some media attention, but that is about it. You can't change the system that way. You can change the system through, and only through, large groups of people that agree with you.

Re:That's not true and you know it. (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#47138331)

If the normal number hypothesis holds for Pi, doesn't it mean that there are all the Metallica songs in MP3 somewhere in it? ;-)

Re:That's not true and you know it. (1)

stephenmac7 (2700151) | about 7 months ago | (#47138367)

What is the normal number hypothesis?

Re:That's not true and you know it. (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 7 months ago | (#47139141)

If you have a number randomly extending on into infinity then somewhere in it is every possible sequence of numbers of any length.

Re:That's not true and you know it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47139257)

Very interesting.

As I understand, PI is not random. The digits can be calculated via a Taylor Series.

Re:That's not true and you know it. (1)

John.Banister (1291556) | about 7 months ago | (#47139591)

Taylor Swift - Fearless + Speak Now - Red = pi ?

Re:That's not true and you know it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47139691)

Turn in your geek card.

Re:That's not true and you know it. (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 7 months ago | (#47139149)

For any normal number, each digit appears just as frequently as any other, and each pair of digits appears just as equally as any other, etc.

In base 10 (that is, base two, since all bases except base one are base 10):
0 and 1 appear 50% of the time each.
00, 01, 10, and 11 appear 25% of the time each.
etc.

So when you've got infinite digits, ALL strings of numbers of length n are uniformly present within the number, and thus all digital works ever created or to be created are present within it. Of course that's all bullshit since irrational numbers don't exist in our quantum Universe.

Re:That's not true and you know it. (1)

sjames (1099) | about 7 months ago | (#47139367)

The idea is that PI never stops and every possible number sequence (including the complete music catalog of Metallica in MP3 format) is in there somewhere.

Re:That's not true and you know it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138435)

The level of control asserted over data, by the wealthy entrenched powers, is precisely the level of control that the unwashed masses choose to abide.

Is that you, Madame Lafarge?

Re:That's not true and you know it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138457)

If enough people really and truly believed that information should be free, the amount of political and economic force they could bring to bear (with relatively little effort) would change the laws and the balance of power.

I find it amusing you actually believe that. Nothing short of a global revolution will ever change this corruption we currently have snd I'm sad to say most soldiers are so dumb they'd blindly follow orders so we'd probably lose.

Re:That's not true and you know it. (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | about 7 months ago | (#47138569)

An anonymous posting on a blog is *not the same thing* as a musical piece that required a lot of talent and upfront costs to produce.

Now why would that be? You're probably inferring that the anonymous posting has no value or hasn't been worked on. But an anonymous posting can be as valuable as music. If you take Slashdot's own sort of news, that's pretty interesting. It amounts to a curated collection of news with commentary, and journalism can be argued to be more socially valuable than music in our current information society. Also, if we're talking about any kind of anonymous posting, yes, it can have value. Including literary value. If Pynchon decided to post Gravity's Rainbow online, would its value as art be diminished? I think I get what you're trying to say, but the way you chose to differentiate data is too arbitrary.

Plus, you seem to be overlooking that fact that "large groups of people agreeing with you" can be made of "individual acts of defiance", and that major economic shifts in point of view take time. We're not going to snap out of the economics of scarcity overnight, but the very existence of Creative Commons is a sign that the opinion you seem to be arguing against is quite widespread. I don't really know if it's on the rise, though I'd wager it is.

Re:That's not true and you know it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138749)

OP here.

The existence, and popularity, of Creative Commons is a very poignant example of "large groups of people that agree with you." If something like that became the definitive trend, then sites like The Pirate Bay would be a non-sequitur. Or, at least, the name would be. And the hosts certainly wouldn't be ruffling feathers of content creators (let alone being prosecuted for having broken any laws).

Why is it illegal to download the latest Transformers movie? Because the producers, actors, and financial backers do not agree that data is abundant and should be free. If they did, they would have used the Creative Commons license to begin with. As it stands, their rejection of the principles behind that license is shared by the politicians for whom they voted, the judges who hear the complaints they bring, and a large enough percentage of the voting population that their concept of data ownership continues to be the way things are done.

If enough people agreed on Creative Commons as a solution, then movies, music, etc. would all be distributed under such a licence anyway, and without changing any laws the problem would simply vanish.

Anyway, about the difference between an anonymous post (like mine) and the latest Transformers movie....

It doesn't matter how philosophically and scientifically precise your understanding of data may be, that is not how people think of it. In practical terms, the effort and money I put into this post pales in comparison to that which gets put into the making of a movie. Similarly, the market-penetration and value of my post to the end-users also pales in comparison. But both of those are inconsequential compared to the concepts used to understand posts vs movies. People think of a movie as a different kind of thing, deserving of different handling, than a bit of an anonymous conversation on a blog. So, as far as most actual human beings are concerned, they are different, and should be treated differently by the law. You can argue against this all you want, but the majority of the human population will tell you to pound sand.

Re:That's not true and you know it. (2)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about 7 months ago | (#47139093)

I agree with much of what you've said, and you stated it reasonably and eloquently. However, there is one part I would change:

As it stands, their rejection of the principles behind that license is shared by the politicians for whom they paid, the judges who were appointed by said politicians, and a large enough percentage of the anaesthetized-and-spell-bound-by-bread-and-circuses voting population that their concept of data ownership continues to be the way things are done.

I think it's important to recognize that things are the way they are at least in part because politicians and laws are sold to the highest bidder, and because a large portion of the electorate is too clueless, uncritical, self-absorbed, or otherwise distracted to care.

Re:That's not true and you know it. (1)

savuporo (658486) | about 7 months ago | (#47139047)

Anonymous posting on Slashdot could give an explanation to supersymmetry, detail a working cheap fusion reactor or do any number of more critical things than do another iteration of "ooh ooh baby". More likely it will be about hot grits though

Re:That's not true and you know it. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138817)

As long as the big banks and government can "play semantic games" to get away with fucking over orders of magnitude more people for far more money, then the little guy should be able to as well.

Re:That's not true and you know it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47139063)

If enough people really and truly believed that information should be free, the amount of political and economic force they could bring to bear (with relatively little effort) would change the laws and the balance of power.

What planet are you on?

The golden rule: he with the gold makes the rules. Always has, probably will always be that way.

Re:That's not true and you know it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47139193)

> If enough people really and truly believed that information should be free, the amount of political and economic force they could bring to bear (with relatively little effort) would change the laws and the balance of power.

You can't possibly be this naive.

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/14/04/16/0221210/study-finds-us-is-an-oligarchy-not-a-democracy
"When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

Trying to declare rules on wild data isn't something that needs to be addressed up at the ethical and moral levels, it collapses quite plainly at a logistic one. You might as well declare sovereignty on a pathogen. The freedom of knowledge isn't "going" to be free, it always has been. You don't maintain a secret with paper walls, you keep it fucking secret. We don't describe these as "leaks" because knowledge isn't a fixed solid, no matter how much you whine and stomp.

It's only in the last few centuries that we've tried to make a money stink about it, and only in the last few decades that the motion routes became exponentially obvious.

-AC.Falos

Another anonymous coward here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47139685)

Do they pay well? Where do I apply? I'm in desperate need of money!

Re:That's not true and you know it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47139697)

that the unwashed masses choose to abide

Is a funny way of saying imposed to accept like a frog on slow boil.
I am an unwashed mass and I and you made no such choices. That is true though you may not be aware of it.

Re:That's not true and you know it. (1, Flamebait)

Kalium70 (3437049) | about 7 months ago | (#47139751)

The .torrent files only contain metadata. The NSA assured us that metadata isn't really data. Something does not quite match up here.

Re:That's not true and you know it. (0)

AnttiV (1805624) | about 7 months ago | (#47139889)

Mod parent up! This is something people (also here) seem to overlook/forget. Like someone compared an "anonymous posting" on Slashdot to a "piece of art" on Piratebay as data, it does NOT hold water. Piratebay does NOT and NEVER did host the actual "data", just a "link" to it. Slashdot actually holds MORE "copyrightable data" (yeah, I know) than piratebay ever did. Like the parent said, torrent files ONLY contain metadata, NOT the actual "data" that is being downloaded.

It's now exactly the same, but Piratebay is WAY closer to Google than Slashdot when compared to what data it hosts.

Re: His 'role in the site' (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138319)

Aye. The thing is according to Swedish law TPB should be legal. I don't get how he could have been sentenced in the first place. I can only assume that Swedish courts are no longer independent and huge pressure was made from outside. Maybe by the content mafia.

Re: His 'role in the site' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138355)

If you dont understand something, it can be explained by one word

Money

Somonone was paid by somone to have this happened, im sure you can guess the partys involved.

Re: His 'role in the site' (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 7 months ago | (#47138417)

Aye. The thing is according to Swedish law TPB should be legal.

Apparently your understanding of Swedish law is as good as mine, which is absolutely none.

One assumes that if the man was convicted of a "crime" in Sweden, than what he did was against Swedish Law...

Re: His 'role in the site' (2)

click2005 (921437) | about 7 months ago | (#47138465)

Yes, the innocent are never imprisoned for political reasons.

Re: His 'role in the site' (0)

jelIomizer (3670957) | about 7 months ago | (#47138491)

Everyone should just have absolute faith in authority figures, because they can never do any wrong. It's not like history is absolutely chocked full of examples of abuse or anything.

Re: His 'role in the site' (1, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 7 months ago | (#47138521)

Yes, the innocent are never imprisoned for political reasons.

Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi were imprisoned for political reasons. This guy is being imprisoned because he helped to facilitate media piracy on a mass scale. You may disagree with that outcome but please don't try and paint him as some sort of oppressed political dissent.

Re: His 'role in the site' (0)

cpghost (719344) | about 7 months ago | (#47138527)

Considering that he spawned the Pirate Parties in many countries in the world, including Sweden, he can be considered a political prisoner (too).

Re: His 'role in the site' (1, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 7 months ago | (#47138543)

You cheapen the term "political prisoner" when you apply it to someone who goes to jail for something as mundane as piracy.

You may think it should be perfectly legal, or that it should be a civil matter (this is where I fall, FWIW) rather than a criminal one, but no matter what your opinion you do "the cause" a disservice when you conjure up images of Gandhi or Mandela, which is what comes to mind for most people when they hear "political prisoner".

Re: His 'role in the site' (0)

AK Marc (707885) | about 7 months ago | (#47138573)

He performed no piracy. He allowed people to share information. He facilitated undesirable speech, not unlike "real" political prisoners.

Re: His 'role in the site' (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 7 months ago | (#47138601)

If you split that hair any further you'll be looking at it on a subatomic level.

Re: His 'role in the site' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138755)

I think you are the ones that are in The wrong. I dont belive in copyright. The US like so many other countries got there economy started by copying from other countries. Now when they reach a certin level they say its not ok to build your ekonomy like we did. And sure u can blame that this is not the same thing but in The end it is

Re: His 'role in the site' (0)

AK Marc (707885) | about 7 months ago | (#47139301)

So you are saying that because you fail at logic, we must lie to make you feel better? He didn't pirate. He shared information about it (to the point some say he advocated it). You seem to agree with those facts, but wish to persecute him for saying undesired things. I'm not splitting the hairs, you are.

Re: His 'role in the site' (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 7 months ago | (#47139365)

to the point some say he advocated it

You said it, not me. The legal term you're looking for is facilitation. It's a crime in many jurisdictions.

I make no comment on whether or not it should be, or whether or not it should apply in this case. I just think it's absurd to apply the label "political prisoner" to Mr. Sunde.

Re: His 'role in the site' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47139747)

The legal term you're looking for is facilitation. It's a crime in many jurisdictions.

I make no comment on whether or not it should be, or whether or not it should apply in this case. I just think it's absurd to apply the label "political prisoner" to Mr. Sunde.

Interesting thing is that shortly before a group of Swedish politician went on a trip to the US, the DA that later came to prosecute the case, said that there was nothing they could do against TPB. Guess they got inspired.

Re: His 'role in the site' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138843)

It's about freedom, and no, he does not cheapen the term political prisoner. You are simply dodging the issue by trying to redefine the term to suit your own agenda.

Re: His 'role in the site' (5, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#47138869)

"You cheapen the term "political prisoner" when you apply it to someone who goes to jail for something as mundane as piracy. "

There was no piracy involved or even alleged. He never raised a cutlass, boarded a skiff, or ravished a prisoner.

You unjustly honor the term 'pirate' when you apply it to someone whose crime was facilitating communication.

Re: His 'role in the site' (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 7 months ago | (#47139635)

Piracy is a more important issue than most people realize. This isn't about just an obsolete business model of financing art via sales of copies, this is nothing less than the biggest thing that sets us apart from all other animals. We can talk to each other like no other animals can. Thousands of years ago, we figured out how to write. We used to have only drawings, paintings, and sculptures to communicate visual information, and nothing but memory for audio, now we have cameras, recorders, and more. But talking and writing and all these other methods are useless if we can't use it to communicate and share ideas and information with each other. Communication is absolutely necessary for civilization to exist. These slimy media owners want nothing less than to impose and collect a tax upon all communication.

He most certainly is a political prisoner.

Re: His 'role in the site' (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47139775)

This guy is being imprisoned because he helped to facilitate media piracy on a mass scale.

Actually, the case was about a rather limited number of torrents: "Some 34 cases of copyright infringements were originally listed, of which 21 were related to music files, 9 to movies, and 4 to games.[2] One case involving music files was later dropped by the copyright holder who made the file available again on the website of The Pirate Bay"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial]

So, should the sentences and damages be scaled up by the total amount of infringing torrents on TPB / 33 ?

Re: His 'role in the site' (5, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#47138845)

"One assumes that if the man was convicted of a "crime" in Sweden, than what he did was against Swedish Law..."

Except it was already pretty well established that what they were doing was perfectly legal under Swedish law and they had been operating quite openly for some time until Hollywood got real annoyed and DC phoned in threatened sanctions.

Then suddenly they had US-style SWAT raids on a bunch of geeks (this kind of treatment the Swedish Police do not typically resort to even when dealing with Russian Mafia) and a judge who ruled that it did not matter that what they actually *did* was legal, because their *intent* was not. Think about that for a second.

Re:His 'role in the site' (1, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | about 7 months ago | (#47138363)

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you make such statements. You lose all credibility when you act like facilitating crime isn't in and of itself a crime. Google accidentally linking to some files is one thing. TPB exists entirely on the premise of facilitating copyright infringement. Thats different.

Google linking to information on how to make meth is one thing. Actively selling the chemicals to do so along with an instruction book detailing how to make meth and advertising yourself as the place to go for all your meth making needs is another.

Continuing to pretend they aren't intentionally facilitating copyright infringement just makes you seem stupid and/or dishonest at best. A flat out liar for any normal person.

Re:His 'role in the site' (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 7 months ago | (#47138405)

I'm sure you will be modded into -1, but of course you are correct on this point.

Re:His 'role in the site' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138455)

If someone modded him to -1, it would be because he's a copyright troll (Someone who comes to discussions about any matter involving copyright and uses propaganda terms, uses inflammatory language, makes assertions about copyright's affect on innovation that have never been scientifically proven, and pretends his ideas of copyright-related morality are objectively correct, rather than a subjective matter.). Sadly, even some moderators are copyright trolls.

Re:His 'role in the site' (4, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | about 7 months ago | (#47138577)

So, what would you do with people that make The Anarchist Cookbook available? Jail? Or should we just burn the books, is that far enough?

Re:His 'role in the site' (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 7 months ago | (#47139863)

Watch out for the Hound!

Re:His 'role in the site' (5, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | about 7 months ago | (#47138795)

"Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you make such statements. You lose all credibility when you act like facilitating crime isn't in and of itself a crime."

The original crime was monopoly, Intellectual property and it's believers are the biggest scam going. The people who originally wrote copyright didn't expect it'd become eternal.

Look at the following chart:

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

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

If you still think he's a "criminal" you are too stupid and illiterate to see that the law is nothing but the rich man's tool to take away the rights of everyone else.

Re:His 'role in the site' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47139459)

And isn't it so nice that the rich "man" allows himself to utilize old knowledge that is indeed the foundation of that what we perceive our current civilization. What would it really be without free and old knowledge and most of the basic information.

Re:His 'role in the site' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47139467)

as* and to be quite honest here, most of the information that is up for discussion when it comes to modern copyright infringement is pretty much irrelevant to civilization. It is at times a foot note but not truly vital.

Re:His 'role in the site' (2)

bug1 (96678) | about 7 months ago | (#47138847)

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you make such statements. You lose all credibility when you act like facilitating crime isn't in and of itself a crime. Google accidentally linking to some files is one thing. TPB exists entirely on the premise of facilitating copyright infringement. Thats different.

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you make such statements, you lose all credibility when you act like all filesharing is copyright infringement. Accidental punishing legal sharing is one thing. Media cartels manipulating law enforcement agencies to deliberately target specific file sharing methods. Thats different.

TPB exists entirely on the premise of facilitating file sharing using the bittorrent protocol. It does not have the means to check copyrights, and media cartels have demonstrated they cannot be trusted to provide advise on what is copyrighted. They have no choice but to remove themselves from such decisions, just like google does.

Your implication that correlation implies causation is extremely dangerous to society, it can only lead us to a dark age of inquisitions and witch hunts.

Re:His 'role in the site' (1)

Raenex (947668) | about 7 months ago | (#47139053)

TPB exists entirely on the premise of facilitating file sharing using the bittorrent protocol. It does not have the means to check copyrights, and media cartels have demonstrated they cannot be trusted to provide advise on what is copyrighted. They have no choice but to remove themselves from such decisions, just like google does.

Get real here. The Pirate Bay explicitly set out to link to copyrighted materials.

Re:His 'role in the site' (1)

bug1 (96678) | about 7 months ago | (#47139731)

Get real here. The Pirate Bay explicitly set out to link to copyrighted materials.

The piratebay administrators dont, some people who upload torrents do.

The site behaves the same way a "common carrier" does in tellecommunications, blaming TPB is like blaming ISP's for piracy.

ISP's want you to download content, they dont take any steps to verify the licences of content their customers are trying to download.

Re:His 'role in the site' (1, Insightful)

Raenex (947668) | about 7 months ago | (#47139843)

Sorry, this is a bullshit argument. The administrators set out to create a site to assist in piracy, hence their name, hence their advertising that you can find TV shows, movies, etc on the site. It's not even a secret. You are either engaging in sophistry or are naive to claim they are a neutral "common carrier" status.

Since you are either playing dumb or otherwise, here [vanityfair.com] it is, spelled out for you:

As befits an organization of global disrepute, Pirate Bay had its beginnings not in Scandinavia but in far-off Mexico City, where Gottfrid Svartholm was working, in 2003, for an Internet-security firm. As a devout member of Sweden's pro-piracy Web site Pirate Bureau, Svartholm agreed to use the security firm's servers to launch the Swedes' BitTorrent venture, and when he returned home the following year, he found a new accomplice in Fredrik Neij, a self-taught programmer who got his first job through a criminal act. "I hacked a company's service provider and put up obscene messages," says Neij. "The company said work for us or we prosecute." Asked why he committed the original act of vandalism, Neij responds brightly, "Because I could!"

By the time Neij got involved with Pirate Bay (there is a third, silent partner, named "Peter"), the site had effectively outgrown its host. "We had no idea it would happen," says Rasmus Fleischer, co-founder of Pirate Bureau. "It started off as just a little part of the site. Our forum was more important. Even the links were more important than the [torrent] tracker."

With a membership of more than 60,000, Pirate Bureau was originally devoted to the unofficial distribution of music files; expanded bandwidth enabled the transmission of video files. Fleischer neatly summarizes the ethos of his site: "We don't want to reform copyright lawâ"we just don't want the state to enforce it."

Fleischer likes to frame the copyright issue in historical and theoretical terms, expounding on ideas about "how value is produced in the cultural sector." He sees the notion of music copyright in particular as a transitory construct. "This has been the business model for some bit of the 20th century," he says. "Music has always worked in different economic ways, and copyright has only applied to a few genres historically."

Does that sound like a neutral ISP to you?

Re:His 'role in the site' (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 months ago | (#47138879)

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you make such statements. You lose all credibility when you act like facilitating crime isn't in and of itself a crime. Google accidentally linking to some files is one thing. TPB exists entirely on the premise of facilitating copyright infringement. Thats different.

Do you have any idea how much of a fascist that makes you sound when you make such statements?

The simple fact is they were not facilitating. They offered a *public* blog, with content not under their control. Tho i may disagree with the premise, at least if you want to be consistent, you would go after the users that are actively sharing. Until then, its people discussing, which is free speech as far as i'm concerned.

Re:His 'role in the site' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47139185)

You lose all credibility when you act like facilitating crime isn't in and of itself a crime.

Well, take for example a firearm instructor. They teach you how to use a firearm properly. If a man learns how to fire accurately and quickly from a firearm instructor, then uses his newfound skills to kill 5 people, who would they take to jail? Without the firearm's instructions (information), that man would have had a much harder time killing those people, and possibly would never have killed anyone. Without PirateBay giving information on the links of these torrents (information), people would have a much harder time finding torrents of illegal material, and maybe not ever have found them anyway.

Your logic can be applied to many different scenarios, each with greatly differing outcomes.

Re:His 'role in the site' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47139729)

You lose all credibility when you act like facilitating crime isn't in and of itself a crime.

In some cases, it is; in other cases, it isn't. In all cases, ideally, it shouldn't be: only the actual wilfull criminal act should be punished.

Re:His 'role in the site' (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138387)

Or some trumped up charges that they can make stick? Running a site based on user content, ( remember they didn't house any files ) should not be considered a crime.

They really did nothing more than lets say, Slashdot..

Did they? Slashdot links to news stories, provides shitty summaries and then cashes in on ad clicks. It matters what you link to. Slashdot does not exist to facilitate copyright infringement, the Pirate Bay did. Slashdot exists to allow techno geeks to piss and moan about (among other things) how unfair it is that content creators make life hard for the torrenting community because they feel pirating diminishes the compensation they get for their labour. If linking to files that enable people to download copyrighted stuff is what your site exists to do, and being a provider of the means to download those files counts as facilitation in your country then you are up shit creek without a paddle. You may disagree with those laws, you may find them unfair, and perhaps they are but as long as they are in effect you are still bloody screwed if you facilitate copyright infringement or any other illegal activity and are dumb enough to get caught. So if you can't do the time and don't like rough gay sex, successfully lobby your country's parliament to abolish copyrights before setting up a torrent site.

Re:His 'role in the site' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138481)

you are still bloody screwed if you facilitate copyright infringement or any other illegal activity and are dumb enough to get caught.

Not really. Given so that there are so many similar websites (And TPB is still up!), so many people doing such things, and that it takes so god damn long for them to do anything about it, your chances are actually rather good.

The only way to 'fix' this would be to make it easier for them to just censor the Internet with no court case, and they have tried to do that. Problem is, that flies in the face of freedom and justice, and just turns even more people against their stupid cause.

Re:His 'role in the site' (1)

BanHammor (2587175) | about 7 months ago | (#47139771)

What did gay sex do to you that you equate rape to it? Seriously, that's just perpetuation of rape culture, don't do that.

Re:His 'role in the site' (0)

GrandCow (229565) | about 7 months ago | (#47138415)

You forget that governments modify laws to suit their purposes. The actual thing that was committed doesn't matter, they just want to make an example. They can change laws after the fact to force an arrest.

Re:His 'role in the site' (1)

cpghost (719344) | about 7 months ago | (#47138487)

Changing laws after the fact is always possible. Applying them retroactively is unconstitutional in most civilized countries. And even if Sweden is playing lapdog to Uncle Sam, I still don't believe they've sunk so low as to retroactively apply some laws there. At least, I hope they won't.

Re:His 'role in the site' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138539)

When one commits a crime against kleptocratic capitalism, no punishment is too severe in most (allegedly) civilized countries these days, unfortunately.

Re:His 'role in the site' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138829)

Corporations are guilty of this too, since they pay well for said laws.

Re:His 'role in the site' (2, Insightful)

craigminah (1885846) | about 7 months ago | (#47138867)

What if TPB was a website that linked people together to buy/sell crack, would that be ok? TPB facilitated crimes...even if you don't like copyright laws, without them we'd have a lot less quality stuff as incentives to produce would be diminished.

Re:His 'role in the site' (0)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 months ago | (#47138895)

I disagree they facilitated anything as they were a public blog. If you want to pretend copyright law matters, then you should be addressing this with the people actively sharing without permission.

But to answer the question: To me it does not mater what the topic is on a discussion board, its free speech. If TPB was storing said 'infringing' files, then we could have a discussion about their legal status in the matter. But they were not, so we wont.

Re:His 'role in the site' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138987)

If you want to pretend that everything which can be copied digitally may have no value for its creators, you are a stupid asshole.

Re:His 'role in the site' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47139547)

Where the hell did he say that?

Re:His 'role in the site' (1)

craigminah (1885846) | about 7 months ago | (#47139013)

He was facilitating criminal activity...akin to me hosting a site that allowed drug dealers and drug users to meet. Though I sold no drugs I should be held liable, at least in part, for my actions that caused harm to the parties involved.

Re:His 'role in the site' (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 7 months ago | (#47139187)

They were not facilitating criminal activity they were facilitating something you could be civilly sued for in most civilized countries. They warped well your selling ads so your making money from it. The equivalent would be saying a newspaper who sells adds is criminally liable for prostitution because it has a personals section.

Re:His 'role in the site' (-1)

jelIomizer (3670957) | about 7 months ago | (#47139123)

What if TPB was a website that linked people together to buy/sell crack, would that be ok?

Yes. The war on drugs is bullshit.

Re:His 'role in the site' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47139463)

What if TPB was a website that linked people together to buy/sell crack, would that be ok?

Yes. The war on drugs is bullshit.

A-fuckin'-men, brother or sister. There can be no true crime without a victim. An activity involving only consenting adults means no victim, which means no crime. This in turn means there is no legitimate reason for government police power to be brought down on those who were really exercising freedom of choice. There is no argument that can be levied against a self-destructive behavior which involves greater destruction than that caused by an overly-powerful government that can regulate the very consciousness of adult people.

For the standard, encouraged, cultivated consciousness, there is this great need to control other people that is partly rooted in ego-consciousness, and partly rooted in the insecure fear that your only other option is to be controlled by them. These are learned behaviors, taught by repeated and widespread example.

-- causality - posting anonymously because I have modded this discussion. Just wanted to give you a "fuck yeah" because your viewpoint is one restricted to free-thinking adult people; that is, those who managed to grow up as they inevitably aged. I have this hope that the number of people who comprehend all of this is far greater than the number who would ever be represented by mainstream media and mainstream thought. That, after all, might be less profitable compared to mindless consumers who believe what they're taught automatically, with no "qui bono?", no critical examination.

Re:His 'role in the site' (0)

jhol13 (1087781) | about 7 months ago | (#47139167)

If I have understood correctly, in (someparts of?) USA, if you drive the getaway car in a bank robbery and someone dies, you will be charged (and probably convicted) of murder. Although, in a way, what you did is nothing more than what a taxi driver does. Right?

Get real!

Re:His 'role in the site' (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47139477)

If I have understood correctly, in (someparts of?) USA, if you drive the getaway car in a bank robbery and someone dies, you will be charged (and probably convicted) of murder. Although, in a way, what you did is nothing more than what a taxi driver does. Right?

Get real!

To be fair, the taxi driver is thinking that he's once again performing a serivce he performs several times daily with nothing going wrong and no crime associated. The taxi driver has an expectation that he's just selling a service like he does all the time to lots of non-criminals. If you told him you wanted his services specifically for a robbery and he still intentionally helped you then he would share your guilt for whatever happens.

I am no lawyer and this isn't legal advice. But I had the idea that you'd have to have helped plan the robbery for what you say to be true. If you really believed you were giving somebody a lift for a harmless purpose then what's your culpability if they deceive you by using your service to do something wrong that you could not have known about?

And nothing changes... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138307)

They're wasting their time. TPB hasn't even been taken down yet, and even if it was, users would just flock to the many, many other similar sites that exist. The copyright fools have lost this war in practice.

Re:And nothing changes... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 7 months ago | (#47139117)

The copyright fools have lost this war in practice.

Um, maybe you should check the box office numbers before saying things like that. The laws are still on the books, and people are still going to jail, for what is supposed to be a civil matter. Criminal and civil law have become one in the same. To bad all the submissive fools who vote don't care.

8 months in a Swedish prison (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138309)

sounds like a vacation to me.

Re:8 months in a Swedish prison (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 7 months ago | (#47138411)

Well, compared to what he'd get if he was in the US (more than likely multiple life sentences or multi-million dollar fines); 8 months is indeed a vacation.

Re:8 months in a Swedish prison (2)

cpghost (719344) | about 7 months ago | (#47138469)

Who says he won't be extradited to the US later?

Re:8 months in a Swedish prison (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 7 months ago | (#47138585)

Or they can send him to the US to serve the sentence, concurrent with his trial in the US.

Re:8 months in a Swedish prison (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138657)

Civilised countries don't extradite people to third world shitholes. He wouldn't be going to the US unless he was a murderer say, and only then if the prosecution took the death penalty off the table.

Re:8 months in a Swedish prison (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 7 months ago | (#47139867)

Compared to life in the cesspools that pass for prisons I'd consider the death penalty a better option.

Re:8 months in a Swedish prison (1)

houghi (78078) | about 7 months ago | (#47139789)

And evenn if they said it. They have 8 months to change their mind and change the law to give them the right to do so if need be.

Re:8 months in a Swedish prison (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138931)

Just because they do not torture their criminals does not makes it ok to condemn an innocent man. I don't blame the police here, as it is not up to them to decide, but the judge bought by American media companies.

Re:8 months in a Swedish prison (0)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 7 months ago | (#47139139)

I don't blame the police here...

Why not? They are the ones who enable this. They didn't have to take the job. Screw them.

HOISTED BY HIS OWN PETER !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138643)

Where's a Lorena Bobbit when you need one?

Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138695)

The initial PB shutdown has done nothing to stop content piracy. I'd argue the shutdown in fact, progressed it. Then again, it probably never was shut down to sotp it in the first place.

Best of luck Sunde. I hope you serve your unjust time, and walk out 'free' in 8 months with a giant grin on your face!

The raid wasn't the start of prosecution... (1)

bhlowe (1803290) | about 7 months ago | (#47138707)

The raid came after repeated attempts to have the owners shut down the site on their own accord. By ignoring and mocking the multiple attempts at warning their behavior may be in violation of laws, they chose to fight the battle in a court of law. Courts of law have police to enforce their decisions. Their mocking of take-down notices and repeated claims that they are only facilitating pirating (not actual pirating) can and should be interpreted by courts and juries.

Re:The raid wasn't the start of prosecution... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138999)

Take-down notices have no force of law behind them. I could write a take-down notice to Slashdot to remove your comment, and if Slashdot ignores me, it's not going to be counted against them when I later sue. It's literally just a piece of paper or email written by someone who might have a law degree.

Worst documentary ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47138909)

Is this the guy who ran away and married the asian girl to run out the statute of limitations? If you feel the urge to watch TPB AFK let me save you two hours. They lose every court case and visit the pirate party headquarters which looks like Dr. Evil's lair. At the end the one guy pays his girlfriend's family a bunch of money to marry her, the end.

8 month prison sentence in sweden? (2, Interesting)

voss (52565) | about 7 months ago | (#47139055)

Ive seen youth hostels and college dorms worse than swedish prison cells.

Re:8 month prison sentence in sweden? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47139603)

I haven't seen any youth hostel or college dorm better than a Swedish prison cell. Come on, you even get to go home during weekends (after serving 2 months).

Now, Swedish jails on the other hand are pretty horrible things. Solitary confinement before being convicted...

Re:8 month prison sentence in sweden? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 7 months ago | (#47139869)

I think he meant "cleaner than."

Speaking from experience? (1)

Uberbah (647458) | about 7 months ago | (#47139641)

If not, that's a fair amount of obnoxious presumption.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?