Neowin readers will almost certainly be familiar with the controversial case concerning the owners of famous BitTorrent tracking website 'The Pirate Bay', and the Swedish court of appeal. Today it was announced that the four founders of the site will not be allowed a retrial on the matter, the sentence passed initially being final. Initial accusations of the judge who presided during the train being biased against the four pirates have been quashed. These accusations came just days after the initial trial in April of this year, stating that the judge presiding over the trial, Thomas Nostrom, behaved in a hostile manner to the defense, due to his affiliations with the Swedish Copyright Association and the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property.
In response to these allegations the appellate judge, Anders Eka, released the following statement to members of the Swedish media:
"We have reached the conclusion that we do not agree with the conflict of interest claim."
The appellate court's panel of three judges went further to say that the backing of the "principles" of copyright law "cannot be considered bias."
The Pirate Bay administrators, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg and Peter Sunde have been found guilty of facilitating copyright infringement, along with Carl Lundström who was convicted of funding the operation, these sentences were drawn in April.
Whilst good for the communities representing the rights of those whose work is copyrighted, this trial has caused a backlash amongst the Swedish youth, resulting with some 40,000+ members of the Swedish Pirate Party backing the defendants. Recently the party have won a seat in the European Parliament.
I'm not surprised. There seems to be a string of misdeeds running from the defendants straight up to the judges. Perhaps they should just throw the entire court room in prison.
Hope the smartasses at TPB enjoy their stint in federal pound me in the ass prison. Content owners the world over rejoice at these idiots getting what they finally deserve.
Go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200 (or several million dollars a year in TPB's case)
Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 26 Jun 2009 - 01:24
Copyright laws are stupid, says who... you? Someone who doesn't create or own any content themselves and instead leeches it from those who do? Right. I'll take your word for it, thanks. In the meanwhile direct someone of your anger towards creating something original with your free time, and see the world from the other side of your narrow mind.
TPB has been flaunting the law for years, the rights of copyright owners trampled upon every day as they refused to even take down torrents when requested by the owners of the work, all the time laughing and acting like total smartasses. Same with all the greedy TPB supporters downloading gigabytes and gigabytes of material for which they haven't contributed a single cent to the people who created the actual work.
Now they're finally getting they're comeuppance.(snipped)
Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 26 Jun 2009 - 01:31
It's the same with software. If content creation software, for example, were TOTALLY bought for independent artists, their work should be charged following suit, that would mean that ALL THE MEDIA should be more expensive in the whole world.
The system works, no matter how much pirated stuff you get, you just CAN'T overthrown the Empire, so **** off, Dash!
Please make some content for me to enjoy and post it up so I can have it for free.
Umm... Federal prison? This didn't happen in the US you know, so it hardly going to be a federal prison, is it?
And they didn't collect ANY $. Whatever monies they collected, it would have been in their local currency, not $. Not everyone uses that stuff, you know. :p
oh wait... this has been going for years!:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/bra...op_twostep.html
I like this part:
"We talked about the McDonald’s offer to hip-hop artists to write songs that the fast food company would approve, featuring Big Mac in the lyrics. McDonald’s then pays the artist and his or her company some amount of money—$1-$2 perhaps—per radio play. Simmons told me the deal was “all good.” But, he added, that the deal may not get off the ground because the firm handling it leaked the story to Advertising Age. Simmons says the deal was okay when people didn’t know how it worked. Now that they do, it probably won’t work. Huh? This sounds like, “It’s not a crime unless you get caught” thinking."
And you can add some new cars and cellphones and mp3 players during the videos and charge companies for that:
http://blogs.sohh.com/media_check/archives...ct_placeme.html
my god, I'm thinking of making a polka about Neowin!! show me the moneee!!
that's 365$ a year, you're better off renting the movies you want to see.
Redbox is ok but most of time when you return the movies back, it takes awhile before the machine takes the DVDs in. And sometimes the machine is out of the order..
I like Netflix better.. I have a free year sub with them.
I don't wholly agree with what the guys at TPB do, but I feel sad that they are being denied their right to a fair and unbiased trial
Of course they don't want a fair trial, because if a judge that wasn't bought out by them would take up the case, it would probably be thrown out.
Seems.... strange. Feels... well, like a bit of coruption or something.
I don't really agree with what the guy was saying just trying to explain how he said it.
lolwot?
Also, you might want to add to the article that TPB can (and will) still appeal the case through the usual channels, just as they said they would before the whole biased-judge thing surfaced.
According to the court, the judge Tomas Norström is not to be considered biased.
The court says that Tomas Norström should have informed about his engagement in the different pro-copyright organisations and that it should have been done before the court case. They also say that he's probably more biased towards judging in favor of the rights holder. However - Anders Eka, the person judging here (and has the final verdict) - does not say that this enough for being biased.
Oh. And it should also be noted that Anders Eka, the guy with the final decision that is not appealable, heads in an immaterial rights organisation as Peter Drowsky and Monique Wasted, the MPAA and Ifpi-lawyers. However, he does not feel that working together with the lawyers that enjoys this decision the most has an impact on his decision or that he might be biased himself...
Tomorrow, we will probably file charges against the swedish legal system to the european court of human rights.
http://thepiratebay.org/blog
next step EU court
Rot in jail? You mean learn valuable life skills at the 4* hotel ("prison"), while watching cable TV, getting exercise and food, all paid for by the state, NOT by them?
BitTorrent is a dumb protocol. It has no clue what content are in the files that are being transferred. All the tracker and .torrent files do is connect 1 peer which has a file with another peer that does not have a file. It has absolutely no clue whether you are downloading a copyrighted movie, or a legally distributable Linux distribution. And frankly, it's IMPOSSIBLE to design a system which can properly determine whether something is or is not copyrighted/legal to distribute.
Not only that, but Google can frankly be considered worse, as not only can it find .torrent files, but it can also link to sites which actually contain hard-links to copyrighted content (such as Rapidshare). Google, however, is not subject to these lawsuits. Therefore, there is an inconsistency with the law, and thus, not fair.
Google doesn't appear to be very effective at removing sites containing copyrighted content *at all*.
My argument is not irrelevant. What are they guilty of? They do not house copyrighted content. Because a couple of users use the service for illegal purposes, that means the whole service is illegal? People use Google as a means to facilitate the sharing of copyrighted content as well. People use many products for illegal reasons. That does not mean that the product manufactures should be held liable for such crimes.
Again, people use Google illegally, but Google is not liable for it. Why should TBP be any different?
Your ISP wouldn't be held liable for a user of its network pirating content. However, their users who perform the piracy, would. In this case, TBP, and not it's users, are being held liable.
I am not concerned about whether or not piracy is or is not good. I am concerned about the consistency of this decision. In almost all cases, the provider of a service is not liable for the activity of its users, but in this case, it is. That is not consistent.
Shouldn't the ISP's be MORE liable than the TBP is? They are, after all, providing the infrastructure upon which piracy is occurring.
Last edited by Mikee99 on 26 Jun 2009 - 01:24
Rather than getting over-excited about whether or not piracy is good, or bad, or whether TPB was set up with it in mind (of course it was), it is important to refrain from emotion and look at things from a legal perspective.
You are correct, it is inconsistent, and that is worth saying.
An ISP can be held liable for illegal activities conducted via their service. That's why if an ISP is informed of illegal activities, whether by another user or the police for example, it has to take action to stop those activities.
Same with Google, Gmail or any other service, heck even rapidshare will remove illegally hosted files if they're informed by the owner of the works. If the owner of a service is reliably informed of illegal activity they are under obligation to take reasonable action to prevent that activity.
TPB on the other hand even when informed that illegal activities were being conducted via its service took absolutely no action whatsoever to prevent, reduce or remove access to illegal material. In fact the opposite, TPB encouraged the distribution of illegal material.
What TPB does/did is like you going over to your neighbor's house each time they leave home and holding up a big sign saying "This house is empty and they keys are under the welcome mat". Then if the house is burgled and you're taken to court, you say "Oh but I had no part in any burglary, I was just standing there with a sign".
The illogical arguments really need to cease.
The validity or legality of the file can not be determined from the tracker itself. It would be a ridiculous and utterly time consuming task in itself to go through, and download every file in order to validate it's legality.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but despite the excuse or claim that Google removes any material when it's reported to them or removes this material period, they still house several hundred or thousand links to sites that partake in the illegal distribution of copyrighted material. Wouldn't it make sense for them to blacklist these sites from ever being indexed if they were worried or concerned about housing links to copyrighted material or linking to websites that are linking to/housing copyrighted material?
... Fact is they were originally not breaking any laws in Sweden let alone copyright laws since they were not hosting any of the copyrighted content.
The tracker itself is not transferring (or distributing) copyrighted content (at all). As a matter of fact, any user can create a .torrent file and use *any* public BitTorrent tracker to share content (legal or not). No uploading of the .torrent file is necessary (you can email it to people if you want). [This site describes how they are created: http://www.tutzone.org/2009/01/how-to-crea...and-upload.html] So, if they were to delete the .torrent files in their search engine, it wouldn't stop the piracy from occurring.
This of course brings about again, how a tracker works. All the tracker looks at is: User A is requesting [Insert File Piece # Here] with the [Insert SHA-1 Checksum of Piece Here] of [Insert Filename Here] and tells User A where to find User B to provide the requested piece of the file. For quite a while (still is?), the activity described above was legal under Swedish law. BTW, nothing is stopping the media companies from going after the users. Their IP's can be found easily with any BitTorrent application.
So, how is a tracker operator going to be able to prevent (or reduce) piracy? The only thing they can do is shut down the tracker. ISP's, Google, etc. are not able to prevent (or reduce for that matter) people from performing illegal activities on their services, but are fully able to operate. Why should TBP be any different?
Last edited by Mikee99 on 26 Jun 2009 - 14:34
The industries need to modernise, and use the Internet rather than keep trying to condemn it. Bittorrent will never die, piracy will never be stopped, and public support will never be won with litigation.
"We" meaning the media industry and the money they're paying me...
Right won't win against these criminals in the media industry. They're too powerful.
It is plain and simple, black and white, if they are responsible then so should all ISP's and search engines as they do the same thing, regardless of how some of you feel. The fact remains, google, as well as Yahoo, and Bing and even Ask can be used for the same purpose.
It stands to reason that if TPB can be sued for actions carried out by the user, then GM can be sued because some bloke used their car for speeding!!!!! Never mind for such acts as a hit and run!!! Or yes S&W because their weapons can be used to rob people at gunpoint, assassinate people and plain old gang violence!!! It is one rule for one and one rule for others at this point, no matter how you sugarcoat it.
The appeal will take place, possibly at a EU court of Human rights? Because of the way the case is, it has been biased from the start and I for one, will be surprised if they didn't have the decision overturned on that fact alone, or all ISP's and serach engines and every single operator of a torrent site are going to have too be hauled up and fined millions too!!!
Sadly most people just follow whichever side of the argument benefits them the most. TPB was clearly and obviously an illegal organisation set up to benefit from other peoples work. That so many of the public come up with all sorts of hokey arguments to justify TPB and their own actions is testament to the greed of the human spirit.
Too bad it's not actually stealing. The fact that after all this time and after so many arguments you're still not able to differentiate between theft and copyright infringement speaks volumes about your comprehension skills.
Who knows, maybe one day you'll wake up and the difference will whack you upside the head. Oh to see the look on your face when you finally understand how ridiculously wrong you've been this whole time.
Copyright infringement and theft are not the same thing, nor should they be treated equally. In fact, the punishment for copyright infringement borderlines stupendous when compared to other illegal activities with much more severe consequences. Even though it is illegal to infringe on copyright, there is absolutely no reason to scream bloody murder. It should be illegal for either industry to make such out of this world demands when there are far more important things to deal with in this world.
Your views and your values are disgustingly skewed and unbalanced.
Sadly most people just follow whichever side of the argument benefits them the most. TPB was clearly and obviously an illegal organisation set up to benefit from other peoples work. That so many of the public come up with all sorts of hokey arguments to justify TPB and their own actions is testament to the greed of the human spirit.
So basically what you're saying is, everyone but the RIAA/MPAA are greedy right? What a ridiculous statement. If anyone is being greedy, it's not the people.
The people have been screaming for the industries on both sides to restructure and modernize their business plan. The fact that they choose to completely ignore it simply because they don't believe they'll be able to stuff their fat bank accounts and their fat pants with anywhere near the amount of money they used to. So when the people are ignored, they move on. If you're not capable of providing what the people want, you can't expect to make anything. What do people want? That's always debatable of course. But there are millions who would love to spend their money and contribute to a new and fresh distribution system that doesn't gouge us left and right. You can spew all the BS you want about how people are greedy and will take everything free if they can get it, but that's human nature. It also applies to the greedy corporations or industries who try to bleed us all dry every day of every year.
Last edited by nekkidtruth on 26 Jun 2009 - 05:34
The pirate bay is an organisation that deliberately enables and encourages the theft of other peoples work, even goes so far as to promote it with special themes on their website, and also profits handsomly from it, earning millions of dollars a year in advertising income.
It's an unbelievably ridiculous argument to suggest that just because they don't host the files that they're not a party to the theft of work involved. Thankfully the legal system doesn't operate on the childish arguments shown in online forums.
Who knows, maybe one day you'll wake up and the difference will whack you upside the head. Oh to see the look on your face when you finally understand how ridiculously wrong you've been this whole time.
Copyright infringement and theft are not the same thing, nor should they be treated equally. In fact, the punishment for copyright infringement borderlines stupendous when compared to other illegal activities with much more severe consequences. Even though it is illegal to infringe on copyright, there is absolutely no reason to scream bloody murder. It should be illegal for either industry to make such out of this world demands when there are far more important things to deal with in this world.
Your views and your values are disgustingly skewed and unbalanced.
+1 too true.
It's an unbelievably ridiculous argument to suggest that just because they don't host the files that they're not a party to the theft of work involved. Thankfully the legal system doesn't operate on the childish arguments shown in online forums.
So the courier company that delivered the knife to a killers house is also in the wrong? Thats all Pirate Bay is doing, delivering the content. The users are uploading it, they are the people doing wrong.
/sarcasm
And anyway, there is a slight flaw in the whole idea, as any films/music in question would have been shown publicly at some point in the future of near future on TV/radio/cinema/friends house form a DVD, so surely it has been paid for to some extent?
A ridiculous argument, I know, although I still see it as an excuse for some people to keep their day jobs, bitter and cynnical that I am.
Anyway as a person who obtains his media through legal channels and has paid for all of his 60+ PC games, I see this as ridiculous. Trackers do not house the copyright content, they only contain meta data which connects peers with other peers to obtain the file.
The validity or legality of the file can not be determined from the tracker itself. It would be a ridiculous and utterly time consuming task in itself to go through, and download every file in order to validate it's legality.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but despite the excuse or claim that Google removes any material when it's reported to them or removes this material period, they still house several hundred or thousand links to sites that partake in the illegal distribution of copyrighted material. Wouldn't it make sense for them to blacklist these sites from ever being indexed if they were worried or concerned about housing links to copyrighted material or linking to websites that are linking to/housing copyrighted material?
You also forget that TPB resides in Sweden which is very different from corporate, egotistic, and greedy America where the copyright laws are very different. Fact is they were originally not breaking any laws in Sweden let alone copyright laws since they were not hosting any of the copyrighted content.
Last edited by Xtreme2damax on 26 Jun 2009 - 11:02
The Lion King says: You should never take more then you give, Its the Circle of LIFE
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.