back to article Pirate Bay loses trial: defendants face prison time, hefty fines

It's official - the four defendants in The Pirate Bay versus entertainment industry trial have been found guilty in a Swedish court of being accessories to breaching copyright laws. The verdict was handed down to four men behind the notorious BitTorrent tracker site this morning in a court in Stockholm. "The Stockholm …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    @ Lee Jackson

    You mean 'result', not 'verdict', I'm assuming.

    Unless, of course, you know what the charges were, have knowledge of the Swedish laws and are acquainted with the arguments presented and the behaviour of the bench ....

    I could be wrong.

    So, we get your drift -- you don't like enablers of 'copyright theft.'

    Lots of us do, though, because we don't agree with the extent of the copyright holders reach ... plus other aspects of their behaviour and relationship with state legislators ...

    Pirate logo for obvious reason.

  2. EvilJason
    Thumb Down

    @Lee Jackson

    I'm not going to troll but i will answer your correctly

    Firstly this was NOT a good verdict because the prosecution did such bad job with the case and yet still won, remember this was a criminal not a civil case as such to find someone guilty of a criminal accusation you have to have proof beyond a doubt of there guilt the prosecution did not do this.

    Further more copyright infringement is not stealing its copyright infringement and as such you can not compare examples from totally different crimes as an example to a different one now.

    People lose jobs when profits are up as well when profits are down it has nothing to with loss of profits.

    The fact that you are happy these guys are going to jail btw if there appeal fails shows what kind of person you are.

    Here's a hint of the people and companies you support: Ever single penny of that money if it has to be turned over will never see the pockets of ANY artists or the pockets of the so called small people who's jobs you said will be lost because of a loss of profits, NONE of it will be used to save those jobs.

    Think on that before the next time you support people who would abuse the court abuse there customers and abuse there clients i.e. the artists

    -J

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @ Lee Jackson

    "Sorry but I think thats a good verdict! With the clamp down on p2p in days gone by, why shouldnt this form of linking to copyrighted material be stopped?"

    The problem isn't that it shouldn't be stopped, the issue is that the burden of proof required for a conviction has been lowered for electronic crimes. In the real world if you steal something the police have to have evidence you stole it. In the electronic world just providing enough evidence to create a rough guess that someone might be guilty seems to be enough. This is unacceptable as it will (and as demonstrated by the US RIAA court cases) already has resulted in netting innocent people.

    "After all, wouldnt you want the guy who told the robber where you keep your spare key to also get done!?"

    Er, no? What exactly has he done wrong? I might not like the guy, but expect him to go to prison just for passing on information? Hell no. Even if he told the robber my burglar alarm code I wouldn't want him to be punished by the courts. I'd hate him personally, but this wouldn't happen to me because I wouldn't tell people where I keep my spare key or what my burglar alarm code is in the first place, so the analogy is fairly flawed anyway.

    "Downloading copyrighted material is stealing no matter how rich the company is you are stealing from. People are employed by these big companies, and when profits go down, innocent people loose jobs!"

    No it's not stealing, you seem to have a poor grasp of the law and this seems to be where you points are consistantly falling down. Stealing deprives the entity stolen from of the original product, copyright infringement merely makes a copy of the product. If you have a wooden front door and someone went and got their own piece of wood and carved it to the exact same pattern you could at best say they've copied your idea, but you'd sound like an idiot if you said they stole your front door. Claiming stealing in piracy cases is equally dumb.

    You're also wrong on profits going down because the music and movie industry profits are up year after year despite this supposed major piracy problem. People have lost their jobs in these industries (i.e. songwriters) but that's because their jobs are obsolete and these people haven't kept their skills uptodate for the industry to have any reason to employ them. This has nothing to do with piracy though, it's the usual cost cutting profit increasing measures we've seen become such a fad in recent years and is similar to outsourcing of technical support and software development to india.

    "If you think ur OK cos you only download now and again, think of the millions of others who think the same! This is such a massive issue."

    It is indeed, the Office of National Statistics in the UK just this week released their latest general statistics on the British population. It stated that 12% of people in the UK file share and that's based only those who would admit it when surveyed or who don't cover up their activities meaning the actual figure is almost certainly much higher. Even with the conservative 12% figure that's 7.2million people in the UK alone. File sharing is also even more prominent in other nations such as Sweden, Australia, Canada and so on. The question has to be asked then, if it's such a big issue, if so many people do it, and if despite it being such a big issue the movie industry and music industry are increasing their profits solidly year on year then what exactly is the big deal? Aren't government supposed to support citizens? If so many citizens want to do it and are happy with it and it clearly doesn't harm the industry or at least harm it enough to do any actual net damage then why is such a fuss being made? The only result that could arise from outright abolishing file sharing is that you'd have a population that is far less cultured, has far less access to media, but still wouldn't have any more money to spend on media than they already do and hence not even any real gain for the movie and music industry.

    If you abolish file sharing, we all lose. Luckily, that's an impossible goal. Still though, Lee, please, at least get a grip on the law and understand why we have things such as innocent until proven guilty and burden of proof before you comment in future.

  4. Mark Menzies
    Alert

    @ Lee Jackson

    .... I admire your courage lol.

    It did need saying tho, so, well done bud. :D

  5. Tony Barnes

    Bugger

    Title says it all really, wouldn't of thought they'd lose

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Glad they're going down - shame it was on such shakey grounds

    What they were doing was blatantly morally wrong, and the service was to intentionally facilitate crime. Yes, Google, Yahoo et al may reference copyrighted material, but that is not their primary intention. It's a shame that the prosecution seems to have been so inept (from accounts here), but in the end the bad guys lost, so all's well that ends well. I hope that they do appeal, and their sentence gets lengthened.

  7. Danny
    Thumb Down

    your opinion

    okay Lee, i'll take up the discussion.

    how's about the fact that most people downloading wouldn't consider buying the product even if they couldn't download? how about all those people that will buy a product after downloading it because they like it?

    Piracy has been around for many many years, but only in the last 5-10 years has the recording industry claimed to be hurt by it, we had internet before that time and we all downloaded stuff, what changed?

    even musicians are turning their backs to the recording industry because they think they're being treated unfairy, the products they make are WAY too expensive.

    to top it of, what will this ruling really mean? even if the Swedish supreme court finds them guilty, will that change anything?

    and what about gaming? an industry that has long been plagued by piracy, they're doing great, why is that?

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @ Lee Jackson

    I don't agree with you but you have made me think.

    Maybe.... Just Maybe it has gotten a little too easy

  9. Luke
    Boffin

    lets be honest

    .... we all knew that this was going to happen. It's not exactly going to stop the exchange of materials online though.

  10. Matt
    Thumb Down

    @Lee Jackson

    The agument isn't about if downloading copyrighted material is illegal or not, we all know it is. The argument is if making links to places where you can download copyrighted material is. This court ruling has said it is, therefore according to this interpretation google are just as guilty. as are yahoo and most other search engines.

    If I tell a burglar where you live does that make me a criminal if he breaks in to your house and steals your car?

    Matt

  11. gribbler
    Pirate

    What a shame...

    now I will have to get all of my torrents from isohunt or torrentz or stream videos online from tvshack or just record things from the TV myself....

    This is a real shame, not because what the TPB was doing was legal (I am not even going to argue that one), but because it shows again the inability of the media industry to adapt to new distribution and market models.

    There is NO WAY that this will stop people from downloading copyrighted content, at best it will slightly reduce the problem for a short time. They may have won the battle, but they don't even stand a chance of winning the war.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    @Lee Jackson

    What about when profits go up? Like they have every time there's been a thing that'll "kill the music industry" but in reality only makes it more popular.

    And it may be the decision you wanted, but it's not a "good" decision. The prosecution were worse than useless- and still haven't (adequately) explained how searching Pirate Bay is any different to "http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=filetype%3Atorrent" or

    "http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=filetype%3Atorrent+wolverine", both of which turn up results that may be in violation of intl copyright laws.

    They even had to pare down the charges because they couldn't find anywhere near enough even circumstantial evidence to make the initial charges stick.

  13. Stephen ONeill

    Who wants to bet

    ... that the only people in that court room who actually understood the issue were the defendants?

    All this proves is that stupidity is pandemic where neither the prosecutors nor jury need to understand a case nor its consequences before "judgment" is handed down...

  14. Justin Stringfellow

    what's swedish for...

    "porridge"?

    Just wondering.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    @Lee Jackson

    "Downloading copyrighted material is stealing"

    No it isn't. It isn't even copyright infringement if I have the copyright owner's permission.

    Stop talking out of your arse.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Lee

    A lot of people probably also do what I do - download something, watch it/play it/listen to it, and then if they enjoy it go and buy it.

    But I don't see the point in rewarding people for producing something that's utter cack - I wouldn't get rewarded for my job if I was crap. It's just in my job people can see whether I did a good job or not before they pay for it.

  17. erik svensson

    It's not over...

    Remember the verdict will be appealed which in Sweden is pretty important. In the first court (tingsrätten, county court for the swedish challenged) the majority of the court members are laymen with no legal schooling. They are politically appointed. The appeals court, however, do not have any laymen and so it might very well be a different verdict there.

  18. Adam West

    @Lee Jackson

    "why shouldnt this form of linking to copyrighted material be stopped?"

    It should, in my opinion. But youre missing the point, deliberately I suspect. Fact is, Google et al provide the same service as Pirate Bay. So why didnt the music industry go after them too? Its because theyre going after the technology, not the crime. If linking to copyrighted material is illegal, then EVERYONE who does it MUST be prosecuted and/or forced to stop. You cant just cherry pick the easy targets (ie not the big search engines). And if its not illegal for Google et al, then its not illegal for anyone else either.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This is bad...

    .. for the internet in general, weather you think piracy is bad or good or whatever, this now says tht LINKING to material is an offence, in theory google is now breaking the swedish law, so is the bbc (they linked to the pirate bay site, who link to the material).

    Does that mena that linking to google will also make you guilty of the crime of "making avilable" as you link to google who link to the pirate bay who link the torrent files who link to the people.

    If this doesn't get overturned, the internet is offically broken due to it being illegal.

  20. Stephen
    Pirate

    They brought it on themselves

    When pigs become hogs they get slaughtered.

    TPB got too big for their boots and were far too arrogant from the off. I am still amazed that they thought they could hide behind the "we are just a search engine", yet their site name and brand is all about being a haven for Pirates!!

    Yes they got singled out, but maybe they should have called themselves "TorrentBay" or something where they could then claim to be just a search engine and not have their defense laughed at.

  21. Mark SPLINTER
    Flame

    OH NOES!!! NEED MOAR FREE FINGZ!!!

    I hope they DO prevent google from indexing illegal downloads. I hope google get fined 17 trillion dollars or something. I hope the lawyers and ISPs get together to make it near impossible to download copyrighted works without paying the price the owner demands.

    The owner could then choose a price of $0.00 but that would be his choice, not the choice of a bunch of retarded geeks sponsored by a fucking nazi. kthxbai.

  22. paul
    Paris Hilton

    here's hoping...

    TPB use the precedent set to raise a class action suit on behalf of all europeans against Verbatim/ Sony/ Iomega/ TDK/ BASF/ SanDisk/ Hitachi/ Western Digital

    Thats before we get to the software people, Iøm sure MS assists in copyright infringment.

    I'm quite sure a competant team will have this judge begging for mercy before long. Its not that I agree with what they are doing, but I just don't think its fair or "just" to single them out. Especially when there are clearly much bigger fish to fry.

    I bet our Paris loves a big fish

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Phonographic Industry

    Am I the only one who read that wrong?

    Certainly they're in the business of...

  24. Simon Painter
    Alert

    it's the party line, Lee Jackson

    "Downloading copyrighted material is stealing no matter how rich the company is you are stealing from. People are employed by these big companies, and when profits go down, innocent people loose jobs!"

    It's not quite as simple as that.

    Nobody has actually produced any evidence that people who watch pirated movies would actually pay for the movie if it was not available for free. There is anecdotal evidence that many people who swap files then go on to purchase the movie or music at a later date. An independent (and by that I mean not funded by the music industry OR the pro piracy lobby) study would be good news because it could help clear up some of these myths that are spread by both sides.

    I categorically do not involve myself with any form of piracy however a good friend of mine, let's call him Simon Paynter, does and he told me that he has quite often purchased movies on DVD after watching a download and that he would never have purchased it if he hadn't seen the download first. He also tells me that he has bought music after hearing it for the first time on a swapped MP3. This is all just anecdotal but until someone actually does some solid research into the buying habits of the pirate masses the rest is just FUD and propaganda.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There is a difference...

    Between justice and the law. Apparently the court has decided the law was broken. The fact that other companies also break the law but have hitherto remained unprosecuted is largely irrelevant.

    However, a case on the principle of unequality before the law may prove succesful. This, however, has no bearing on the defence in this case.

    This may be a more suitable path out of this mess. Not to appeal the verdict but to bring a case before the prime legislative court on the basis if said inequality before the law.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    How?

    OK, I know there was HUGE money behind this case, but with the blatant incompetence of the prosecution added to the paper thin charges and the fact that the case was tried outside the US, I thought there was no way they could lose.

    Just shows, as someone mentioned earlier - The Americans now officially rule the world.

    Oh, and Lee Jackson - go troll somewhere else.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    @ dennis, anon "this is guff", etc

    TPB will continue without them,, there has never been any doubt about that.

    Anyway, I see this as a last desperate act of a dying industry. They didn't realise the potential of the internet and paid the price.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    What is wrong with you all?

    Why does every one of these comments appear to support these self-promoting, neo-nazi-backed wankers?

    Making stupid fatuous claims that Google and paper and pen manufacturers (wtf???) should be sued next reflects the crass stupidity and stultifying pig-ignorance of the average interspaz commenter.

    You all need to get a life.

  29. MnM
    Thumb Down

    @Lee Jackson

    Brave!

    It's the media industry's attempts to curtail fair use (e.g. Sony rootkits, what fallen angels Sony are), screw up all our tech (e.g. can't watch HD over DVI), and generally behave like a mafia that leaves me with little sympathy for them when they complain about common or garden home use copyright infringement. The business model which they're trying to cling on to only came about because of an accident of technology in the first place, but they did then build an industry out of it. Having said that, filmmakers/studios still have cinemas, musicians/managers still have gigs. Theatre still seems to exist, despite having never had the help of big studios.

    I don't particularly like them, but I want to see The Pirate Bay win, and the higher the court, the better (no not the court of public opinion, a proper one with a judge or several). The studios are fighting for a self-serving distortion and nothing more.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It just goes to show

    Does "It just goes to show you can't be too careful" fit in here?

  31. Stuart

    Confused

    I really don't know where I stand on this. Making money or reducing income to people who have expensively created original material is wrong morally and economically (since the original idea of IP was to encourage people to invest in creating goods that would not otherwise be available).

    I believe in IP protection as a beneficial policy. But then IP protection has gone into overdrive. I thought I would like to download an old silent film - to find it was still in copyright and would be for the foreseeable future. The beneficiaries were not the creators or their immediate families. So copyright income is not pension or going to encourage a dead person to create more good stuff.

    And so it goes on. We have a problem with pharmaceuticals - where the current judgement is that drugs are best protected for 20 years so big pharma can get payback on R&D. That or even longer would be no problem with movies or songs. But 50 years tops.

    More than that puts the movie/record/copyright companies into the captive greed category. Morally and possibly economically thieves themselves. I choose to not pay them by not using their material. I worry I should indeed subvert their business model by torrenting until they come to a more reasonable deal with the people to make money in the short term and create public goods in the long term for us all to share.

    Follow their desires and Shakespeare will soon be back in copyright (if only Time Warner could claim they owned the first folio:)

  32. Dan
    Pirate

    From the TPB web press release:

    (Paraphrased)

    They are concerned about the judgment, but everybody knew that the losing party would appeal anyway. Both parties expect the case to go to the highest court in Sweden.

    The judgment calls into question the legality of Google Search, and of YouTube.

    Functionally, there are only two difference between TPB and Google Search: TPB only indexes material at the explicit request of the hosts, while Google indexes material proactively; TPB does not copy or host anything except the links, while Google Search copies and makes material available from their own Cache.

    Quotes, paraphrased, pulled out of the live stream:

    "Don't use laws to shape behavior, let the laws match the behavior"

    "The higher up you go in Swedish Courts, the fairer judgment you get. Nobody believes that this is a fair judgment."

    "It will take another 4 or five years before final judgment comes."

    "Prosecution's lawyers refused to deny allegations that they were running a political trial"

    I missed a good bit due to technical issues. Full thing should be available at

    http://thepiratebay.org/special/2009epicwinanyhow.php.

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    @lee Jackson

    A blatant troll and you should be ashamed of yourself

  34. Peter

    Come on, guys...

    ... this is schoolboy excuse stuff. Google is a search engine which occasionally accidentally links to copywritten material, but removes that link as soon as it is requested to do so.

    Do you really, honestly believe that The Pirate Bay, who use a pirate ship as a logo, have nothing to do with piracy? The whole "you can't prove anything!", "actually wthere are lots of legitimate P2P uses!", "You can't blame *us* just because we put up and maintained links to the results of your work so people could copy it without paying you!"

    This is the kind of "But you can't *prove* it was me" nonsense that crumb-covered children use when mummy finds that all the biscuits have gone. Unless you can genuinely say that you had no idea that The Pirate Bay was in some way deliberately involved with piracy, why do you think that everyone else, including the judge, was somehow fooled?

  35. This post has been deleted by its author

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    Well this opens up a few questions for sweden

    If running a sefver that is linking to copyrighted material that other people have posted (not the four convicted) is illgal in sweden, dosn't that mean everyone who runs a website that allows users to posting links to other servers are also illegal as it may link to a copyrighted material or who knows what else.

    If yes, that means google is illegal in sweden and so is every search engine and forum and so is this site in sweden as I could post a link to a torrent right now in this post.

    Or is this simply a one law for one set of people and a different laws others? and the mpaa/ifpi/riaa/whatever gets to decide what is legal and what is illegal? so much for the legal system, if this really is the case then anyone can be done for anything as you may or may not be doing something illegal according to the mpaa/ifpi/rtiaa.

    I thought laws were there for a reason so you knew what ones you were breaking... oh and this will not stop torrents, it will just be run by people not in the UK/USA or sweden.... russia is probably the best place I doubt they care about hollywood. Or if you do run a site be sure to hide yourself ^^ nad pose as someone else.

  37. Julian Smart

    @Lee Jackson

    As somone who lives by copyright material, I quite agree with Lee and the verdict - I don't see why encouraging theft should be condoned in any way. They obviously knew they were stealing, as the name suggests. Still, I guess a lot of not very mature people won't like their illegal toys to be taken away.

  38. Simon Neill

    @Lee Jackson and others thinking this...

    "Downloading copyrighted material is stealing no matter how rich the company is you are stealing from. People are employed by these big companies, and when profits go down, innocent people loose jobs!"

    No, copyright infringement is NOT stealing. This is a civil matter not a criminal matter, especially on the level of a single user downloading.

    Consider those crappy ads they plastered all over DVDs. "You wouldn't steal a handbag/car/movie" Well, if I steal a handbag someone has lost a handbag and I have gained one. If I "steal" a movie/tv show/music track the owners still have it. I've downloaded all sorts over the years. Some I have later bought, some I have scrapped because it was shite. You would find it very hard to prove a lost sale. As a concrete example I currently own every Futurama DVD. I wouldn't even have watched it without a friend sending me an ep over the net. Same for Family Guy.

    This of course is not saying it is right to download files without permission, just as it is not right to drive 33mph in a 30mph area. It is however time to admit that it doesn't do as much harm as they say and that it is never going to be stopped through legal action.

  39. Bill Gould
    Gates Halo

    @Lee Jackson

    Strip DRM from legit sources. Provide fair value for dollar exchanges. Remove the pointless middle-man. An artist can distribute directly to their consumer without the need for Record Companies or Film Studios.

    The industry has been dying for years, they just refuse to fall over.

    I hope the appeal is heard someone with a little common sense.

  40. Dan

    @ Lee Jackson

    Go with the right analogy. TPB is the photographer's guide that taught your neighbor how to take pictures of your landscaping. When he hung the pictures of YOUR hard work in his house without paying you, you claimed damages equal to what you spent on the landscaping. From the publisher of the photographer's guide.

  41. Kenny Millar

    Get a grip people

    There's a huge difference between Google and TPB.

    TPB was obviously designed to allow access to stuff you didn't want to pay for.

    At no time did they ever try to discourage people from carrying out illegal activity from their site.

    The verdict is a good one.

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Low cost hosting and bandwidth

    If the TV and Film companies had any sense they could be using the torrent system for their own means.

    Private torrent trackers have existed for a few years and prove that it is possible to monitor what and how much a torrent user has downloaded/uploaded.

    All the media companies need to add on top of that is a charging structure that rewards seeders (thats users who are hosting their files for them) with lower cost downloads and only allows people to download when they have credit.

    An example of the pricing structure - If I upload 50 times more than I download then whilst that relationship is maintained I can download at half price.

    If I upload 100 times more than I download then I get downloads at 10% price

    This arrangement is always self managing. To upload you have to download first and only users who dedicate large amounts of harddrive space and leave their connection open constantly are going to get to a situation where their uploads are much larger than their downloads.

    Unpopular TV shows and films will always be available on a slow download from the companies own servers.

    Popular items will be hosted on thousands of users PC's and available for quick download (I can already download some popular TV shows via torrent quicker than it takes to watch them)

    The TV companies need to let go of the idea of maintaining ownership of the file... these files are always going to be shared illegally by a portion of the online community after download - DRM restricted or not.

    Add a couple of adverts into the mix and they should be able to turn a healthy profit.

    Also, If they allow torrenting of non-DRM'd files then legitimate users are free to watch/listen on any device they see fit and will be less tempted by the illegal options.

  43. NickR
    Pirate

    @Lee Jackson

    "Downloading copyrighted material is stealing no matter how rich the company is you are stealing from. "

    What about if you have permission/licence ?

    Whose responsibility is it ?

  44. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yawn...

    ... the appeal of the appeal to the appeal will determine ultimate justice. Everything else is just jumping through legal hoops have must be jumped through...

  45. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    I knew there was a good reason...

    to have all that research done into hydra botnets and fast dns.

    Still, there's probably an appeal to come.

  46. Kevin Johnston

    @Lee

    I'm probably not the first with the shin-kicking but you seem to have missed the point here. What they have been found guilty of is providing information as to where to find copyrighted material. As previous comments have explained, this is pretty much the whole purpose of the web plus countless 'real-world' facilities such as libraries, DVD rental facilities etc etc etc.

    The reason for the confidence of the PB boys was that if they were guilty then so was every search engine on the web along with sites which simply held archives of past work.

    I would imagine that Google et al may have an interest in assisting with the appeal, just to be on the safe side. If TPB really are breaking the law then someone needs to be a little more precise in which law that is.

  47. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    GOOGLE! NO!!!!

    OhNo. Looks like Google might be going under soon too.

    Im just waiting for the sweedish court websites to be hacked/ddos'd to hell.

    Im sure there will be great support in Sweeden and the rest of the world. To show that we cannot allow these big corporations tule countries like the US do.

    We cannot let it stand!

  48. AlisonW
    Stop

    links?

    If providing links to copyrighted material is now considered illegal then just about every website in the world is illegal; every time an off-site link exists it must now be considered - at least in Sweden - as an invitation for the reader to inspect copyrighted material.

    So that's me in the stripy pants and top then ...

  49. Dave
    Flame

    @Lee Jackson

    You have to remember that these record companies are in the game to line their pockets off the work of others. They are an unnecessary (especially in the internet age) evil who look for talent, make a few bucks, and then leave the artist in the gutter to move on to the next big thing (ever wonder where one-hit wonders come from?). Just like sports agents, they are parasites that do not provide any service that couldn't be found elsewhere. Unfortunately for musicians, the costs of having records produced can run into thousands and thousands. With the internet age (and maybe a knocked off copy of a audio sequencer), artists can produce tracks and publish them at minimal cost. Suddenly, due to the nature of internet users, and new publication methods, they find their profits slide due to illegal downloads and the change of practices within the industry. They are still turning a profit though.

    When you say that downloading is illegal etc, then you are correct, but not in respect to this case. These guys who run the Pirate Bay are not hosting the illegal content. They are merely serving up the torrent files, or the means, to obtain illegal content. You have to remember that they are also providing the means to obtain a lot of legal stuff too. If you are given a phone number for a drug dealer, have you broken the law? It is your decision whether or not to then pursue the purchase of drugs. The end-user needs to be held responsible, not the guy who gave you the phone number or provided the torrent file.

    This then means, as they have been found guilty, that your ISP, Cisco, HP, Dell, IBM, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, the Linux community, Mozilla and about any other corporation/organisation that gives you the means to obtain illegal data are equally as guilty as these guys. The only people who should be prosecuted for this are the end-users. If I created a system that allowed people to share files, and then the users used it for illegal purposes, then I would certainly be very upset if I was blamed (fair enough - the pirate bay, by name, was probably never intended for legal content). In fact the media are just as guilty for highlighting the service Pirate Bay provide through media coverage of this case! The ruling here makes no sense at all and this can be seen by extrapolating the implications of this case.

    Basically, adapt or die. If the industry can't adapt to the transition to the age of the internet, then it will die. I won't miss them. Instead of being force fed the same old shit, we might actually hear an artist or two that have real talent. Remember that when tape cassettes came out, we had the same warnings from the record industry.

    Flame on!

  50. Armus Squelprom
    Pirate

    Lee Jackson, he has the big cojones, Si?

    Fair comment Lee, and hopefully you won't be attacked for making it. I think it's a bit simplistic though, myself.

    The real question is how many lost sales result from file-sharing, not how many copies were shared. Because file-sharing is so easy, many users soak up vast amounts of data just because it's there. They download music which they don't like much and rarely listen to, they have several versions of Corp XP Pro tucked away for no particular reason. Those aren't lost sales, and the copyright owners haven't suffered any disadvantage.

    Similarly the schoolkid who has a dodgy version of Photoshop - there was never any prospect of him paying £700 to own a licenced copy, and perfect enforcement would just result in him using GIMP or PSP. Arguably Adobe has actually gained, because their dominant market position is maintained until little Kev can afford to buy a kosher copy.

    I think we'd all support copyright owners who go after deliberate commercial abuses - companies running scores of desktops on hooky versions of XP & Office, small traders selling retail PC's with bent OS's, dealers on ebay etc. They're systematically profiting from someone else's hard work, and they're fair game. Not sure that's the same thing as kids swapping mp3's, or P2P downloads of the new series of 24, etc.

    Anyhow, the Pirates are appealing (to many of us, anyway) and I guess the case won't be resolved for a year or two yet. It'll all be quantum computing and black helicopters by then, and arguing over the 'rights' for an episode of Doctor Who may seem terribly quaint.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.