4 Convicted in Pirate Bay File-Sharing Trial, Appeals Planned

[Jtaylor1]

4 Convicted in Pirate Bay File-Sharing Trial, Appeals Planned (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2009-04-17/4-convicted-in-pirate-bay-file-sharing-trial-appeals-planned)

A Swedish court found four defendants of being guilty of being "accessory to breaching copyright laws" by hosting The Pirate Bay, a website that tracks shared on the BitTorrent system, on Friday. The Pirate Bay maintainers already noted in an April 15 blog entry before the verdict that any outcome would be appealed. Pending the appeals process, Fredrick Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi, and Carl Kolmisoppi each face one year in prison and 30 million kronor (about $3.6 million) in damages.

I hope the Swedish judge denies their appeals. Piracy is a no-no.

[sdp]

By your logic google should be sued as well, hell even Toon Zone.

The appeal will happen and this is going to take years to be resolved. Not to mention The Pirate Bay was NOT on trial and will still be online. Only those 4 were given an unfair Jail sentence which may not even happen.


You are definitely one of the very few supporting the court, they never pirated anything. And this trial was for US and our privacy more than anyone.

[Rook]

An accessory? So they are just cogs. Sounds like the usual flag raising in piracy news.

[mookie75]

By your logic google should be sued as well, hell even Toon Zone.

The appeal will happen and this is going to take years to be resolved. Not to mention The Pirate Bay was NOT on trial and will still be online. Only those 4 were given an unfair Jail sentence which may not even happen.


You are definitely one of the very few supporting the court, they never pirated anything. And this trial was for US and our privacy more than anyone.

You're always so quick to downplay stories like this and defend things like illegal music downloads and pirated movies. It makes one wonder just how much of this illegal stuff you do yourself.

By the way, can I have your contact info so I can pass it on to the FBI? :p

[Hanshotfirst113]

By your logic google should be sued as well, hell even Toon Zone.

The appeal will happen and this is going to take years to be resolved. Not to mention The Pirate Bay was NOT on trial and will still be online. Only those 4 were given an unfair Jail sentence which may not even happen.


You are definitely one of the very few supporting the court, they never pirated anything. And this trial was for US and our privacy more than anyone.

Tell me, SDP, what DO you consider piracy?

You're always so quick to downplay stories like this and defend things like illegal music downloads and pirated movies. It makes one wonder just how much of this illegal stuff you do yourself.

By the way, can I have your contact info so I can pass it on to the FBI? :p

There is one of those really sticky issues. I am in no way, shape, form, or fashion advocating piracy, but we're still in flux about how exactly to handle it, and the courts seem to be sort of cherry-picking at the moment.

[SirLemming]

Okay, let's keep level heads here.

The big question here is whether or not being an "accessory to piracy" -- providing a means by which people can pirate stuff -- is a crime. It's a tough call. Google can be used to find illegal stuff too, but that's just because it searches everything on the internet regardless of whether or not people make any effort to index it. The Pirate Bay is technically doing the same thing -- linking to an external source -- but there's more of an agreement to "advertise" the torrents. Is there a legal difference? Is it basically just as legal as making lockpicks or duplicating keys? I really don't know.

They might regret their choice of name for the site, though.

[Taekmkm]

From what I read of the Swedish laws, it's legal to have pirated things as long as you don't make a profit.

The pirate bay do with ads. It's really close, though the Swedish jails are a joke.

[Jave]

In before people start defending Pirate Bay by claiming it's "Fair Use".

But see guys? This is why we don't allow links to these sites on Toon Zone.

[krazymed]

Thrown in jail for posting links. They do not host the torrents, they do not upload the torrents. This is a joke. You go after the maker of the torrent, or the owner of the tracker, not the guy posting the link. This will solve nothing.

[KPTitan]

Thrown in jail for posting links. They do not host the torrents, they do not upload the torrents. This is a joke. You go after the maker of the torrent, or the owner of the tracker, not the guy posting the link. This will solve nothing.

Although you have a very good point, what Jave's trying to say is that Toon Zone would get busted also like those 4 guys, because us users posting illegal links are essentially promoting piracy in the eyes of the law, which this article is basically about.

[TripleS]

They might regret their choice of name for the site, though.

Yeah, because a name like Pirate Bay was REALLY gonna get under the radar. :/

This is a tough topic to really discuss, as I think piracy over the internet is difficult to avoid in general and not enough people are getting caught to really make a difference.

I don't personally think movies should be pirated, if you wanna open stream it, I'd rather watch it like that then waste more file space on the computer. But I suppose with music... well, the music I listen to is usually underground stuff, which doesn't really usually care about money as much as the popular artists do and sometimes they even encourage it. (A NIN CD is available for free download on the official site.) But in general, since it's underground, downloads are rare to find to begin with so...

... In some cases, the ability to access the music files and listen to them fully and play them on the go has actually made the artists earn more money anyway. Sure, the record company may be annoyed with getting their music stolen, but apparently if someone sends their friend a music file then their friend a music file then soon tell all their friends about the band... the band will actually grow more recognition over the internet and later get public recognition as well. (A good example of this is that MSI couldn't have become popular if it wasn't for the internet.)

But moving on, I'm not sure what will happen in this trial really. Though I do think that if piracy is really such a big deal, why are they continuing a method that isn't working?

[dendawg]

This is a hollow victory for MPAA/RIAA at best.

Even if the Pirate Bay does go down (and that's a big if) there are other sites and other ways. Arrr, matey! :evil:

[Beat]

I find it funny that it's legal until ads come into play. Meaning a site run solely on donations would be completely free from any sort of legal prosecution.

Think about that.

[TripleS]

I find it funny that it's legal until ads come into play. Meaning a site run solely on donations would be completely free from any sort of legal prosecution.

Think about that.
Never understood that honestly. xD I'm still scratching my head at how logical it is for hulu to be legally advertised and stream media for free.

[EinBebop]

I think it would be a better case if they didn't actually host torrent links. To make a real-world comparison, it's like telling someone where they can buy crack, vs inviting buyers and sellers to conduct business in your home.

[Marinite]

Thrown in jail for posting links. They do not host the torrents, they do not upload the torrents. This is a joke. You go after the maker of the torrent, or the owner of the tracker, not the guy posting the link. This will solve nothing. That's just a loophole (if at all) people like to hide behind so they don't get busted. 99.9% of the time those sites are intended for and directly used for piracy. It's extremely hard to try to justify those sites.

[Taekmkm]

Never understood that honestly. xD I'm still scratching my head at how logical it is for hulu to be legally advertised and stream media for free.

Because the companies themselves give permission. Completely different from Piratebay.

And people have to realize, they're going under Swedish laws for this. That's the only reason they've been able to go this long.

[EinBebop]

"Due to outrage over the verdict in The Pirate Bay trial (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/17/110235&tid=123), the Swedish Pirate Party has gained 3000 members in less than 7 hours (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpress.piratpartiet.se%2F2009%2F04%2F17%2Finternet-kokar-piratpartiet-har-nu-fler-medlemmar-an-fp%2F&sl=sv&tl=en). It is now bigger than 3 of the 7 parties represented in the Swedish parliament. 'Ruling means that our political work must now be stepped up. We want to ensure that the Pirate Bay activities — to link people and information — is clearly lawful. And we want to do it for all people in Sweden, Europe and the world, continues Rick Falk Vinge. We want it to be open for ordinary people to disseminate and receive information without fear of imprisonment or astronomical damages.'"

- Slashdot (http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/17/2041208&from=rss)

[Hanshotfirst113]

We want it to be open for ordinary people to disseminate and receive information without fear of imprisonment or astronomical damages.

Which is all good and well, but what about "information" that's gee, I don't know, under copyright?

[sdp]

You're always so quick to downplay stories like this and defend things like illegal music downloads and pirated movies. It makes one wonder just how much of this illegal stuff you do yourself.
By the way, can I have your contact info so I can pass it on to the FBI? :p
Tell me, SDP, what DO you consider piracy?

Well this is not a short answer that can be explained and its not black and white.

I defend OUR rights not necessarily defend illegal stuff. The MPAA and RIAA have showed they are not trustworthy and not only do they abuse the power that they already have which is a lot. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act is a bunch of crap and shouldn't exist. Google some horror stories or just general stories, these are not good people trying to protect their stuff, they are trying to find ways to take more money from you whether you like it or not and if you don't agree then they

So let me start, if it hadn't been thanks to Napster who knows if I would have gotten into music. The Napster that was so bad got me into music. Do I download songs? of course, whoever doesn't is lying. However I can easily say that no noone in this forum has spent/spends more money than me on music. Not only that I do my best to support my favorite acts like buying the same album multiple times just to support them. Did you know your favorite band(s) only make about 5 cents if lucky per cd sold? Not to mention they need to payback the money they spent to record? If it wasn't for touring then they would be not be making ANY money at all. Which is why if you truly want to support the band buy their merchandise thats the only thing they get money from. You don't want to know what they make from downloads. Are you saying the record companies are the good guys? Please, you need to research more about the industry, they are greedy and will squeeze all the money they have out of you. Did you know they could sell you songs for 5 cents each and still make a profit? Why don't they do that? Its obvious. Their tactics are downright vile and any graphs/press releases from them are fabricated and they blame EVERYTHING on the internet and never account for other things like internet/videogames/movies also eating their industry, people tired of their lack of quality in music and the lack of quality the CDs they themselves want you to buy not to mention the people who would have never spent any money on them anyway. If I didn't download songs I wouldn't be able to check out more bands that I end up spending A LOT of money in. Trust me from me alone they are getting way much more money they would have ever gotten. Look at Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, they understand the current problems and they released their albums for free and still made a profit.

For movies/shows I can't say I spend more than people on this forum thats for sure ;D However I can assure you I still spend a lot more than the average person. In fact I'm a completist, if I like something I have to get everything by it. Say only the first movie of 10 are any good I'll end up buying all ten, I only like one season of a show? I'll end up getting the whole series. So I'm doing wrong on watching shows I end up buying? In fact if my purchases have slowed down is because I've definitely gotten tired of getting screwed for lack of use of the real word I mean over and over? Is it really fair for making people not double dip or triple dip but sometimes many more times than that. And even still I've ended up double dipping in way too many occasions. Did you know you can't make a legal backup copy for your disc or even take screenshots from your dvd legally? Did you know they never wanted VHS recorders to be legal? they couldn't do anything about it so they ended up making it legal, same thing is going to happen now. We're in a transitional period when it comes to media and things are not right or wrong its a lot more complicated. Aren't you tired of all the times you bought something and realized you were just ripped off? Because of all the anti-piracy crap they put in? They truly make you realize that if you had pirated something it would have been a lot simpler, instead you bought it and they limit your PERSONAL use on things, they don't even let you use the stuff you pay for. If they could they would only make things a lot worse, and these are the people you want to defend? They want more power to spy on you and control you, like the proposed three strike rule that passed in France were if any company SUSPECTS (keyword) they give you a strike after the third one your ISP disconnects you. Suspect they don't have to prove it. And MANY times they've accused people wrongly. They sue their own customers who are giving them money. In fact if they don't get more money from me is because they don't even release all the stuff I'd buy.


FBI....lol, you realize they have to arrest most of the population right?


What do I consider Piracy?
Obviously people who are selling the stuff. But who is a pirate?
People who download all their songs/movies/games/etc and don't give anything back especially for stuff they truly like. Its wrong and I hate people like that. People deserve to get payed for what they do. And the customers don't deserve to be raped by the companies either.

I spend way more than enough in fact too much. I like to pay when I receive something I want, but I will not pay for something I don't/make useless/etc and I will not let them screw me over and take my money, I won't bend over and I'll protect my rights. If you think I'm a pirate I don't care.

By their definition everyone is a pirate, so if you ever downloaded a song of a intro for a show you liked, guess what it was illegal, heck those links are allowed to be posted here and aren't legal.


When I worked for Pokemon Organized Play, they hated one website for leaking stuff but couldn't do anything about it since they knew if they got the lawyers involved pretty much all fan sites would be shut down, even ones that were helpful to the brand. Once lawyers get involved theres no stopping them.

Although you have a very good point, what Jave's trying to say is that Toon Zone would get busted also like those 4 guys, because us users posting illegal links are essentially promoting piracy in the eyes of the law, which this article is basically about.
If they shut down forums for that there'd be very few forums on the internet. They'd never shut down Toon Zone, worst that can happen is threaten legal action, keyword is threaten. Which all TZ would have to do is delete the post//thread etc. Again I'm not saying I want it here in TZ and I understand what they want it but I hate when people go to extremes to validate something

Those four people don't deserver to go to jail. And praising that you are just giving more power to those who abuse it.


And again The Pirate Bay was never on trial, it'll keep being online not to mention if it ever went down many more would replace it.

[.bg]

What will they do next, ban the Internet?

Next, they'll ban whistling, because you may whistle a tune you haven't paid for. Then, they'll ban hearing, because you may overheard a song you haven't paid for blasting out of a radio in the front of the store. And forget radio, because in the rotation of hits, you might hear a song you haven't paid for. Finally, they'll ban thoughts because you might think of a song you haven't paid for.

Basically, it's a domino effect. If you ban one thing, you'll have to ban everything else. It's too complicated of an issue for legal matters.

[James]

What will they do next, ban the Internet?

Next, they'll ban whistling, because you may whistle a tune you haven't paid for. Then, they'll ban hearing, because you may overheard a song you haven't paid for blasting out of a radio in the front of the store. And forget radio, because in the rotation of hits, you might hear a song you haven't paid for. Finally, they'll ban thoughts because you might think of a song you haven't paid for.

Basically, it's a domino effect. If you ban one thing, you'll have to ban everything else. It's too complicated of an issue for legal matters.

No it's not. Radio is paid for and licensed to be aired. Before the internets the issue was the same with pirate radio stations - and they were treated the same, only then they had the decency in their title to admit what they were - pirate.

There is a difference between a licensed radio station airing songs and trying to justify downloading a copywritten product that has been invested in for commercial uses and downloading it for free.

If you live in a capitalist society, you have to expect that companies that invest in creative resources are going to be mighty protective of people obtaining copies of that investment for free. It just isn't good economics! :)

[.bg]

There is a difference between a licensed radio station airing songs and trying to justify downloading a copywritten product that has been invested in for commercial uses and downloading it for free.

If you live in a capitalist society, you have to expect that companies that invest in creative resources are going to be mighty protective of people obtaining copies of that investment for free. It just isn't good economics! :)
By their logic, they'd ban radio because although the station has paid for the songs, you might not have. Therefore, radio stations are exposing people to Top 40 music for free, so OMG PIRACY!

There's a difference between being protective and being counterproductive. If record companies actually cared about their investment, they'd pay the artists more and switch over to Internet/iTunes sales only instead of antiquated CD's.

[James]

By their logic, they'd ban radio because although the station has paid for the songs, you might not have. Therefore, radio stations are exposing people to Top 40 music for free, so OMG PIRACY!

Radio - licensed radio - ensures that performance rights/copyright are maintained and payment distributed. It's a licensed, authorised medium. If PB was licensed then there would be no issue. They aren't looking for some totalitarian control over what you hear, simply trying to ensure that if you like a product, you buy a product or listen to it through authorised vendors.

There's a difference between being protective and being counterproductive. If record companies actually cared about their investment, they'd pay the artists more and switch over to Internet/iTunes sales only instead of antiquated CD's.

It's all about regulation and ensuring that royalties are paid and product investment rights are maintained. If this was people stealing any other item that was licensed and produced commercially, we wouldn't be debating this issue, but because it's digital, and intangible, it seems to imply there is validity for downloading material that has no way of paying those who own it or create it.

However you want to argue the actions of the record labels, they are within their rights of the current system. Downloading commercial material through unauthorised means is both illegal and unethical - and the majority are hardly taking advantage of the cheap download material available through Itunes. I don't really thing you can argue the higher ground. To me the bigger failing is with the consumer, not the industry - or even Pirate Bay.

You talk about record companies not caring for their artists - how exactly is downloading commercial material that would pay these recording artists anyway better? I really don't see a moral high ground.

[.bg]

Radio - licensed radio - ensures that performance rights/copyright are maintained and payment distributed. It's a licensed, authorised medium. If PB was licensed then there would be no issue. They aren't looking for some totalitarian control over what you hear, simply trying to ensure that if you like a product, you buy a product or listen to it through authorised vendors.
Actually, they are looking for some sort of control over what people hear and how they hear it - see: the many record labels that refuse to put their catalogue on iTunes or any other online store, or the DRM fiasco. The reason people illegally download music isn't really to avoid paying, it's because downloading music is much quicker and much more convenient that paying big bucks for a CD that may only have two or three songs you actually want to listen to on it. iTunes is basically the same as the Napster of old but it forces people to pay for songs - and yet, it is extremely successful.


You talk about record companies not caring for their artists - how exactly is downloading commercial material that would pay these recording artists anyway better? I really don't see a moral high ground.
Illegal downloading of music is not hurting the artists more than it is hurting the record labels - the greedy, head-meet-sand, old-dog record labels. Maybe a boycott of CD music would convince them to change their distribution methods.

I do not illegally download music, by the way, as I would actually like to support the artists. Who I do not support, however, is the record labels.

[TripleS]

You talk about record companies not caring for their artists - how exactly is downloading commercial material that would pay these recording artists anyway better? I really don't see a moral high ground.
It isn't, but neither do CDs. Quite simply it's just the record companies worrying about earning money, the artists earn their money through concerts.

I agree on the level that CDs are pretty much nearly out of date and everyone is just buying/downloading their music anyway. The reason a person may rather download a song than an entire CD though is because... well, you wouldn't wanna buy a whole CD for one song or end up hating the rest of the CD. It may not help the record companies earn money, but I don't see any decreasing in popularity from artists because of the internet... in fact, I actually see a lot of underground artists getting more recognition because of it.

[Marinite]

By their logic, they'd ban radio because although the station has paid for the songs, you might not have. Therefore, radio stations are exposing people to Top 40 music for free, so OMG PIRACY! Uh, it's not for free. They were paid by the radio station in advance. They paid a sum of money in order for people to listen to the songs, and thus, generate a fanbase for advertisers to buy airtime.

Regardless of whatever moral feelings you have, piracy is illegal. Hence why a piracy site was shut down. Your analogies are not really comparable with the situation at hand; those sites don't pay to distribute that material like radio stations do.

[.bg]

Uh, it's not for free. They were paid by the radio station in advance. They paid a sum of money in order for people to listen to the songs, and thus, generate a fanbase for advertisers to buy airtime.
I know that, the point of the analogy is that the record companies love to jump to conclusions and defy logic just so they can make a few more squillions of dollars.

[James]

It isn't, but neither do CDs. Quite simply it's just the record companies worrying about earning money, the artists earn their money through concerts.


That's not strictly true. The record companies take a cut, but there are a lot of other divides in any publishing industry that, in the end, lowers the artists revenue per disk - but then artist is getting MORE revenue through distribution than if he was to self-publish.

I think there is always a dangerous reaction in making the record companies seem appear useless and greedy. What they do is a vital component in not just making artists money through distribution, but generating the distribution to create the interest in the concerts. It's all very symbiotic, and no, it's not an easy business, but I do feel these sort of focuses when it comes to these debates are needless. This isn't about backseat analysis of legal capitalism in the music industry, it's about people looking to justify downloading material that doesn't benefit those who invest in these bands and arguably, the bands themselves.

I agree on the level that CDs are pretty much nearly out of date and everyone is just buying/downloading their music anyway. The reason a person may rather download a song than an entire CD though is because... well, you wouldn't wanna buy a whole CD for one song or end up hating the rest of the CD. It may not help the record companies earn money, but I don't see any decreasing in popularity from artists because of the internet... in fact, I actually see a lot of underground artists getting more recognition because of it.


That's not what's happening - nor is it the reaction the industry is fighting against. Not condoning people who pick-n-mix downloads, but the people the industry are really worried about are those who download whole albums - and this is happening a lot via torrents. That's there real concern. Sure, I imagine they aren't too happy with any illegal download - if it was my company, I'd feel the same, but where the net is proving problematic is where whole products are being downloaded for free.

And I don't buy the underground artists argument either. It again always strikes me of excuses for people illegally circulating material. There are legal ways for underground artists to get recognition/support/viral interest on the internet, and I don't see that downloading torrents of their albums for free really supports this notion.

And I think it's important we remind ourselves we're not debating the question of people uploading music videos to Youtube or the ilk, but the industry's dislike of people torrenting whole albums.

I know that, the point of the analogy is that the record companies love to jump to conclusions and defy logic just so they can make a few more squillions of dollars.

I think sir, the only person jumping to conclusions and defying logic is you. Record companies are businesses who invest and thereby look to protect their investment. They are no more evil, lazy, presumptuous, greedy or nasty than any other consumer based business. That's merely capitalism at work.

With respect, none of your commentary on the record labels rings true nor does it have any basis in how the industry works. These companies aren't out to find new ways to fleece or control the innocent mass music buyers - they are desperately looking for ways to stop people downloading entire albums rather than buying them. I can bet if you were CEO of any of these companies - you'd be doing exactly the same. :)

[.bg]

If I were a record label CEO, I would take illegal downloading as a warning that people aren't going to put up with the same old distribution system for much longer, and adjust accordingly. Unfortunately, record labels prefer to be sticks in the mud, and they're losing profit because of it.

[EinBebop]

Pirate Bay Verdict May Actually Lead To Pirate Party Official Joining European Parliament (http://techdirt.com/articles/20090430/0721524704.shtml)

[Beat]

Pirate Bay Verdict May Actually Lead To Pirate Party Official Joining European Parliament (http://techdirt.com/articles/20090430/0721524704.shtml)

And the RIAA just found their plans blow up in their face yet again.

Utterly bizarre, I tell you. The whole trial, done on a mere technicality, and now it's done more for piracy, which is a murky cause to fight for anyway, than it's done to control it.