Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Mother Clanger
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 10:30:00 -
[1]
Pirate Bay Founders Verdict: Guilty
- Frederik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Carl Lundstrom and Peter Sunde are sentenced to a year in jail
- They are ordered to pay 30m kronor (ú2.4m) in damages, going to Warner Bros, Sony Music Entertainment, EMI, Columbia Pictures and others
- They will appeal
- piratebay.org will remain active
One day perhaps, these companies will realise they need to wake up to modern society.
o7 piratebay.
- MC
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 10:35:00 -
[2]
Jesus Christ. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

ReaperOfSly
Gallente Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 10:49:00 -
[3]
So the big faceless corporations won despite having a case with more holes in it than a colander. Fan-bloody-tastic. ____________________
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 10:52:00 -
[4]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly So the big faceless corporations won despite having a case with more holes in it than a colander. Fan-bloody-tastic.
Welcome to the world where the corporations make their own laws i guess.
We're all going to hell now. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 10:58:00 -
[5]
I already popped the champagne.
|

ThrashPower
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 10:59:00 -
[6]
Miscarriage of justice.
Quote: All four defendants were accused of ĉassisting in making copyright content availableĈ
How can you accuse four select men (their business/website was never on trial here) of assisting in making copyrighted content available? 
They might as well have gone after Tim Berner-Lee for inventing the World Wide Web.
|

defiler
Mad Hermit Wayward Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 11:06:00 -
[7]
Meh, it pretty much turned out the way I expected. Okay, it was a bit of a surprise that Lundstr÷m was found guilty but I had no doubts that the other three would be facing jail time.
Oh well, it's a travesty and all that but this won't change much. It'll get appealed and by the time we get to the end of this mess everyone will have moved on. And it's sort of a win-win for the "pirates" as I think this verdict will really change public perception of the issue in their favour. It'll be fun to see what happens in the next election... 
Mad Hermit corporation Minding our own business since 2004 |

Doomed Predator
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 11:19:00 -
[8]
Ofcourse, blame them, not the damn greedy corporations that would try to sell your own **** back to you. Now, if they would slice their prices in half at least and sell decent products/services and maybe they'd have a right to press charges. The 'Fendahlian Collective' strikes again |

Xen Gin
Solar Excavations Ultd. Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 11:22:00 -
[9]
I bet Google aren't happy, it throws their business into doubt.
|

HankMurphy
Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 11:46:00 -
[10]
lol newbs think they can stop our interweb thievery ---------- Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherf***er. |
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 13:04:00 -
[11]
serves them right for doing illegal activities
|

TraininVain
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 13:06:00 -
[12]
Yarr 
|

Nigel Sheldon
Caldari VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 13:12:00 -
[13]
Originally by: EliteSlave serves them right for doing illegal activities
ummm how are they doing illegal activities - prehaps you should have read up on the case.... Many people here complain that we don't have torrents for the patches etc or the expansions...this throws everything up into the air...file sharing is a way of life these days, and to brand it illegal is a dangerous precident...
|

Noodly Appendage
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 13:14:00 -
[14]
They can appeal up to the EU court which may last years. I'd sure be glad to donate some money to help them out.
|

Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 13:31:00 -
[15]
Court got paid off. The verdict was already written at the beginning of the case, that's why no one of the companies made any effort in arguing their case. This is a farce. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 13:46:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Nigel Sheldon
Originally by: EliteSlave serves them right for doing illegal activities
ummm how are they doing illegal activities - prehaps you should have read up on the case.... Many people here complain that we don't have torrents for the patches etc or the expansions...this throws everything up into the air...file sharing is a way of life these days, and to brand it illegal is a dangerous precident...
Did they moderate the search engine to prevent the sharing of Copyright protected items? No, Did they provide a means for the sharing of Copyright Protected Items? Yes, Did they knowingly allow it to continue with out impedance? Yes.
With this said, They faciliated the crime. Yes it is "Guilt by Association", but unfortunately if you do the crime, you will end up doing the time.
And yes, now that this ruling has come about, it may mean that Google will need to make adjustments aswell to their search engine also since you can Torrent thru it.
|

Nigel Sheldon
Caldari VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 13:48:00 -
[17]
but they didn't break any laws....thats the thing...they are not resonsible for what people share....that was the whole point of the case...
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 13:49:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Nigel Sheldon
Originally by: EliteSlave serves them right for doing illegal activities
ummm how are they doing illegal activities - prehaps you should have read up on the case.... Many people here complain that we don't have torrents for the patches etc or the expansions...this throws everything up into the air...file sharing is a way of life these days, and to brand it illegal is a dangerous precident...
I full heartedly support the Torrent sharing, but I do not support the Copyright Infringements and blatant thievery that is what Piratebay allowed and Facilitated.
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 14:04:00 -
[19]
Originally by: EliteSlave Did they moderate the search engine to prevent the sharing of Copyright protected items? No, Did they provide a means for the sharing of Copyright Protected Items? Yes, Did they knowingly allow it to continue with out impedance? Yes.
With this said, They faciliated the crime. Yes it is "Guilt by Association", but unfortunately if you do the crime, you will end up doing the time.
And yes, now that this ruling has come about, it may mean that Google will need to make adjustments aswell to their search engine also since you can Torrent thru it.
1. Actually they do, but 4 guys cannot really "moderate" thousands of entries a day, eh?. 2. They did. But most gun shops in the US provide a means for killing or severely injuring others. Would you still argue that it is guilty by association if someone with a gun permit and all the other faff bought a gun and decided "Screw it" and offed his wife? Was the merchant to blame? 3. They didn't "Allow it to continue" they simply kept their service running whilst deleting what was brought to their attention.
Oh and an FYI. None of the companies that took them to court did any survey of the site, to see how much content was ACTUALLY COPYRIGHTED. The TPB guys hired an independant surveyor iirc and it came back that about 60-80% of the stuff was legit, uncopyrighted software/music from independant programmers/musicians. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

Brea Lafail
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 14:24:00 -
[20]
Kangaroo court, rabble rabble rabble. In before Ralara. |
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 15:01:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Blane Xero
1. Actually they do, but 4 guys cannot really "moderate" thousands of entries a day, eh?. 2. They did. But most gun shops in the US provide a means for killing or severely injuring others. Would you still argue that it is guilty by association if someone with a gun permit and all the other faff bought a gun and decided "Screw it" and offed his wife? Was the merchant to blame? 3. They didn't "Allow it to continue" they simply kept their service running whilst deleting what was brought to their attention.
Oh and an FYI. None of the companies that took them to court did any survey of the site, to see how much content was ACTUALLY COPYRIGHTED. The TPB guys hired an independant surveyor iirc and it came back that about 60-80% of the stuff was legit, uncopyrighted software/music from independant programmers/musicians.
If you dont have the support staff to operate the site, then that is Negligence.
Also doesnt matter the percentages of what was Legal and what was not legal, The matter was they had Copyrighted items that were able to be downloaded, wether it be from their servers or someone elses server, The matter was it was still available and the access was given, Thus they are liable.
Now, to the gunstore comparison. That is different from this situation, The GunStore did not knowingly know you were going to use the Gun for Illegal activities, verse the TPB having a link to Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit and with cracked CD Key for download. Huge Difference.
|

TimGascoigne
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 15:44:00 -
[22]
this won't change anything at TPB. Its existence as a website is not being threatened. Also most trusted links are sent by pirates who have worked their way to the Green skull and crossbones level.
These four really are just founders and that's it.
|

Reiisha
Evolution KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 16:45:00 -
[23]
Originally by: EliteSlave If you dont have the support staff to operate the site, then that is Negligence.
So..... It's illegal if your home-run, free of charge service becomes succesful?
"If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"
|

Mother Clanger
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 16:47:00 -
[24]
Pirate Bay defendants to fight on
Copyright holders cheer Pirate Bay verdict
Some choice quotes from the second link:
Rick Carnes, president of the Songwriters' Guild of America "They are turning the Internet into a cyber Somalia...and that doesn't do any good for anybody."
Mitch Bainwol, CEO of The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) "Piracy can sound romantic and glamorous, but as this decision reminds the world--digital theft is illegal, damaging and for those convicted, consequential,"
This comment from the second link sums up my opinion perfectly:
Quote: "As it becomes less profiatble for record companies to produce new music who do you think are going to be the first to get the axe, thats right the guys on the bottom."
I disagree. Whilst you are right in that there won't be as many artists getting silly amounts of money for producing mediocre pop tunes, I would guess that as it becomes less profitable to mass produce music, the first people to leave will be those who are only interested in the financial potential of the music industry - ie the big label execs looking to grab as big a slice as they can of the multi-million dollar music pie.
"Keep stealing your music, and you may find that there isn't anymore new music worth listening to."
Come on - clearly you don't know many musicians. Generally the guys and gals doing all the interesting music have been doing it for years with little financial reward. Some may get lucky and garner some kind of fringe recognition that helps them derive a more steady income but most musicians never get, nor expect to get, the same kind of financial security associated with the 9-5 world. We don't do what we do because we're following some childish pipe-dream that millions of dollars are suddenly going to fall into our laps and we'll have "made it". We do what we do because its what we do, we love doing it and can't imagine a world where we don't do it anymore. I know plenty of professional players who work 60+ hour weeks (by the time you take into account practicing, rehearsing, travelling to gigs etc) and still have to take the odd crappy job now and then to pay the bills. They just accept that's the way it is and get on with it.
"You aren't just sticking it to the man, you are killing an industry"
Perhaps, but its an industry that has been morally and culturally dead for a long time and it needs to finally die so that it can be rebuilt in a manner more suited to the 21st century. I'm not saying that is a justification for downloading music without paying for it - personally I pay for all the music I download - but the fact is the music industry as it has been in the past is on its way out and good riddance to it. Up until recently it has taken vast sums of capital to produce and distribute recorded music on a scale that is profitable. Without the backing of a major label it was almost impossible to get your music heard outside of your local community. Now it is possible for anyone to produce and distribute an album worldwide literally from their bedroom - all you need is talent and a few bits of kit. The power held by the major labels over the artists is dissipating and will continue to do so as more musicians realise they no longer need the same kind of financial backing to get their music heard - which incidentally is usually of more importance to the musician than getting a fat pay-off. If these big labels had any smarts, they'd accept the world has changed, move on and look for new ways to keep themselves in the industry. The days of one-off $80 million deals are gone and they're not coming back. Respect to the Pirate Bay guys for sticking to their guns but at the end of the day, this verdict isn't gonna make any difference one way or another.
- MC
|

Doctor Penguin
Amarr Celestial Ascension Tenth Legion
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 16:48:00 -
[25]
Originally by: EliteSlave And yes, now that this ruling has come about, it may mean that Google will need to make adjustments aswell to their search engine also since you can Torrent thru it.
And ISPs, if my logic is correct... ________________________________________________
http://eve.drome.nl/CaodCleaner/ Help make CAOD readable. |

kor anon
Amarr Seerauber-Vereinigung
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 16:51:00 -
[26]
Can someone tell me what's to stop them from just packing up leaving and running the site from a backwater country?
|

Mother Clanger
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 16:56:00 -
[27]
Originally by: kor anon Can someone tell me what's to stop them from just packing up leaving and running the site from a backwater country?
The site has failover redundancy in at least 3 undisclosed locations throughout the world. If the Swedish server is taken offline, one of the other servers will kick in (with an up-to-date database) within a few minutes.
- MC
|

FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 16:56:00 -
[28]
Could care less to be honest. I buy all my movies, software and music so this affects me in no way. Pirate Bay is still going to have the non-copyrighted material that I do use it for so again, this affects me in no way shape or form.
I do love to hear people who download copyrighted media whine though. It is very satisfying. ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |

Nigel Sheldon
Caldari VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 17:18:00 -
[29]
Originally by: FOl2TY8 Could care less to be honest. I buy all my movies, software and music so this affects me in no way. Pirate Bay is still going to have the non-copyrighted material that I do use it for so again, this affects me in no way shape or form.
I do love to hear people who download copyrighted media whine though. It is very satisfying.
again someone misses the point...70% of pirate bay is proven to be non-coptyrighted links eg legal... we have many people on the eve forums themselves demanding that ccp release it's patchs/expansions via torrents, with this judgement this won't be possible.... It's people who don't know what they are talking about that assume that it's all copyrighted material...
|

FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 17:29:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Nigel Sheldon
Originally by: FOl2TY8 Could care less to be honest. I buy all my movies, software and music so this affects me in no way. Pirate Bay is still going to have the non-copyrighted material that I do use it for so again, this affects me in no way shape or form.
I do love to hear people who download copyrighted media whine though. It is very satisfying.
again someone misses the point...70% of pirate bay is proven to be non-coptyrighted links eg legal... we have many people on the eve forums themselves demanding that ccp release it's patchs/expansions via torrents, with this judgement this won't be possible.... It's people who don't know what they are talking about that assume that it's all copyrighted material...
Read my post a second time because I addressed the fact that TPB also has non-copyrighted material. I even put it in bold for you. TPB is not going to be shut down because of this so that material will still be available and is also available from several other sources.
Also you must have misread the information because TPB is not going to be shut down so really all you are fighting for is the ability to steal copyrighted material. ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |
|

FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 17:32:00 -
[31]
Also I am curious about one thing. I'm not doubting that 70% of the material on TPB is non-copyrighted material but I wonder what are the most popular torrents on TPB? If you go to it and look at the top 100 for any of the sections, movies, tv, software, games etc. everything in those lists are copyrighted. ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:00:00 -
[32]
Edited by: EliteSlave on 17/04/2009 18:04:58 Lets see... with just these links this site should be shut down fully.
Copyright Infringements..
Infringed some more...
Need I say more?
-----------------------------
What they should have done, since they are a small "operated team" they should have made it a Submit torrent link, then be approved in a queue list. They on the other hand took 0 responsiblity and thus will pay for it.
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:02:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Reiisha
Originally by: EliteSlave If you dont have the support staff to operate the site, then that is Negligence.
So..... It's illegal if your home-run, free of charge service becomes succesful?
If your home-run site that offers access to Illegal items, then yes it is Illegal as they did not have permission from the holders of the copyrights / patents.
But if you had a home-run site that provided access to open-source, non copyright / patented items then no it would not be illegal.
|

FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:13:00 -
[34]
Originally by: EliteSlave
If your home-run site that offers access to Illegal items, then yes it is Illegal as they did not have permission from the holders of the copyrights / patents.
But if you had a home-run site that provided access to open-source, non copyright / patented items then no it would not be illegal.
This is it in a nutshell. I'm sorry that you guys can't feel like 1337 hackers anymore by downloading free stuff but it is the law. Just because it's easy to do and feels harmless doesn't make it any less criminal. ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |

Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:15:00 -
[35]
Originally by: EliteSlave Edited by: EliteSlave on 17/04/2009 18:04:58 Lets see... with just these links this site should be shut down fully.
Copyright Infringements..
Infringed some more...
Need I say more?
-----------------------------
What they should have done, since they are a small "operated team" they should have made it a Submit torrent link, then be approved in a queue list. They on the other hand took 0 responsiblity and thus will pay for it.
And you should be put into jail for linking this on a public forum. Just following your logic. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|

FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:17:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Abrazzar
And you should be put into jail for linking this on a public forum. Just following your logic.
This is completely wrong. How is those screenshots copyrighted or infringing a copyright? You are just grasping at straws because any argument that you may have about this issue leads to the conclusion that you just want to download copyrighted material for free. ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |

Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:21:00 -
[37]
Originally by: FOl2TY8
Originally by: Abrazzar
And you should be put into jail for linking this on a public forum. Just following your logic.
This is completely wrong. How is those screenshots copyrighted or infringing a copyright? You are just grasping at straws because any argument that you may have about this issue leads to the conclusion that you just want to download copyrighted material for free.
With linking those sites he is supporting the proliferation of copyright infringement which makes him as responsible for copyright infringements done as, for example, the Pirate Bay owners. He should be put into jail and should have to pay a fine for any potential copyright infringements that may have resulted in his activity of cross-linking pirated material. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|

Legionos McGuiros
Caldari Novus Aevum Transport and Industries Novus Aevum
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:22:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Blane Xero
Originally by: ReaperOfSly So the big faceless corporations won despite having a case with more holes in it than a colander. Fan-bloody-tastic.
Welcome to the world where the corporations make their own laws i guess.
We're all going to hell now.
No we're all going to EVE 
|

Gone'Postal
Void Engineers
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:26:00 -
[39]
Never used the site but damn.. 
Originally by: masternerdguy
Officer mods arent spread out because the bpos are innacesible to 99% of eve.
|

lofty29
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:29:00 -
[40]
Originally by: FOl2TY8 Edited by: FOl2TY8 on 17/04/2009 18:19:20
Originally by: Abrazzar
And you should be put into jail for linking this on a public forum. Just following your logic.
This is completely wrong. How are those screenshots copyrighted or infringing a copyright? You are just grasping at straws because any argument that you may have about this issue leads to the conclusion that you just want to download copyrighted material for free.
*edit for grammar
Linking those screenshots is exactly the same 'offense' as thepiratebay commited.
Someone might look at that screenshot, and go 'ooh i wonder where i could find that website' and as such they are proliferating copyright infringement.
It's a massive loophole and it's a shame that big business is still more powerful than the law. 族---族
Latest Video : Relentless |
|

Jhagiti Tyran
Mortis Angelus
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:32:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Nigel Sheldon
Originally by: EliteSlave serves them right for doing illegal activities
ummm how are they doing illegal activities - prehaps you should have read up on the case.... Many people here complain that we don't have torrents for the patches etc or the expansions...this throws everything up into the air...file sharing is a way of life these days, and to brand it illegal is a dangerous precident...
Try advertising a service called "The coke bay" and arrange meetings between people including soft drink sellers and ******* dealers and see if you can get away with it. Whatever the arguments about corporate pricing and marketing and even the moral arguments copyright theft is a legally a crime and committing a crime or helping others to commit a crime is also illegal. -
|

FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:37:00 -
[42]
Originally by: lofty29
Linking those screenshots is exactly the same 'offense' as thepiratebay commited.
Someone might look at that screenshot, and go 'ooh i wonder where i could find that website' and as such they are proliferating copyright infringement.
It's a massive loophole and it's a shame that big business is still more powerful than the law.
Wow you guys are really reaching here. By showing the screenshots he is not providing a method of downloading illegal material. Maybe you should press charges against your local electric utility? After all they supplied the electricity that powers the computer that enables you to see the screenshot of a website that is enabling people to download illegally.
Of course you can continue to argue this point or you can offer arguments about why you think TPB is not participating in illegal activity. ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |

rValdez5987
Amarr Imperial Guard.
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:44:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Blane Xero
Originally by: ReaperOfSly So the big faceless corporations won despite having a case with more holes in it than a colander. Fan-bloody-tastic.
Welcome to the world where the corporations make their own laws i guess.
We're all going to hell now.
Corporations own the justice system, the government, everything. They will do as they please, and you see how they act when you try to stop them.
This world needs massive reform away from being cash-centric. |

FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:04:00 -
[44]
Originally by: rValdez5987
Corporations own the justice system, the government, everything. They will do as they please, and you see how they act when you try to stop them.
This world needs massive reform away from being cash-centric.
Don't tinfoil hats get a little itchy? You act like it's some crazy new phenomena that corporations have their fingers in a whole bunch of political pies. It's been this way since commerce was invented. Either get over it, join the corporations or put yourself in a position of power to change the way it is. These kind of statements are not very creative and they add nothing to whatever argument you are applying them to.
Again I ask, can any of you pirate bay proponents come up with an argument for downloading software illegally? ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |

rValdez5987
Amarr Imperial Guard.
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:30:00 -
[45]
Edited by: rValdez5987 on 17/04/2009 20:33:06
Originally by: FOl2TY8
Originally by: rValdez5987
Corporations own the justice system, the government, everything. They will do as they please, and you see how they act when you try to stop them.
This world needs massive reform away from being cash-centric.
Don't tinfoil hats get a little itchy? You act like it's some crazy new phenomena that corporations have their fingers in a whole bunch of political pies. It's been this way since commerce was invented. Either get over it, join the corporations or put yourself in a position of power to change the way it is. These kind of statements are not very creative and they add nothing to whatever argument you are applying them to.
Again I ask, can any of you pirate bay proponents come up with an argument for downloading software illegally?
I was simply making a statement for those out there that dont get how the world works.
I want to change the world. I want to rid our society of the pointless wants of mankind like cash. Make it a fair life for all those who are willing to work together for it.
I can't do it however. There are too many ideologies. Religion, greed, social views, moral views, ethics views. Too many differences in opinion. And the Human populace is TOO STUPID.
The majority of mankind doesn't care what rights they have, what they can afford to buy, how hard they have to work, as long as they have a place to sleep and food to eat.
As I have said many times before, mankind is barely above an ape. It's time to evolve beyond this, but mankind never will. You fail to adapt. It's my belief that we will be extinct by our own hand within 200 years. The way things are going I look forward to it.
(in regard to money and corporations having control of law etc, duh, everyone knows money will buy anything. Everyone has a price, your senator, your president, even your mother. if you have the cash you can get ANYTHING)
I've resigned myself to simply living my life as comfortably as possible, and then dying eventually. Anything that comes in between thats good is a bonus.
And to answer your question, If it was me, I would of drafted a law to crack down on users knowingly uploading the initial illegal content.
Any other punishment for illegal content uploading needs to first be handled by ISP's through fines or bandwidth limiting. |

Corwain
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:42:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Corwain on 17/04/2009 20:41:49 How creativity is being strangled by the law -- Distortion| Distortion 2 Preview |

Atomos Darksun
Damage Incorporated.
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:47:00 -
[47]
Originally by: lofty29
Originally by: FOl2TY8 Edited by: FOl2TY8 on 17/04/2009 18:19:20
Originally by: Abrazzar
And you should be put into jail for linking this on a public forum. Just following your logic.
This is completely wrong. How are those screenshots copyrighted or infringing a copyright? You are just grasping at straws because any argument that you may have about this issue leads to the conclusion that you just want to download copyrighted material for free.
*edit for grammar
Linking those screenshots is exactly the same 'offense' as thepiratebay commited.
Someone might look at that screenshot, and go 'ooh i wonder where i could find that website' and as such they are proliferating copyright infringement.
It's a massive loophole and it's a shame that big business is still more powerful than the law.
Wrong. It's if you were to buy and maintain a website that had tens of thousands of users on it every day (let's use EVE-O for this example), somebody posts a link to a copyrighted image, it isn't removed, and then you get sent to court and convicted.
Can anyone think of a website you can interact with (post on) that this DOESN'T happen on? 
Originally by: Amoxin My vent is talking to me in a devil voice...
CONVERT TO LINKIFICATION! http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameb |

Mother Clanger
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:54:00 -
[48]
I don't think anyone can argue that the piratebay founders have always taken a very cavalier approach to the way that they approached copyright. Could they have done more to restrict the kind of torrent files that appeared on the searches? Of course they could, that was the point. The point is that all these companies are sticking to this mentality of "Well this is how we've always done things, so we'll just slightly modify the business model to take into account this new avenue of selling our stuff". They don't take into account that the internet has changed everything.
There will always be people who pirate, there's no getting away from it now. These companies are always going on about how they are losing hundreds of millions of pounds to pirates. What does that prove? It proves that a large number of people believe it's not worth handing over their money at the current price point. What if instead they modified the price point or the product to give what people perceive is more inline with their idea of value for money? Why not use the channels they sell in to their respective advantages?
Here's a radical idea, what if when a new album is launched, instead of costing a flat ú8 on iTunes, or ú15 in the shops for the first 3 months, ú12 for the first year, ú9.99 for two years after etc., what if instead everything cost ú10 on first release, then the price came down by 10% for every 100,000 purchases? You work with human behavior instead of against it.
What if you took the Radiohead approach? You pay what you think the album/film is worth for the download version. Of course some people aren't going to pay a penny. Many people, surprisingly did. Then they released a CD version and a really nice collectors edition that was actually worth paying extra for. Why not take the same approach to DVD/Blu-ray's. Would I be more inclined to pay upwards of ú15 for a new DVD if I was getting something physical in the box that actually made it worth buying a physical copy? Of course. Use the damn medium to its advantage. Don't get me started on the stealth increase in the initial price point that is Blu-ray. ú25 for a new film when DVD was always ú16-17? Yeah, that'll be inflation of course, not money grabbing studios.
Things are starting to change. Spotify, Apple film rentals, DRM free music, Nokia "Come with Music". If only these companies would take their heads out of the collective arses, experiment and try a few new innovative business models, the world would actually be on their side.
As it stands I cannot wait for a few startups to come along pound these idiots into yesterday.
- MC |

rValdez5987
Amarr Imperial Guard.
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:01:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Corwain Edited by: Corwain on 17/04/2009 20:41:49 How creativity is being strangled by the law
Watched the video, that man gets it. Thank you very much for sharing that. Gives me some hope that I'm not entirely alone in my views. |

Nigel Sheldon
Caldari VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:09:00 -
[50]
Originally by: FOl2TY8
Originally by: lofty29
Linking those screenshots is exactly the same 'offense' as thepiratebay commited.
Someone might look at that screenshot, and go 'ooh i wonder where i could find that website' and as such they are proliferating copyright infringement.
It's a massive loophole and it's a shame that big business is still more powerful than the law.
Wow you guys are really reaching here. By showing the screenshots he is not providing a method of downloading illegal material. Maybe you should press charges against your local electric utility? After all they supplied the electricity that powers the computer that enables you to see the screenshot of a website that is enabling people to download illegally.
Of course you can continue to argue this point or you can offer arguments about why you think TPB is not participating in illegal activity.
simple..because it didn't host any of the files itself....it was a search engine just like google etc etc. You type say wall-e torrent in google and you will get a list of torrent files for it...so maybe we should sue google or yahoo or any other search engine out there... they are not responsible for what other people do.....piracy is a crime yes - I agree, but I don't agree that the pirate bay was breaking any laws...again 70% of it is legal stuff. This all stems from the fat cat suits at emi, warner etc etc wanting to keep their 90% share of all incomes, the trial was a farce and the guilty verdict was bought and paid for no matter how much evidence to the contray was published...and in my opinon TPB had some damn good evidence on their side.... |
|

ReaperOfSly
Gallente Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:15:00 -
[51]
Any piece of software, any mp3 and any video, all it is is one long binary number. It's legally impossible to copyright a number. Therefore, it is legally impossible to copyright digital content.
I like this argument. It makes a mockery of the whole concept of copyright, and is logically water-tight.  ____________________
|

FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:38:00 -
[52]
First of all that TED presentation has nothing to do with pirating copyrighted material.
Clanger I think your ideas about what the entertainment industry should do to fix pirating are exactly correct. Fixing the problem instead of desperately trying to keep the status quo are what businesses should concentrate on. The outcome of this trial will have zero affect on piracy regardless of the verdict. However what TPB is doing is illegal in my opinion because they are not just a general search engine. They are a search engine for torrents exclusively and they did very little self policing if any at all.
I'm sure that the trial was a mess because the entertainment industries are out of touch with the majority of society and TPB owners are "cavalier" in their approach to the law. Doesn't change the fact that what they are doing is in fact illegal which has been proved in a court of law. If you don't like that then you always have the appeal to look forward to.
Just because OJ Simpson probably killed Nicole Brown doesn't change the fact that he is innocent of murder. ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |

FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:40:00 -
[53]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly Any piece of software, any mp3 and any video, all it is is one long binary number. It's legally impossible to copyright a number. Therefore, it is legally impossible to copyright digital content.
I like this argument. It makes a mockery of the whole concept of copyright, and is logically water-tight. 
All you are is a bunch of carbon organized in a certain way. Therefore I get to stab you in the face because carbon has no rights. ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |

Roymundo
Caldari Manhattan Project Inc Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 22:29:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Nigel Sheldon but they didn't break any laws....thats the thing...they are not resonsible for what people share....that was the whole point of the case...
thats a bit like letting some dude **** a woman in your house. "ah sure, i'm not the one doing it so its fine....."
they knew full well that the site was being used to facilitate share copyrighted materials. the court couldn't prove it 100% on evidence but i reckon the judge went with his common sense.
|

Roymundo
Caldari Manhattan Project Inc Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 22:55:00 -
[55]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly Any piece of software, any mp3 and any video, all it is is one long binary number. It's legally impossible to copyright a number. Therefore, it is legally impossible to copyright digital content.
I like this argument. It makes a mockery of the whole concept of copyright, and is logically water-tight. 
you can't copyright a number no, but you sure can copyright the way in which the numbers come together.
you over analyse things bucko.
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 23:01:00 -
[56]
Originally by: EliteSlave
Originally by: Nigel Sheldon
Originally by: EliteSlave serves them right for doing illegal activities
ummm how are they doing illegal activities - prehaps you should have read up on the case.... Many people here complain that we don't have torrents for the patches etc or the expansions...this throws everything up into the air...file sharing is a way of life these days, and to brand it illegal is a dangerous precident...
Did they moderate the search engine to prevent the sharing of Copyright protected items? No, Did they provide a means for the sharing of Copyright Protected Items? Yes, Did they knowingly allow it to continue with out impedance? Yes.
With this said, They faciliated the crime.
By this reasoning, your ISP is equally guilty.
|

Asuka Smith
Gallente StarHunt
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 23:23:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Asuka Smith on 17/04/2009 23:27:44 Edited by: Asuka Smith on 17/04/2009 23:25:18 Those four are guilty as hell and everyone knows it, whether you want to try and justify it or not is up to you as an individual.
That said I wish they had gotten off because even if the law is on the side of the corporations the law is stupid. I fileshare all the time, **** THE MAN! it might be illegal but in my country so are drugs I do all sorts of illegal **** because I am in it for me, not some faceless suit.
EDIT: Lol at all you legal eagles trying to justify their filesharing, seriously. The NAME OF THE SITE is "PIRATE BAY", they obviously knew what they were doing was illegal and they obviously knew the site existed solely to provide copyrighted material illegally. There is no way you can say "oh they only tracked the files blah blah blah". They knew the score and they knew the risks. It finally caught up to them.
EDIT2: They even flaunted their illegal activities in the legal threats section of the site where they posted the requests to remove copyrighted material and flipped the companies the bird and let the files remain. There is no way they could win in court because they are obviously criminals. You guys should argue that "the law is stupid" or "**** the man who cares if it is illegal", not "these guys are innocent and they have no dirt on their hands whatsoever the pirate bay existed to distribute my garage bands demo tape etc etc it is just a coincidence that it is the most popular site for illegal filesharing on the internet".
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 23:25:00 -
[58]
Originally by: EliteSlave Edited by: EliteSlave on 17/04/2009 18:04:58 Lets see... with just these links this site should be shut down fully.
Copyright Infringements..
Infringed some more...
Need I say more?
-----------------------------
What they should have done, since they are a small "operated team" they should have made it a Submit torrent link, then be approved in a queue list. They on the other hand took 0 responsiblity and thus will pay for it.
Big woop de ****ing doo. Maybe 50 links topside there. Now, Link a full catalogue of all the "Over" 1,600,000.00 Torrents that TPB is tracking. Realise that just because all you dare to look for is copyrighted stuff, doesn't mean that its mostly copyrighted stuff. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 23:30:00 -
[59]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly Any piece of software, any mp3 and any video, all it is is one long binary number. It's legally impossible to copyright a number. Therefore, it is legally impossible to copyright digital content.
I like this argument. It makes a mockery of the whole concept of copyright, and is logically water-tight. 
I like that you like this logic. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

Asuka Smith
Gallente StarHunt
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 23:40:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Blane Xero
Originally by: EliteSlave Edited by: EliteSlave on 17/04/2009 18:04:58 Lets see... with just these links this site should be shut down fully.
Copyright Infringements..
Infringed some more...
Need I say more?
-----------------------------
What they should have done, since they are a small "operated team" they should have made it a Submit torrent link, then be approved in a queue list. They on the other hand took 0 responsiblity and thus will pay for it.
Big woop de ****ing doo. Maybe 50 links topside there. Now, Link a full catalogue of all the "Over" 1,600,000.00 Torrents that TPB is tracking. Realise that just because all you dare to look for is copyrighted stuff, doesn't mean that its mostly copyrighted stuff.
But it IS mostly copyrighted stuff. The vast majority is copyrighted.
And to the people saying "but they only tracked it", well the torrent would not exist without a tracker so they directly facilitated it. Unlike google who simply indexes what exists, TPB made the torrent happen and brought it INTO existence. I am sure that that is the crux of the legal argument and it is an insurmountable one. TPB is GUILTY and the courts rightfully determined that.
However as I have said I am all for piracy and I wish they could have gotten away with it, but it IS illegal and they DID break the law.
|
|

FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 23:51:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Asuka Smith Edited by: Asuka Smith on 17/04/2009 23:27:44 Edited by: Asuka Smith on 17/04/2009 23:25:18 Those four are guilty as hell and everyone knows it, whether you want to try and justify it or not is up to you as an individual.
That said I wish they had gotten off because even if the law is on the side of the corporations the law is stupid. I fileshare all the time, **** THE MAN! it might be illegal but in my country so are drugs I do all sorts of illegal **** because I am in it for me, not some faceless suit.
EDIT: Lol at all you legal eagles trying to justify their filesharing, seriously. The NAME OF THE SITE is "PIRATE BAY", they obviously knew what they were doing was illegal and they obviously knew the site existed solely to provide copyrighted material illegally. There is no way you can say "oh they only tracked the files blah blah blah". They knew the score and they knew the risks. It finally caught up to them.
EDIT2: They even flaunted their illegal activities in the legal threats section of the site where they posted the requests to remove copyrighted material and flipped the companies the bird and let the files remain. There is no way they could win in court because they are obviously criminals. You guys should argue that "the law is stupid" or "**** the man who cares if it is illegal", not "these guys are innocent and they have no dirt on their hands whatsoever the pirate bay existed to distribute my garage bands demo tape etc etc it is just a coincidence that it is the most popular site for illegal filesharing on the internet".
Finally someone is actually being honest. I could care less if people download illegally because it doesn't affect me. I for one would love to see how they feel about breaking the law after a year in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Sure you can do anything you want wherever you want but if you get caught you have to pay the consequences. ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |

Xen Gin
Solar Excavations Ultd. Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 00:40:00 -
[62]
Originally by: EliteSlave Edited by: EliteSlave on 17/04/2009 18:04:58 Lets see... with just these links this site should be shut down fully.
Copyright Infringements..
Infringed some more...
Need I say more?
-----------------------------
What they should have done, since they are a small "operated team" they should have made it a Submit torrent link, then be approved in a queue list. They on the other hand took 0 responsiblity and thus will pay for it.
OK, how do you know that those links are in fact links to copyrighted material? Did you download to check? You didn't, so no proof and your proof is inadmissible, oh but you did now, go directly to jail thief, also we can't take the word of a thief so your witness statement is inadmissible.
What are you to do? Retract your argument and lies? Yeah, you better.
|

FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 01:12:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Xen Gin
OK, how do you know that those links are in fact links to copyrighted material? Did you download to check? You didn't, so no proof and your proof is inadmissible, oh but you did now, go directly to jail thief, also we can't take the word of a thief so your witness statement is inadmissible.
What are you to do? Retract your argument and lies? Yeah, you better.
This is such an awful argument that I have to call you a troll. ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |

Xen Gin
Solar Excavations Ultd. Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 01:25:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Xen Gin on 18/04/2009 01:30:21
Originally by: FOl2TY8
Originally by: Xen Gin
OK, how do you know that those links are in fact links to copyrighted material? Did you download to check? You didn't, so no proof and your proof is inadmissible, oh but you did now, go directly to jail thief, also we can't take the word of a thief so your witness statement is inadmissible.
What are you to do? Retract your argument and lies? Yeah, you better.
This is such an awful argument that I have to call you a troll.
You can do, but I wouldn't like to go into court with that guys statement and evidence, but cross examinations a *****, and there's nothing more she'd like to do is exploit a massive hole.
So if you can't provide REAL evidence that those links are links to copyrighted material, I don't think you get a say in what they really are.
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 01:30:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Xen Gin
OK, how do you know that those links are in fact links to copyrighted material? Did you download to check? You didn't, so no proof and your proof is inadmissible, oh but you did now, go directly to jail thief, also we can't take the word of a thief so your witness statement is inadmissible.
What are you to do? Retract your argument and lies? Yeah, you better.
Ok Ill bite Troll,
If i was Universal Studio's Loss prevention team, I would have clicked on the link and downloaded Wolverine (which btw is slated to Premiere May 1st, and its April 17th. Full 13 days early before the Big screens, let alone hit the DvD / Blueray ) Now that i have downloaded the Product, I verify that its not a trailer, or a teaser that in fact its the full blown deal. I then write a Writ of Copy Infringement, Then hand it to the legal department of Universal Studio.. and low and behold They sue / whatever is needed to be done to the Tracker / Filesharer/rs.
|

Xen Gin
Solar Excavations Ultd. Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 01:32:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Xen Gin on 18/04/2009 01:37:14
Originally by: EliteSlave
Originally by: Xen Gin
OK, how do you know that those links are in fact links to copyrighted material? Did you download to check? You didn't, so no proof and your proof is inadmissible, oh but you did now, go directly to jail thief, also we can't take the word of a thief so your witness statement is inadmissible.
What are you to do? Retract your argument and lies? Yeah, you better.
Ok Ill bite Troll,
If i was Universal Studio's Loss prevention team, I would have clicked on the link and downloaded Wolverine (which btw is slated to Premiere May 1st, and its April 17th. Full 13 days early before the Big screens, let alone hit the DvD / Blueray ) Now that i have downloaded the Product, I verify that its not a trailer, or a teaser that in fact its the full blown deal. I then write a Writ of Copy Infringement, Then hand it to the legal department of Universal Studio.. and low and behold They sue / whatever is needed to be done to the Tracker / Filesharer/rs.
Yes, but I don't think Universal gave you rights to obtain and check that download. Universal can, but not you, your screen shots prove nothing. So you can't come here and profess to have proof, when you actually can't. As far as we're concerned all YOU@VE done is taken screen shots of words, not actual evidence.
And I'm not talking about some hypo where you are universals LPT, I'm talking about where you came swaggering into the thread, said the site should be shut down, all because of the screen shots you've obtained with damning evidence of copyright infringement.
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 01:40:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Xen Gin
Yes, but I don't think Universal gave you rights to obtain and check that download. Universal can, but not you, your screen shots prove nothing. So you can't come here and profess to have proof, when you actually can't. As far as we're concerned all YOU@VE done is taken screen shots of words, not actual evidence.
I would say judging by the size of the file and the number of seeds / hits on the file that It is prolly a full copy of the movie. It doesnt matter if i have the Movie on my drive, or not, What matters is the "Access to the File" is all that is needed, TPB knowingly hosted the trackers that listed the Copyrighted Materials, wether it be the trailer or the full blooded copy, with out consent of the Copyrighted Material Owner is Illegal, and All they have to do is say hey, take it down or we sue.
It all boils down to is they were protecting their Products, and TPB was being mischeivious and hosting illegal files wether it be on their servers or not, they said heres the address to the illegal product, with out moderation at all.
Also, there is thousands and thousands of torrents on TPB that are copy righted, I just used snippets of what stood out that are costly items and with KNOWN copyrights that can not be disputed.
|

Xen Gin
Solar Excavations Ultd. Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 01:46:00 -
[68]
Originally by: EliteSlave
Originally by: Xen Gin
Yes, but I don't think Universal gave you rights to obtain and check that download. Universal can, but not you, your screen shots prove nothing. So you can't come here and profess to have proof, when you actually can't. As far as we're concerned all YOU@VE done is taken screen shots of words, not actual evidence.
I would say judging by the size of the file and the number of seeds / hits on the file that It is prolly a full copy of the movie. It doesnt matter if i have the Movie on my drive, or not, What matters is the "Access to the File" is all that is needed, TPB knowingly hosted the trackers that listed the Copyrighted Materials, wether it be the trailer or the full blooded copy, with out consent of the Copyrighted Material Owner is Illegal, and All they have to do is say hey, take it down or we sue.
It all boils down to is they were protecting their Products, and TPB was being mischeivious and hosting illegal files wether it be on their servers or not, they said heres the address to the illegal product, with out moderation at all.
Also, there is thousands and thousands of torrents on TPB that are copy righted, I just used snippets of what stood out that are costly items and with KNOWN copyrights that can not be disputed.
I'm not denying that, but you just came in here with your screen shots and said the site should be shut down for that. Which is wrong, because A) You don't have the authority to check that those are in fact links to Copyrighted material, and B) If did check, you would have been in breach of copyright laws.
What you should have done, was to say in your original post that on the guilty verdict of today's (Yesterday for some) outcome, TPB should be shut down. Then everything is OK, but don't come in here with proof that you've obtained which allows you to say that TPB should be shut down. Please think about it next time.
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 02:01:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Blane Xero on 18/04/2009 02:01:16
Originally by: EliteSlave It all boils down to is they were protecting their Products, and TPB was being mischeivious and hosting illegal files wether it be on their servers or not, they said heres the address to the illegal product, with out moderation at all.
And with these two contradicting statements, Anyone taking you seriously just stopped.
They "hosted" torrents. which are in essence, hash files. They did not create the Hash files, they just indexed them.
They "hosted" in the regions of One Point Five to One Point Six Million of these hash files.
They hired surveyors to conduct independent surveys of all the hash files contained on their Servers. The result came back in the regions of 60-80% of the files were completely Non-copyrighted files (This fact was even used as evidence for their defence in the trial if i am not mistaken).
They did not Supply in any means, any of the illegal content that people were creating torrents for (It was the users whom created the "illegal" torrents, not the TPB founders).
They did not publish in any area of the website, that you did not have to put user-input into, any illegal torrent advertisements. The user always had to be "looking" for the illegal content to find it. It was not thrown in your face on the front page or any of the sub pages.
I am not arguing that TPB is not a main-stage source for copyrighted stuff, i'm just making the point that the four founders, should not have been liable because they did not actively contribute to the files, neither did they publish them or recieve money for hosting torrents which directed you to them. Sure they received Donations to keep the servers running and to pay for the servers cost. But the only thing they "Sell" is TPB merchandise. Things THEY created and copyrighted.
The four founders commited no crime, they caused nobody damages, they made no profit from the website and they should not have been found guilty.
Edit: On a lighter note, Post 69 Woot. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

nahtoh
Caldari Fleet of the Damned Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 02:22:00 -
[70]
Originally by: EliteSlave
If you dont have the support staff to operate the site, then that is Negligence.
Also doesnt matter the percentages of what was Legal and what was not legal, The matter was they had Copyrighted items that were able to be downloaded, wether it be from their servers or someone elses server, The matter was it was still available and the access was given, Thus they are liable.
Now, to the gunstore comparison. That is different from this situation, The GunStore did not knowingly know you were going to use the Gun for Illegal activities, verse the TPB having a link to Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit and with cracked CD Key for download. Huge Difference.
googles hosed then as that is the same lack of manpower not possable to vet your tube then... ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 03:32:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Blane Xero
And with these two contradicting statements, Anyone taking you seriously just stopped.
They "hosted" torrents. which are in essence, hash files. They did not create the Hash files, they just indexed them.
They "hosted" in the regions of One Point Five to One Point Six Million of these hash files.
They hired surveyors to conduct independent surveys of all the hash files contained on their Servers. The result came back in the regions of 60-80% of the files were completely Non-copyrighted files (This fact was even used as evidence for their defence in the trial if i am not mistaken).
They did not Supply in any means, any of the illegal content that people were creating torrents for (It was the users whom created the "illegal" torrents, not the TPB founders).
They did not publish in any area of the website, that you did not have to put user-input into, any illegal torrent advertisements. The user always had to be "looking" for the illegal content to find it. It was not thrown in your face on the front page or any of the sub pages.
I am not arguing that TPB is not a main-stage source for copyrighted stuff, i'm just making the point that the four founders, should not have been liable because they did not actively contribute to the files, neither did they publish them or recieve money for hosting torrents which directed you to them. Sure they received Donations to keep the servers running and to pay for the servers cost. But the only thing they "Sell" is TPB merchandise. Things THEY created and copyrighted.
The four founders commited no crime, they caused nobody damages, they made no profit from the website and they should not have been found guilty.
Edit: On a lighter note, Post 69 Woot.
Actually the screens that i provided were no user provided input, just clicked on top 100 and on movies or software.
|

masternerdguy
Gallente Point of No Return Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 03:39:00 -
[72]
it took piratesbay.org this long for this to happen?
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 06:23:00 -
[73]
Originally by: EliteSlave Actually the screens that i provided were no user provided input, just clicked on top 100 and on movies or software.
Point still stands, Its the users downloading them that put them in the top 100. Not the founders. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

ReaperOfSly
Gallente Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 08:58:00 -
[74]
Originally by: FOl2TY8
Originally by: ReaperOfSly Any piece of software, any mp3 and any video, all it is is one long binary number. It's legally impossible to copyright a number. Therefore, it is legally impossible to copyright digital content.
I like this argument. It makes a mockery of the whole concept of copyright, and is logically water-tight. 
All you are is a bunch of carbon organized in a certain way. Therefore I get to stab you in the face because carbon has no rights.
The carbon in a human being cannot be represented as a number. It is also impossible to copy a human being. Your example is false. ____________________
|

Tzar'rim
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 10:24:00 -
[75]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Originally by: FOl2TY8
Originally by: ReaperOfSly Any piece of software, any mp3 and any video, all it is is one long binary number. It's legally impossible to copyright a number. Therefore, it is legally impossible to copyright digital content.
I like this argument. It makes a mockery of the whole concept of copyright, and is logically water-tight. 
All you are is a bunch of carbon organized in a certain way. Therefore I get to stab you in the face because carbon has no rights.
The carbon in a human being cannot be represented as a number. It is also impossible to copy a human being. Your example is false.
You're not very good at using realistic and logical arguement.
Following your ideas we can come over to your house take photos of you doing whatever and then post them on the internet, newpapers and whatever. Without you have ANY rights or say because, you know, they're just pixels, which might resemble you in a way a bit but as they're not *you* you have no rights whatsoever.
At the same time your bank can completely empty your account as it's not actual money, just a representation and in fact, they're digital so not real in any way.
Self-proclaimed idiot
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 11:27:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Tzar'rim
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Originally by: FOl2TY8
Originally by: ReaperOfSly Any piece of software, any mp3 and any video, all it is is one long binary number. It's legally impossible to copyright a number. Therefore, it is legally impossible to copyright digital content.
I like this argument. It makes a mockery of the whole concept of copyright, and is logically water-tight. 
All you are is a bunch of carbon organized in a certain way. Therefore I get to stab you in the face because carbon has no rights.
The carbon in a human being cannot be represented as a number. It is also impossible to copy a human being. Your example is false.
You're not very good at using realistic and logical arguement.
Following your ideas we can come over to your house take photos of you doing whatever and then post them on the internet, newpapers and whatever. Without you have ANY rights or say because, you know, they're just pixels, which might resemble you in a way a bit but as they're not *you* you have no rights whatsoever.
At the same time your bank can completely empty your account as it's not actual money, just a representation and in fact, they're digital so not real in any way.
It was acxtually the comparison between Humans being Carbon and Digital things being Numbers that was stupid. Humans are sentient beings with free thought (Or so i like to believe). Numbers are just numbers. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

Tzar'rim
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 11:53:00 -
[77]
That was actually the POINT of FOl2TY8'sd reply; to show how silly the arguement is.
Self-proclaimed idiot
|

Revonanist
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 12:15:00 -
[78]
"Home taping is killing music!"
I am a little behind the times, but I think the 'music industry' needs to be killed.
Of all the money they got in compensation, I wonder how much goes into the pockets of the creative people who made the music/film/software ? Not a lot is my guess...
The business model that screwed artists and punters for years needs to be dismantled, and a new approach is needed.
A lot of big name music people are now making money from live shows rather than flogging CD's and such, a reversal from the days when you used the shows to promote the album.
It's a sad day, the middlemen have won this battle but not the war.
Rev
|

Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 12:34:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Revonanist
I am a little behind the times, but I think the 'music industry' needs to be killed.
The pirate bay didn't just link to music, it linked to books, movies, games, etc. even games that ARE easily available (such as Valve-games).
The reason I think it's a deserving judgment is:
1. Intent. They had full intent to spread this type of material. Anyone who says different is an ideological apologist.
2. Responsibility. While it is true that they did not provide with the bandwidth for spreading the files themselves. They still provided with the means to obtain them. Without the pirate bay, the files distributed mentioned in this case would not have been spread via pirate bay. They are responsible for what type of traffic goes on. I doubt if this was eg. a pedophile torrent site that many would be defending them. "The Pedophile Bay" defended under the same type of clueless rhetoric "Oh we're just a regular torrent site, it's not our fault that we link to hundreds of thousands files of child ****". This is not as damaging as that, true. But call it what it is. Aiding in copyright infringement. With intent. Sure as hell they're responsible.
3. Scale. Scale plays a big part in my opinion. The Pirate Bay has around ten million people using it, and lets; for arguments sake say half of them are using the pirate bay to spread copyrighted materials, that is a scale that just cannot be ignored. It is significant enough to not slide under the radar. I am personally not against people who share, I believe in "fair use", and I think software patents and copyright are going to far. But this isn't a matter of black and white. These boys are in a grey zone, but because of the scale I think it's leaning more toward black. Mostly because they also draw a lot of profit from this site. Profit from ads for example. Also, their arrogant attitude toward many, far from rich authors who asked them to remove their books from the pirate bay were met with this inane puerile drivel, an arrogance that I am happy to say went around and slapped them in their own faces.
They went out last night to celebrate their conviction. Damn, I hope they get convicted on the next level as well.
|

mama guru
Gallente Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 13:33:00 -
[80]
Edited by: mama guru on 18/04/2009 13:35:43 All you "It's a crime" folks might wanna do some research on Swedish law.
They were sentenced in the lowest instance of swedish justice, called "TingsrStten" which has a history of handing out rediculous verdicts left and right. This also means there was no Jury present at the hearings. There is no way a case with that many holes gets anywhere in the supreme court, thats if it even gets that far. Because the prosecutors will have to convince a seasoned Judge and an entire Jury instead of one rookie.
Besides that they are not guilty of copyright infringement, the day the sentance was handed out the record industry wanted the site stopped but the ISP's refused. Are we gonna start going after ISP's now that they have done the exact same thing that the TPB founders are guilty of?
EVE is like the "Fisherman's Friend" of MMOs. If it's too hard, you are too weak. |
|

ceaon
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 13:53:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Corwain Edited by: Corwain on 17/04/2009 20:41:49 How creativity is being strangled by the law
good talk
=========================
do you ppl dont understand that if TPB go down it making US a favour this ofc will put "offline" ppl that only know to download stuff on the pc nothing more this will push ppl to more anonymous networks like freenet it will be interesting to see how will stop freenet muwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha btw ***** vagina .... why the forum filter is sexist ?
|

Vaneshi SnowCrash
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 14:31:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Revonanist "Home taping is killing music!"
Don't forget the then head of the MPAA likening the VCR to to the Boston strangler.
The problem I have is the conviction is for making available, which could be leveled at any search engine, YouTube or well pretty much anyone really.
Although considering both sides originally stated this trial was just a stepping stone to a higher court I think the amount of reporting it should get is "Meh".
|

Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 14:59:00 -
[83]
It's hard to play the victim in a ten thousand dollar suit and a million dollar salary.
In a black and white conditioned populace, the content industry is exposing itself as the black tyrant towards the legitimate customers and no matter what TPB is doing, they will automatically viewed as the white knights, simply by opposing the black ones.
Also the entertainment titans aren't doing themselves a favor. When the bread is scarce and the games are pay-only, the aristocrats are one small step away from the guillotine. Better keep the populace placid, numb and entertained. Then again, we haven't had a proper upheaval in the western world for 200 years.
Go on, I'll stream it life from my new mobile. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|

Noodly Appendage
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 15:20:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Noodly Appendage They can appeal up to the EU court which may last years. I'd sure be glad to donate some money to help them out.
Shamelessly quoting myself.
I discussed the issue with a few friends yesterdays and we came to the conclusion that if a conviction remains, 'The Internet' will never be the same. All public trackers will then soon face charges, and even private ones will be compromised because ISP's can be made to turn in data and regs much easier after a past conviction.
In short, everybody loses, even the music and film industry. Their short sighted actions and unwillingness to adapt to a new medium will be the bloody end of the business.
|

Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 19:50:00 -
[85]
Originally by: mama guru
All you "It's a crime" folks might wanna do some research on Swedish law.
I did, and yes it is a crime. And they were convicted by a court. Do you claim to be better at interpreting Swedish law than the Swedish legal system?
|

Evthron Macyntire
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 20:16:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Evthron Macyntire on 18/04/2009 20:20:13 Everyone who uses those sites knows exactly what they are facilitating. ------------------------------ Sigs like this. |

Samiloth Justinian
Evolution KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 20:43:00 -
[87]
In the end of the 19th century it was the self playing piano. Then it was the radio, the copy machine, the tape recorder and now files. The same argument has been used in each bloody case by the established powers in the music and movie industry. “Whaa whaa, if people can get it for free then all is lost and we are all doomed, it is the end of the world as we know it. Thus we must keep to the old, things we know work and give us money.”
Did this turn out to be a fact?
This recent verdict is as embarrassing and moronic as the music companies that back in the day made their musicians sign contract that stated that they will not play in radio shows.
After a century of failure they are still at it, and that isn’t even the really amazing part. The amazing part is that people still listens to them after a century have proven them wrong time and time again. People who actually believe that forbidding the future by laws will be fruitful in any way. When the wheel is invented it is stupidity to try to make laws that forbids people to use it.
|

ReaperOfSly
Gallente Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 20:50:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Tzar'rim
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Originally by: FOl2TY8
Originally by: ReaperOfSly Any piece of software, any mp3 and any video, all it is is one long binary number. It's legally impossible to copyright a number. Therefore, it is legally impossible to copyright digital content.
I like this argument. It makes a mockery of the whole concept of copyright, and is logically water-tight. 
All you are is a bunch of carbon organized in a certain way. Therefore I get to stab you in the face because carbon has no rights.
The carbon in a human being cannot be represented as a number. It is also impossible to copy a human being. Your example is false.
You're not very good at using realistic and logical arguement.
Following your ideas we can come over to your house take photos of you doing whatever and then post them on the internet, newpapers and whatever. Without you have ANY rights or say because, you know, they're just pixels, which might resemble you in a way a bit but as they're not *you* you have no rights whatsoever.
At the same time your bank can completely empty your account as it's not actual money, just a representation and in fact, they're digital so not real in any way.
In your first example, you would have had to have been doing something illegal in order to have taken photos of me in compromising positions.
In your second example, you are entirely correct. Money in a bank is just numbers, bytes in a database. They only have value because everybody agrees that they have value. If people stopped agreeing with this, money would be worthless and we'd be back to a barter economy. There's no contradiction there.
In much the same way, digital media only has value because most people currently agree that it does. But people are starting to wake up to the idea that maybe it doesn't. Unlike money, it's easy to copy. Infinite supply => zero worth.
And this is all getting away from the fact that you cannot legally copyright a number, therefore you should not be able to legally copyright digital media. ____________________
|

Taedrin
Gallente Golden Mechanization Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 22:49:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Corwain Edited by: Corwain on 17/04/2009 20:41:49 How creativity is being strangled by the law
Best post in the thread. You win the internets for the day. Well worth the 18 minutes of my life.
|

nahtoh
Caldari Fleet of the Damned Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 00:49:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin
Originally by: mama guru
All you "It's a crime" folks might wanna do some research on Swedish law.
I did, and yes it is a crime. And they were convicted by a court. Do you claim to be better at interpreting Swedish law than the Swedish legal system?
And If I am not mistaken its a really recent one that was the result of years of lobbing by the entertaiment companies (and they appernttly used used some really shady tatics before it became law). ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
|

Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 01:00:00 -
[91]
Next you know, storing intellectual property on an organic medium (like the brain) is a crime unless you have paid for the right to own it.
Whistling/humming or even singing a song you have not acquired a license for redistribution will be considered copyright infringement and proliferation of pirated intellectual property and can end you in jail for 3 months to 10 years, depending on how many people may have heard you.
It's all the same basic concept, just using different methods. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 01:17:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Abrazzar Next you know, storing intellectual property on an organic medium (like the brain) is a crime unless you have paid for the right to own it.
Whistling/humming or even singing a song you have not acquired a license for redistribution will be considered copyright infringement and proliferation of pirated intellectual property and can end you in jail for 3 months to 10 years, depending on how many people may have heard you.
It's all the same basic concept, just using different methods.
Can you come up with atleast one decent argument that supports TPB? You have yet to make any argument that is sound and isn't far into space. Property is Property, either you own it, your dont, and if you don't you are stealing it plain and simple. If you host the hash files to the stolen property you are as guilty as the people sharing it as you are providing easy access to the stolen products.
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 01:21:00 -
[93]
I would say that if data is on MY hard drive, which I Purchased, it is My property.
But we all know that this arguement doesnt have a leg to stand on in court, but thats only because of the whole mindset that you can copyright a string of numbers without actually knowing the string of numbers you would have to create in order to get the same file. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 03:35:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Blane Xero I would say that if data is on MY hard drive, which I Purchased, it is My property.
But we all know that this arguement doesnt have a leg to stand on in court, but thats only because of the whole mindset that you can copyright a string of numbers without actually knowing the string of numbers you would have to create in order to get the same file.
See the problem is, you dont actually own the software, You bought the privlege to use the software. Why do people think everything is entitled and free to them? I mean seriously what is wrong with you that makes you think that some people's hard work can be free to your liking?
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 04:06:00 -
[95]
Sure. But when people used Tapes to record music from the radio, they didnt own the song either, they didnt have a license to own the song.
When people used VCR's to tape movies/TV shows for convenience, they didnt buy it, so they dont own the right to have it.
Same with DvD's.
Hard drives are just an extension of this train of development. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

Drax Darksun
Damage Incorporated.
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 04:10:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Blane Xero Sure. But when people used Tapes to record music from the radio, they didnt own the song either, they didnt have a license to own the song.
When people used VCR's to tape movies/TV shows for convenience, they didnt buy it, so they dont own the right to have it.
Same with DvD's.
Hard drives are just an extension of this train of development.
ummmm..... <3
|

Evthron Macyntire
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 06:56:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Evthron Macyntire on 19/04/2009 06:58:40
Originally by: Blane Xero Sure. But when people used Tapes to record music from the radio, they didnt own the song either, they didnt have a license to own the song.
When people used VCR's to tape movies/TV shows for convenience, they didnt buy it, so they dont own the right to have it.
Same with DvD's.
Hard drives are just an extension of this train of development.
Are all the straws gone yet?
A few left? Ok, answer me this:
What is the difference between something you hear on the radio and record, and something you download from the internet?
...
It's not that hard.
The radio station pays a fee to be able to play that song.
You don't pay anything when you pirate the music.
Hey, this means you can now say, that when you buy something, you are simply performing the task of a radio station by letting other people have access to it, just like the radio does! ****ing ******.
Circular arguments are teh fun! ------------------------------ Sigs like this. |

Intense Thinker
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 07:22:00 -
[98]
EliteSlave, Surfin's Plunderbunny is with you on this matter o7
Pomp FTW!!! |

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 09:01:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Evthron Macyntire Edited by: Evthron Macyntire on 19/04/2009 06:58:40
Originally by: Blane Xero Sure. But when people used Tapes to record music from the radio, they didnt own the song either, they didnt have a license to own the song.
When people used VCR's to tape movies/TV shows for convenience, they didnt buy it, so they dont own the right to have it.
Same with DvD's.
Hard drives are just an extension of this train of development.
Are all the straws gone yet?
A few left? Ok, answer me this:
What is the difference between something you hear on the radio and record, and something you download from the internet?
...
It's not that hard.
The radio station pays a fee to be able to play that song.
You don't pay anything when you pirate the music.
Hey, this means you can now say, that when you buy something, you are simply performing the task of a radio station by letting other people have access to it, just like the radio does! ****ing ******.
Circular arguments are teh fun!
Tell me a real difference between me recording something from the radio, and downloading it from a torrent? Neither cost you money, so the difference to the individual is Nill. Your counter straw-man falls flat on his face. But i'll help You.
The only difference is convenience. In this day and age of digital radio, quality is a non-issue and most even have call-ins where you can request songs. Couldn't be ****ing simpler if there was a damn manual for it.
The fact that the radio station pays for the right to play the song has nothing to do with the fact that I was addressing, either, which was Progression of "pirates" as we are called. And it seems for every other f'cking generation there is some form of "Questionable" way to obtain and store your media.
First it was Radio and Taping, Then it became TV and VCR, then it just moved from VCR to DVD, and now its moved from that to Internet and Hard drive. You pay for the internet like you would a TV license (At least in some countries) and you pay for your TV like you would a f'cking computer.
The Industry has always found SOMETHING to complain about since they are money hungry idiots who like more profit for no effort. I have not once seen an artist, actor or band complain about "pirates". Its always the label companies, or Hollywood Production Companies. And in the age of digital distribution where all it takes to have another copy of a song/movie/piece of software ready for sale, is to have it be via download. No extra cost for anyone except the f'kin customers.
I see no point in buying all my music from somewhere like itunes, and theres a nice little comic strip by XKCD that will save me time typing it out.
I do not deny that pirating is against the law. I Do not deny that the pirate bay was involved, all i've argued about in this thread is the fact the people who were convicted, should not have been for the reasons they were. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

dr doooo
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 10:01:00 -
[100]
Originally by: EliteSlave
Originally by: Blane Xero
1. Actually they do, but 4 guys cannot really "moderate" thousands of entries a day, eh?. 2. They did. But most gun shops in the US provide a means for killing or severely injuring others. Would you still argue that it is guilty by association if someone with a gun permit and all the other faff bought a gun and decided "Screw it" and offed his wife? Was the merchant to blame? 3. They didn't "Allow it to continue" they simply kept their service running whilst deleting what was brought to their attention.
Oh and an FYI. None of the companies that took them to court did any survey of the site, to see how much content was ACTUALLY COPYRIGHTED. The TPB guys hired an independant surveyor iirc and it came back that about 60-80% of the stuff was legit, uncopyrighted software/music from independant programmers/musicians.
If you dont have the support staff to operate the site, then that is Negligence.
By that reasoning shouldn't most of the internet, including Eve, be shut down. It is pretty much impossible for any kind of Web2.0 company to comprehensively 'police' themselves to make sure they aren't facilitating some sort of illegal activity. AFAIK TPB, like EVE, Google etc. took action when things were brought to their attention.
|
|

Doctor Penguin
Amarr Celestial Ascension Tenth Legion
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 12:19:00 -
[101]
Originally by: EliteSlave Can you come up with atleast one decent argument that supports TPB?
I can, and I have before.
A council builds a park. This park is then used by drug users. The council is then sent down for selling drugs. ________________________________________________
http://eve.drome.nl/CaodCleaner/ Help make CAOD readable. |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 12:38:00 -
[102]
Originally by: EliteSlave
Originally by: Abrazzar Next you know, storing intellectual property on an organic medium (like the brain) is a crime unless you have paid for the right to own it.
Whistling/humming or even singing a song you have not acquired a license for redistribution will be considered copyright infringement and proliferation of pirated intellectual property and can end you in jail for 3 months to 10 years, depending on how many people may have heard you.
It's all the same basic concept, just using different methods.
Can you come up with atleast one decent argument that supports TPB? You have yet to make any argument that is sound and isn't far into space. Property is Property, either you own it, your dont, and if you don't you are stealing it plain and simple. If you host the hash files to the stolen property you are as guilty as the people sharing it as you are providing easy access to the stolen products.
This is factually untrue.
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 12:50:00 -
[103]
Considering in some countries, it is not illegal to have a Digital backup (Believe canada does this) It wouldnt be easy to determine if the file sharing going on is even illegal. Jus sayin'
Also, the only undoubtedly illegal files up on TPB are really camera recordings of cinema showings. As those break laws BEFORE they hit the torrents area. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 15:47:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Doctor Penguin
Originally by: EliteSlave Can you come up with atleast one decent argument that supports TPB?
I can, and I have before.
A council builds a park. This park is then used by drug users. The council is then sent down for selling drugs.
Ok that is far into space, but Ill answer it just for ****s and giggles.
A council builds a park... This park is then used by drug users. The County / City / Township that this park resides in its Police Force moderate the drug use.
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 15:58:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Blane Xero Considering in some countries, it is not illegal to have a Digital backup (Believe canada does this) It wouldnt be easy to determine if the file sharing going on is even illegal. Jus sayin'
Also, the only undoubtedly illegal files up on TPB are really camera recordings of cinema showings. As those break laws BEFORE they hit the torrents area.
Yes most countries do have a digital backup law, and I fully support them. But most people that use the DBL are actually the main perpetrators of the filesharing community, ie: Put an ISO of Windows Vista Ultimate up the iso onto the web to be downloaded by others. which is where the problem lies. I actually support DRM to a degree but the problems with DRM need to be fixed immediately
|

Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 17:55:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Blane Xero
The Industry has always found SOMETHING to complain about since they are money hungry idiots who like more profit for no effort. I have not once seen an artist, actor or band complain about "pirates". Its always the label companies, or Hollywood Production Companies. And in the age of digital distribution where all it takes to have another copy of a song/movie/piece of software ready for sale, is to have it be via download. No extra cost for anyone except the f'kin customers.
Id argue its because actors and the like are already paid what they are going to get for their work where as the production company needs to make a profit that covers their expenses. The actors already got what they were going to get out of their work so they could care less about a pirates activties, they already got paid.
If a production company were to pay an actor say 1 million USD for their work on a movie, that company needs to make that 1 million back + however much they feel they need to go beyond "breaking even" to embark on the project in the first place, is it really so far fetched to think that they would be mindful of where each penny goes?
-------------------------------- To borrow a phrase:
Players who post are like stars, there are bright ones and those who are dim.
|

Taedrin
Gallente Golden Mechanization Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 18:18:00 -
[107]
Originally by: EliteSlave
See the problem is, you dont actually own the software, You bought the privlege to use the software. Why do people think everything is entitled and free to them?
Because the owners of intellectual property encourage this thinking. When was the last time you saw a EULA or other license agreement BEFORE you handed over your money? These corporations are so obsessed with their profits that they don't want people to know that they aren't actually buying a song.
- They don't want people to know that the only thing they are buying is permission to play the song (and even then, only under certain circumstances).
- They don't want people to know that these corporations have stripped themselves of any and all legal responsibility for any damages that their property does (Microsoft, for example, has a clause in their EULA which prevents you from laying any claim on damages greater than 5 USD).
- They don't want people to know that they agree to give up their freedom of speech (once again, Microsoft has a clause which prevents people from benchmarking their software and comparing it to competitors).
To put it bluntly, corporations are "evil empires" who see the consumer as objects, and not people. They seek to destroy the rights of others, but get indignant when their own rights are taken away. Their sole purpose in existence is to make as much money by any means possible. They would GLADLY enslave a minority race if they could get away with it. They would GLADLY lie, steal, cheat and/or kill if it would yield a profit and they could avoid any legal/financial repercussions.
|

Onus Mian
Amarr Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 20:01:00 -
[108]
I'd be interested to know if those that support Pirate Bay also support sites that collate links to child ****ography? In both cases they are facillitating the distrubution of illegal material and while there may be cases where some legal material is also distributed it is not grounds for supporting their activities.
Ultimately these companies own these movies, songs and programmes and you are paying for the right to own a copy of that media for personal use. You do not have the right to take that media, copy it and then make it freely available to those that want it without paying. Indeed you specifically agree not to do such actions when you purchase the media.
So really what it comes down to is that you are an untrustworth individual who is incapable of honouring a simple agreement between two parties. You can dress that up however you want and try to demonise the companies who sell you this media but it doesn't change anything.
Nothing worse than armchair revolutionaries whining about injustices that don't exist. ----
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams
|

The Wintersmith
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 21:52:00 -
[109]
You play/write/make music because you enjoy it
Any musician that shares the corporate suit-type mentality of profit should come first before the entertainment needs to have a think.
|

Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 22:26:00 -
[110]
Originally by: nahtoh
And If I am not mistaken its a really recent one that was the result of years of lobbing by the entertaiment companies (and they appernttly used used some really shady tatics before it became law).
Sure, and 9/11 was staged by George W. Bush to be able to war on terrorism. Let's buy into the conspiracy-theories.
Everyone knows what the site is about, it's no surprise they get convicted for it. No-brainer really.
IPRED on the other hand is some pretty scary stuff.
|
|

Mother Clanger
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 22:30:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Onus Mian I'd be interested to know if those that support Pirate Bay also support sites that collate links to child ****ography? In both cases they are facillitating the distrubution of illegal material and while there may be cases where some legal material is also distributed it is not grounds for supporting their activities.
I implore you to take 19 minutes of your life and take a look at the link posted earlier of the TED talk:
How creativity is being strangled by the law
In particular pay attention to the comparison to land ownership and trespassing laws in 1945.
Copyright law as it stands is broken. The system is broken. If it wasn't, sites like piratebay wouldn't be as successful as they are. Innovation is the key and as yet it's only been limited. Of course artists should get paid for their wares. Of course studios should get paid back with profit for the risk that they take with funding some of these things. But the balance is out of whack and the landscape has shifted beyond recognition. Yet because the studios have their heavily influencing hand in the places that matter, they have been able to stagnate and get away with it, and we are in the situation that we are in now. But people get around this because there are more innovative people not working for the studios than there are people that are working for them.
So just because its legal in law doesn't mean that the law is necessarily right. What isn't right is comparing this to child ****ography just because they share the term "illegal".
- MC
|

Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 22:52:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Mother Clanger
Originally by: Onus Mian I'd be interested to know if those that support Pirate Bay also support sites that collate links to child ****ography? In both cases they are facillitating the distrubution of illegal material and while there may be cases where some legal material is also distributed it is not grounds for supporting their activities.
I implore you to take 19 minutes of your life and take a look at the link posted earlier of the TED talk:
How creativity is being strangled by the law
In particular pay attention to the comparison to land ownership and trespassing laws in 1945.
Copyright law as it stands is broken. The system is broken. If it wasn't, sites like piratebay wouldn't be as successful as they are. Innovation is the key and as yet it's only been limited. Of course artists should get paid for their wares. Of course studios should get paid back with profit for the risk that they take with funding some of these things. But the balance is out of whack and the landscape has shifted beyond recognition. Yet because the studios have their heavily influencing hand in the places that matter, they have been able to stagnate and get away with it, and we are in the situation that we are in now. But people get around this because there are more innovative people not working for the studios than there are people that are working for them.
So just because its legal in law doesn't mean that the law is necessarily right. What isn't right is comparing this to child ****ography just because they share the term "illegal".
- MC
You didn't watch 11:50 and forward, did you?
|

Mother Clanger
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 00:04:00 -
[113]
Edited by: Mother Clanger on 20/04/2009 00:07:10
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin You didn't watch 11:50 and forward, did you?
Yes, I did. No, he's not talking about piracy, in his words "taking other peoples content in wholesale and distributing it without the permission of the copyright owner". Of course this is wrong. The point I'm making is that sites like piratebay flourish because of the same senselessness that is the current copyright system that he describes, that in many situations, the only way that people can get the digital media the way they want it, is through piracy.
An example. I hear an artists song I like on the radio. I like that song and think I would like to hear what their other songs are like on their album(s) before I make any kind of purchase. Up till recently the only options I had to do this were sample a few singles on myspace, listen to a 30 second sample on iTunes Music Store, go into a music store and have the CD brought up on some headphones or pirate it.
If I pirate it, even if I buy an album afterwards, even if I go and see the band live (which the artists get a much bigger percentage of), even if I delete all the music afterwards because I didn't like it as they filled up the album with 75% filler tracks because some studio exec told the artists the album had to be launched to coincide with their release schedule, even if I do so because it's the only way I can get a version that isn't only compatible with my iPod and nothing else, I'm still a pirate and I broke the law. And of course I've done exactly the same thing as someone who just wanted it for free.
What would it have taken for the studios to provide their own ad supported streams of their listed musicians? Would they really lose that much money if they released a free 64kbps version of every album they put out? By forcing youtube to remove copyrighted music from all videos, are they not stabbing themselves in the foot by missing out on the introduction of their listed artists to a brand new audience every single day? I mean, by a very similar reasoning as this case, someone who posted one of those AMV videos to youtube was as guilty of copyright infringement as someone distributing the same track through a torrent file. And youtube as guilty as piratebay of facilitating that act.
Youtube complied, they don't go to jail. Piratebay didn't, they go to jail.
If I wanted to listen to a particular track, I would actually quite often go to youtube to listen to it. Youtube. How rediculous is that. Youtube made it not worth pirating to me. And instead of taking the lead and providing their own service, the studios took just made them stop. And now it's services like last.fm and spotify that are finally filling the gap that should have been provided years ago and made people pirate in the first place.
I hope I've proved that what he's talking about regarding copyright in that video in terms of remixing and creativity, and what I'm talking about in terms of the reason for piracy being so prevalent are not mutually exclusive by any means.
- MC
[Edit]
|

Roymundo
Caldari Manhattan Project Inc Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 01:07:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Abrazzar It's hard to play the victim in a ten thousand dollar suit and a million dollar salary.
In a black and white conditioned populace, the content industry is exposing itself as the black tyrant towards the legitimate customers and no matter what TPB is doing, they will automatically viewed as the white knights, simply by opposing the black ones.
Also the entertainment titans aren't doing themselves a favor. When the bread is scarce and the games are pay-only, the aristocrats are one small step away from the guillotine. Better keep the populace placid, numb and entertained. Then again, we haven't had a proper upheaval in the western world for 200 years.
Go on, I'll stream it life from my new mobile.
"legitimate customers"???
how is downloading songs, movies and games for free, knowingly illegaly, making you a legitimate customer?
|

Roymundo
Caldari Manhattan Project Inc Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 01:11:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Blane Xero I would say that if data is on MY hard drive, which I Purchased, it is My property.
But we all know that this arguement doesnt have a leg to stand on in court, but thats only because of the whole mindset that you can copyright a string of numbers without actually knowing the string of numbers you would have to create in order to get the same file.
if you read the copyright agreement you would see that the files in question are for personal use only and not for redistribution, public showing, etc etc.
just paying for it doesn't give you the right to do with it as you will.
|

Roymundo
Caldari Manhattan Project Inc Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 01:15:00 -
[116]
Originally by: The Wintersmith Edited by: The Wintersmith on 19/04/2009 22:15:43 I play/write/make music because I enjoy it
Any musician that shares the corporate suit-type mentality of profit should come first before the entertainment needs to have a think.
i rather believe that most of them do it to get stinking filthy rich actually......
i'd write music and drive lamboghini's all day, and to hell with if i enjoy it or not.....
|

Roymundo
Caldari Manhattan Project Inc Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 01:18:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Mother Clanger Edited by: Mother Clanger on 20/04/2009 00:07:10
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin You didn't watch 11:50 and forward, did you?
An example. I hear an artists song I like on the radio. I like that song and think I would like to hear what their other songs are like on their album(s) before I make any kind of purchase. Up till recently the only options I had to do this were sample a few singles on myspace, listen to a 30 second sample on iTunes Music Store, go into a music store and have the CD brought up on some headphones or pirate it.
If I pirate it, even if I buy an album afterwards, even if I go and see the band live (which the artists get a much bigger percentage of), even if I delete all the music afterwards because I didn't like it as they filled up the album with 75% filler tracks because some studio exec told the artists the album had to be launched to coincide with their release schedule, even if I do so because it's the only way I can get a version that isn't only compatible with my iPod and nothing else, I'm still a pirate and I broke the law. And of course I've done exactly the same thing as someone who just wanted it for free.
- MC
[Edit]
problem is you wouldn't delete the pirate copies and go out and buy the real thing. you just wouldn't. you have it already at this stage. you just wouldn't.
|

Taedrin
Gallente Golden Mechanization Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 01:40:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Roymundo
problem is you wouldn't delete the pirate copies and go out and buy the real thing. you just wouldn't. you have it already at this stage. you just wouldn't.
Unless you are an idealist. However, those are far and few between.
|

masternerdguy
Gallente Point of No Return Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 02:53:00 -
[119]
Edited by: masternerdguy on 20/04/2009 02:53:34 Edited by: masternerdguy on 20/04/2009 02:52:57
Originally by: Taedrin
- They don't want people to know that the only thing they are buying is permission to play the song (and even then, only under certain circumstances).
- They don't want people to know that these corporations have stripped themselves of any and all legal responsibility for any damages that their property does (Microsoft, for example, has a clause in their EULA which prevents you from laying any claim on damages greater than 5 USD).
- They don't want people to know that they agree to give up their freedom of speech (once again, Microsoft has a clause which prevents people from benchmarking their software and comparing it to competitors).
You left off a few good ones:
- Microsoft's Frontpage application has a clause that says you cant use it to direspect the microsoft corporation.
[*] Apple has a clause that says they can change the agreement at any time without informing you and you are automatically bound by the new agreement. [*]
Not opposing or supporting, just thought I'd throw those in.
|

Reiisha
Evolution KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 07:51:00 -
[120]
I wonder where this obsession with "artists and their rights" came from. A good musician makes music because they like it, not because they want to get rich. Sure, they can live off selling their stuff, but do they actually need 50 million dollars for what essentially comes down to 1 day of work, at most, for a song? Do they REALLY need to own entire islands in the pacific? Why are people with no musical talent whatsoever, who had no involvement at all in the creation of the music, entitled to even more of that money than the artists themselves are?
The big companies are only interested in profits. They don't care about customers, they don't care about law, they don't care about anything other than their swiss bank accounts. That's reason enough for me to support whatever they oppose.
"If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"
|
|

Dong Ninja
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 08:27:00 -
[121]
So someone explain to me how copyright infringement - an civil issue - end up in a criminal court? Does anyone else see any sense in that?
Originally by: Xen Gin Indeed, upgrading an MS OS is like taking a **** into a cake mixture, then complaining that it doesn't taste good when it's all done.
|

Onus Mian
Amarr Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 09:06:00 -
[122]
Edited by: Onus Mian on 20/04/2009 09:07:27
Originally by: Mother Clanger
Originally by: Onus Mian I'd be interested to know if those that support Pirate Bay also support sites that collate links to child ****ography? In both cases they are facillitating the distrubution of illegal material and while there may be cases where some legal material is also distributed it is not grounds for supporting their activities.
I implore you to take 19 minutes of your life and take a look at the link posted earlier of the TED talk:
How creativity is being strangled by the law
In particular pay attention to the comparison to land ownership and trespassing laws in 1945.
Copyright law as it stands is broken. The system is broken. If it wasn't, sites like piratebay wouldn't be as successful as they are. Innovation is the key and as yet it's only been limited. Of course artists should get paid for their wares. Of course studios should get paid back with profit for the risk that they take with funding some of these things. But the balance is out of whack and the landscape has shifted beyond recognition. Yet because the studios have their heavily influencing hand in the places that matter, they have been able to stagnate and get away with it, and we are in the situation that we are in now. But people get around this because there are more innovative people not working for the studios than there are people that are working for them.
So just because its legal in law doesn't mean that the law is necessarily right. What isn't right is comparing this to child ****ography just because they share the term "illegal".
- MC
I'm pointing out the hypocricy that is being thrown around here which you have shown as well. In this case the law is right because aquiring something without paying when its owned by someone else is called stealing which is illegal. Creating a site designed to help with the distribution of products to people who haven't payed for the right to own them makes you accessory to the crime. Just as making a site that distributes child ****ography makes you accessory to the crime. What is being done is the same but child ****ography illicits a stronger reaction because you percieve it (and quite rightly so) as disguiting and wrong.
This just comes down to people not wanting to pay for things and because it is in a convienient medium (i.e. data) it can be distributed very easily and quickly at next to not running costs because most people already have an internet connection. I suspect that because it exists in a purely intellectual form its also hard for peoples mind to grasp any sense of ownership without something they can physically call their own.
As for complaints that these industries are holdling back the innovation and creativity of their artists thats something which can be addressed in better ways. There are plenty of ways of making political protests that don't require you to break the law and can put pressure of companies where it hurts. For me personally I'm quite happy with the current system because I can walk into a shop and pick up a movie or cd I like and pay a reasonable price for it (Its much cheaper now than it used to be).
I'm also interested on what you think about programmes that require a licence to use via subscription? If you don't agree with paying for music then I assume that you don't want to pay for your Eve online subscription either because they are just out to make loads of money. What about programmes like Minitab, PRIMER, SPSS and other programmes that typically require yearly subscriptions to use which can be quite expensive?
Originally by: Dong Ninja So someone explain to me how copyright infringement - an civil issue - end up in a criminal court? Does anyone else see any sense in that?
Because you are distributing a product to those who haven't payed the original owner for the right to have own a copy. This is no different from accepting stolen goods from someone. ----
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams
|

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 09:37:00 -
[123]
Related, interesting article. --- 20:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |

Sleepkevert
Amarr Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 09:51:00 -
[124]
So, when can we expect a jear in prison and a huge fine for the inventor of google? Cause basicly they do the same thing you just have to type the "torrent" keyword behind your search 
(Yes I know google isn't running a tracker these days, but that isn't what the tpb guys were accused off) _
Add your own line! |

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 10:52:00 -
[125]
Google is one step further removed- it doesn't host the torrent files. --- 20:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 10:58:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Google is one step further removed- it doesn't host the torrent files.
TPB wasnt tried just for hosting the torrents it was tried for "Listing" where you could get/find/download illegal files, which is what google does too. And youtube. So google is next. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

Faekurias
Specter Enterprises The Church.
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 12:28:00 -
[127]
Edited by: Faekurias on 20/04/2009 12:30:45
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin
Originally by: mama guru
All you "It's a crime" folks might wanna do some research on Swedish law.
I did, and yes it is a crime. And they were convicted by a court. Do you claim to be better at interpreting Swedish law than the Swedish legal system?
I, as a swedish citizen, am not too sure of the corrupt and incompetent legal system we have. No wonder they put this much juice on the filesharers, that seems to be the only thing the incompetent bastards can get a hold of. Pathetic.
Before "gtfo", I must say in everything else I love my country.
P.S EDIT: Hilarious irony ; I am studying law. ------------------------- FAEKURIAS
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 12:43:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Blane Xero
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Google is one step further removed- it doesn't host the torrent files.
TPB wasnt tried just for hosting the torrents it was tried for "Listing" where you could get/find/download illegal files, which is what google does too. And youtube. So google is next.
What dont you understand about that Youtube and Google if you send them an Email or Certified Letter saying that what link you give them is Copyrighted, and heres a link to the Copyright Agreement, They immediately pull it down off the site. TPB did the exact opposite and Posted the mails and made a mockery of the Copyright agreement / companies involved.
|

Mother Clanger
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 12:52:00 -
[129]
Edited by: Mother Clanger on 20/04/2009 12:55:23 Onus, I want to make this clear: I believe that piracy, whereby the intent is to get content for free in such a manner that the copyright holders miss out on desired compensation (financial or otherwise), is wrong. I'm not one of those dopes who believes that corporations should spend millions of dollars/pounds to produce entertainment for us and then happily give it away for free 'for the kindness of it'. I've said repeatedly that artists and distributors are of course entitled to receive compensation for their time/effort/etc.
What piratebay did that was wrong, was not "Creating a site designed to help with the distribution of products to people who haven't paid for the right to own them" (you could argue that Microsoft Skydrive provides the same funtionality), what they did wrong was promoting the act of doing so, through the name, through their attitude, through not actively filtering out copyright content etc. Whatever I or anyone else thinks, it's been ruled that they were acting illegally and have been convicted (there's actually two higher stages of court appeal left yet before any final decision).
So this comes back to my point, not whether piratebay were or weren't doing anything wrong, but that they simply filled a vacuum left empty by the people in charge of the copyright content.
Please take the time to read this great article by Tim O'Reilly, founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media:
Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution
"Customers want to do the right thing, if they can."
"Services like Kazaa flourish in the absence of competitive alternatives."
The reason my sympathies lie with piratebay is because the only reason they are as popular as they are today is because of the arrogance of the big studios and the failings of copyright law such as the DMCA and the EUCD.
I just discovered today a site http://iwatchfilm.com. A massive library of movies, up to the most recent, with divx 700mb downloads for $2.99. It seems too good to be true, and it's in dollars so perhaps not UK compatible, so I will hold my breath until I've researched and tried it. But seriously, who would bother with dodgy film downloads when you get guaranteed quality and an up-to-date library for that kind of price?
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Related, interesting article.
Wonderful read, thank you.
"WeĈre collectively living through 1500 [The invention of the printing press], when itĈs easier to see whatĈs broken than what will replace it. The internet turns 40 this fall. Access by the general public is less than half that age. Web use, as a normal part of life for a majority of the developed world, is less than half that age. We just got here. Even the revolutionaries canĈt predict what will happen."
The above sums this whole mess up for me.
"In craigslistĈs gradual shift from ĉinteresting if minorĈ to ĉessential and transformativeĈ, there is one possible answer to the question ôIf the old model is broken, what will work in its place?ö The answer is: Nothing will work, but everything might. Now is the time for experiments, lots and lots of experiments, each of which will seem as minor at launch as craigslist did, as Wikipedia did, as octavo volumes did."
- MC
[Edit]
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 12:58:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Mother Clanger Edited by: Mother Clanger on 20/04/2009 12:55:23
What piratebay did that was wrong, was not "Creating a site designed to help with the distribution of products to people who haven't paid for the right to own them" (you could argue that Microsoft Skydrive provides the same funtionality), what they did wrong was promoting the act of doing so, through the name, through their attitude, through not actively filtering out copyright content etc. Whatever I or anyone else thinks, it's been ruled that they were acting illegally and have been convicted (there's actually two higher stages of court appeal left yet before any final decision).
Skydrive is moderated by the Microsoft team, I had used it to host a Vista Ultimate ISO so i can download it via RAS and it was taken down promptly and I almost lost my MSDN subscription.
|
|

Mother Clanger
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 13:05:00 -
[131]
Edited by: Mother Clanger on 20/04/2009 13:09:06
Originally by: EliteSlave Skydrive is moderated by the Microsoft team, I had used it to host a Vista Ultimate ISO so i can download it via RAS and it was taken down promptly and I almost lost my MSDN subscription.
Thanks, I didn't know that. But it proves my point, Microsoft are actively participating in moderation while piratebay didn't, at least towards the kind of media that concerned the media companies.
- MC
[Edit - As I've just seen you make the same point above ]
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 13:07:00 -
[132]
Originally by: EliteSlave
Originally by: Blane Xero
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Google is one step further removed- it doesn't host the torrent files.
TPB wasnt tried just for hosting the torrents it was tried for "Listing" where you could get/find/download illegal files, which is what google does too. And youtube. So google is next.
What dont you understand about that Youtube and Google if you send them an Email or Certified Letter saying that what link you give them is Copyrighted, and heres a link to the Copyright Agreement, They immediately pull it down off the site. TPB did the exact opposite and Posted the mails and made a mockery of the Copyright agreement / companies involved.
Because up until recently it wasn't illegal to have a file open for access in sweden, it was only illegal if you downloaded it without having a license to do so / were not downloading for the purpose of owning a digital backup.
Or at least, thats my understanding of how swedish law was up until this trial came to pass. I might be completely wrong. But i wager if i was wrong, this trial would have happened alot sooner.
______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 14:04:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Reiisha I wonder where this obsession with "artists and their rights" came from. A good musician makes music because they like it, not because they want to get rich. Sure, they can live off selling their stuff, but do they actually need 50 million dollars for what essentially comes down to 1 day of work, at most, for a song? Do they REALLY need to own entire islands in the pacific? Why are people with no musical talent whatsoever, who had no involvement at all in the creation of the music, entitled to even more of that money than the artists themselves are?
The big companies are only interested in profits. They don't care about customers, they don't care about law, they don't care about anything other than their swiss bank accounts. That's reason enough for me to support whatever they oppose.
That four minute song represents more than just a day of work. Ask any artist, be it musical, paint, or what have you, anything that involves a great deal of thought and they will tell you the end product took weeks if not months to produce.
For a song the artist first needs to get the general idea, write down the music, if he/she is in a band get the input of the others, refine it, repeat the process several times, finally sing it a few times, refine it again until its something they can recite in their sleep, sing it at concerts, record it however many times it takes to get the perfect version at the studio and then finally repeat the process about twelve more times before they can get that collection to you on a CD or through some download site.
The four minute song represents someoneĈs creative talents with their voice, musical instruments and technical expertise all of which they themselves have gone to years of schooling to refine, spend hundreds of thousands of their dollars and people complain about buying the song for a buck at a download site or for fifteen at the local Wal-Mart?
How many artists actually own an island? I donĈt mean itĈs secretly owned by their label and endorsement companies so those companies can make money off the artists image and so called lifestyle but that the name on the deed is theirs?
-------------------------------- To borrow a phrase:
Players who post are like stars, there are bright ones and those who are dim.
|

Doctor Penguin
Amarr Celestial Ascension Tenth Legion
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 14:20:00 -
[134]
If TPB are guilty of copyright infringement for not moderating torrents on their website, a burgled homeowner is guilty of burglary.
The logic does not make sense. ________________________________________________
http://eve.drome.nl/CaodCleaner/ Help make CAOD readable. |

Onus Mian
Amarr Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 14:45:00 -
[135]
Edited by: Onus Mian on 20/04/2009 14:53:38 People also seem keen to forget that these record labels and whatever are the ones that promoted many bands to their current fame. Of course they are going to selective in who they support because they don't want to invest huge amounts of money into bands they feel are not going to be well recieved and therefore not generate a profit.
I live near to Liverpool and Manchester and I can tell you that there are a huge number of bands that are going around without being signed up to big record labels that are enjoying their own success and have full venues. If you're finding that you aren't getting enough variety in the music or whatever then perhaps you should turn off MTV and check out what gigs are coming up.
The only time that I've felt that copyright laws have gotten out of hand was when tab sites that were hosting tabs that had been written by people who had just listened to the song and worked it out were threatened with legal action. I can understand why they would object to someone buying a music book and just copying it to digital format and then spread it over the internet because you're taking someone elses work and distributing it. If you've tabbed it out yourself then that tab is your own work.
Covering songs is entering more murky water though but as long as you're not doing it for profit or have permission to do so when you are I don't see the problem.
Quote: If TPB are guilty of copyright infringement for not moderating torrents on their website, a burgled homeowner is guilty of burglary.
The logic does not make sense.
If your property wasn't secure and you didn't take reasonable precautions then you won't get any insurance payout. These companies copyrighted their property which is just about all they can do without going to extreme measures to protect it and people decided to distribute it illegally. In both cases the crimal was the person who sought to steal but only in the case of the company could they be considered to have taken reasonable care to protect what belonged to them and hence they won compensation. ----
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 15:01:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Doctor Penguin If TPB are guilty of copyright infringement for not moderating torrents on their website, a burgled homeowner is guilty of burglary.
The logic does not make sense.
Can you make a logical argument that does not involve repeating the exact same line?
Here Ill make an argument that will support TPB for you. Your job is to counter my argument.
As TPB was never actually hosting files directly, we may have been indirectly hosting them but since our ideaology is to promote free internet and free speech it totally goes against our core value of the website and community. We promise to work with the companies and organizations that feel their rights are being infringed upon, But since we are a "small band of people" we can only moderate soo much, so if these companies would like to sponsor us we will gladly hire more support staff to help moderate it.
Now, that i have made an arguement that does not consist of flaunting the laws that TPB has broken in the past, this could have actually prevented alot of the legal ramifications that may come in the future now.
|

FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 16:32:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Doctor Penguin If TPB are guilty of copyright infringement for not moderating torrents on their website, a burgled homeowner is guilty of burglary.
The logic does not make sense.
Are you some kind of crappy analogy savant or something? What are the torrents in your analogy? The stuff the burglar steals? How the hell are torrents hosted by a website for other people to download similar to this? It would have to be the homeowner buys stuff just so burglars can break in a steal it.
I love hearing all the arguments that because the plaintiffs are huge corporations that makes them evil and soul sucking. Every single one of you relies on huge corporations and you can suck on the teat and spite the cow all you want, still makes you guys hypocritical turds. You either can't afford the music, are too lazy to buy the music or you are just selfish. There is no other reason to download music illegally. ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 16:48:00 -
[138]
Originally by: FOl2TY8
Originally by: Doctor Penguin If TPB are guilty of copyright infringement for not moderating torrents on their website, a burgled homeowner is guilty of burglary.
The logic does not make sense.
Are you some kind of crappy analogy savant or something? What are the torrents in your analogy? The stuff the burglar steals? How the hell are torrents hosted by a website for other people to download similar to this? It would have to be the homeowner buys stuff just so burglars can break in a steal it.
I love hearing all the arguments that because the plaintiffs are huge corporations that makes them evil and soul sucking. Every single one of you relies on huge corporations and you can suck on the teat and spite the cow all you want, still makes you guys hypocritical turds. You either can't afford the music, are too lazy to buy the music or you are just selfish. There is no other reason to download music illegally.
How about we're tired of having to buy an albumn with 17 songs we already have just to get the three new ones on disk?.
How about buying a disk just to be dissapointed because you bought it and the three new songs were abysmal? Did you know artists are being pushed to produce quantity over quality just so the publishers can line their pockets even more?. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 16:49:00 -
[139]
Originally by: FOl2TY8
Originally by: Doctor Penguin If TPB are guilty of copyright infringement for not moderating torrents on their website, a burgled homeowner is guilty of burglary.
The logic does not make sense.
Are you some kind of crappy analogy savant or something? What are the torrents in your analogy? The stuff the burglar steals? How the hell are torrents hosted by a website for other people to download similar to this? It would have to be the homeowner buys stuff just so burglars can break in a steal it.
I love hearing all the arguments that because the plaintiffs are huge corporations that makes them evil and soul sucking. Every single one of you relies on huge corporations and you can suck on the teat and spite the cow all you want, still makes you guys hypocritical turds. You either can't afford the music, are too lazy to buy the music or you are just selfish. There is no other reason to download music illegally.
How about we're tired of having to buy an albumn with 17 songs we already have just to get the three new ones on disk?.
How about buying a disk just to be dissapointed because you bought it and the new songs were abysmal? Did you know artists are being pushed to produce quantity over quality just so the publishers can line their pockets even more?. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 17:03:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Blane Xero
How about buying a disk just to be dissapointed because you bought it and the new songs were abysmal? Did you know artists are being pushed to produce quantity over quality just so the publishers can line their pockets even more?.
This is the height of arrogance. You think that just because YOU don't like popular music that gives YOU the right to make stupid blanket statements. Your personal taste has nothing to do with anything, ever.
I mean how DARE the record companies produce stuff that I don't like. HOW DARE THEY!!!!!! You are an idiot and if you can't see why Miley Cyrus makes more money then your favorite loser band then you deserve to hurf durf yourself to death about this issue. ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 17:26:00 -
[141]
Originally by: FOl2TY8
Originally by: Blane Xero
How about buying a disk just to be dissapointed because you bought it and the new songs were abysmal? Did you know artists are being pushed to produce quantity over quality just so the publishers can line their pockets even more?.
I mean how DARE the record companies produce stuff that I don't like. HOW DARE THEY!!!!!! You are an idiot and if you can't see why Miley Cyrus makes more money then your favorite loser band then you deserve to hurf durf yourself to death about this issue.
Did i strike a nerve? Did i really?
You call me arrogant then you make groundless accusations to the type of music i listen to. :Irony:
But if you see absolutely nothing wrong with artists being pushed into puttin out what is essentially the same album but with three different songs, thats fine.
When it gets to the point bands are just re-releasing the same album over and over under a different name, you'll still hold strong that just because a vocal population disagree's with this while you think its fine, then they are just arrogant.
I miss the days when an Album had me listening to it for days on end. When swapping between albums didnt consist of me skipping every other track just because i heard it on the other disk.
Buying an album to have it contain more than 50% of the same songs of an album released over a year ago, a "couple" of new songs, a couple of old songs but "live" versions thereof, and then a couple of old songs, but accustic (These ones aren't so bad). But the live ones where you can hardly f'cking hear the music over the fans screaming like giddy kids at a theme park, what the hell possesses record labels to push this? ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 18:48:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Blane Xero
Did i strike a nerve? Did i really?
You call me arrogant then you make groundless accusations to the type of music i listen to. :Irony:
I don't care what kind of music you listen to, it is irrelevant. You keep bringing up your personal taste in music as a valid argument. It is not, taste is irrelevant.
Quote: But if you see absolutely nothing wrong with artists being pushed into puttin out what is essentially the same album but with three different songs, thats fine.
Artists are pushed into nothing, they have plenty of choices. The awesome thing about technology is that it frees artists from major distributors. If they want to make industry dough they have to be involved in it somehow. Just the way it is sorry to break your bohemian bubble.
Quote: When it gets to the point bands are just re-releasing the same album over and over under a different name, you'll still hold strong that just because a vocal population disagree's with this while you think its fine, then they are just arrogant.
If people can't understand that record companies are going to promote artists that will make them lots of money then that is their problem. The people (like you) that ***** and moan about artists being unheard are wasting their breath. You show me a bunch of artists that are fighting the "good fight" for freedom of expression and I will show you a bunch of people I have never heard of.
Quote: I miss the days when an Album had me listening to it for days on end. When swapping between albums didnt consist of me skipping every other track just because i heard it on the other disk.
Sorry that you are so picky that you can't find any new albums that you think are worth listening to. Just this Saturday I bought more than 20 new cds that I can listen to all the way through. It doesn't really matter though because the fact that you can't enjoy any new music is not the record companies' fault.
Quote: Buying an album to have it contain more than 50% of the same songs of an album released over a year ago, a "couple" of new songs, a couple of old songs but "live" versions thereof, and then a couple of old songs, but accustic (These ones aren't so bad). But the live ones where you can hardly f'cking hear the music over the fans screaming like giddy kids at a theme park, what the hell possesses record labels to push this?
I try to stay away from making up statistics when I try to prove a point but that's just me. I really don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that you don't understand why companies release "Best of", live and compilation albums? Does it bother you that much? Do you get all shaky and red faced every time you wander into the soundtrack aisle? Who the hell cares what record companies release? If you don't like it don't buy it! Course me telling you this is as effective as me telling a Baptist to just not listen to Howard Stern.
People like you can't stand the idea that something exists in this world that you don't agree with. That's cool because this world will always need assholes. I will continue to purchase the music that I like and I will continue to enjoy it. Sorry you cannot do the same. ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |

Dong Ninja
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 20:15:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Onus Mian
Originally by: Dong Ninja So someone explain to me how copyright infringement - an civil issue - end up in a criminal court? Does anyone else see any sense in that?
Because you are distributing a product to those who haven't payed the original owner for the right to have own a copy. This is no different from accepting stolen goods from someone.
So it's not really copyright infringement then, but theft of intellectual property. Of course on a technical standpoint TPB didn't actually steal anything, only made it available. So I'm still wondering how this is a criminal issue? Why not sue them instead? The only reason I see why they tried it in crimial court is because if "the law" said it was wrong then it was wrong, not just some cold faceless suit from the MPAA/RIAA. Is copyright infringement even a crime in Sweden, or is that just what's being touted around and they actually charged TPB (or rather, 4 people who own it) with something completely different like theft of intellectual property?
Originally by: Xen Gin Indeed, upgrading an MS OS is like taking a **** into a cake mixture, then complaining that it doesn't taste good when it's all done.
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 20:16:00 -
[144]
Originally by: FOl2TY8 *Cough*
First off, please for the love of god, please stop being a stereotyping bastard.
You seem to view people who torrent things they should be buying as evil people with Some of (or all of the following symptoms)
**** taste in music/games/movies. Being allergic to difference in opinion (Much like yourself might i add). Self Importance. (hmmm) Being *******s. ***** about anything they disagree with.
Also note; I did not bring in personal taste, I spoke of my opinion. I did not cite genre's, preferred musical instruments, or even which notes the lead singer should be f'cking singing.
Also;
Originally by: FOl2TY8 Artists are pushed into nothing, they have plenty of choices. The awesome thing about technology is that it frees artists from major distributors. If they want to make industry dough they have to be involved in it somehow
And here's where the problem lies. Money. Throw a fat enough number around and you can get most people to do anything granted it does not cause them/anyone close to them pain or suffering. Some would even do so regardless of the latter.
I can find enjoyable new music. And frequently do so. All i'm saying is, i don't want it to get to the point wherein the same albums are being re-released within a few months with, if your lucky, 1 new song. Which is where things are going if the record labels keep getting their own way.
Also I understand the "Best of" and "Hits of the 90's". I Don't understand why, in the last few years, there has been a trouble amount of albums from different artists released where 5-6 out of 10 songs are older songs of varying age, maybe 2 of them are "new" and 2 of them are previously unreleased accustic/live versions. Why not just release singles for the two new songs and wait till the artists actually have more new songs to put into the album? instead of charging me between ú15-20 and $20-25 or whatever the cost is in the US these days. Albums should be new. Not rehashed old.
Also again with the Stereotyping. You are not a Psychologist, (Well, you might be, i guess) So stop acting like one, or save it for the hours you are being paid for. Stop resorting to call people you do not agree with *******s and stop grouping people who torrent, into the same group that do things deliberatly to ruin your day. Wake up and realise that people who present different opinions than your own, whether you see them as right or wrong, are not doing so just to make you miserable. And stop reading in between the lines when it comes to what type of person someone is by what they do on the god damn internet.
Yeah, At the end of the day, the "industry" is out to make a profit. The day they produce statistics, numbers and actual facts instead of pointing fingers and saying "But they dunnit guv'nah" in a dull voice as their main attack plan, that imply they are in trouble as a business is the day I'll put my hands up and say "Fine, I'll stop torrenting". Until then its open season. They did the same thing countless times in the past and life went on. And by Numbers, I mean something other than saying "We've not made as much as last year", because considering how unstable the music market is in the first place, there are more factors to profit margins than how many people are obtaining the files illegally.
Also; Yes. I Have an attitude problem and a severe lack of respect for the "authority" on this issue. You don't need to keep calling me out on it. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

Erichk Knaar
Caldari Noir.
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 20:47:00 -
[145]
People are approaching this with a staggering amount of wrongthink.
It's simple. If its not worth paying for, don't download it. All you are doing by pirating is actually giving the turgid crap the media companies produce an audience. Even if its a non-paying one. Rampant piracy simply shows the company; "Hey, lots of people like our stuff, but they are not paying for it."
A better message, imo, would be, "our stuff is so bad, no one is even pirating it". Ergo sum, I support the Pirate Bay and other services like it getting legally nuked off the face of the planet, because then, maybe just then, all the little sheeple might stop watching/listening/reading garbage and real art might get a chance again.
|

FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 20:51:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Blane Xero words
We are talking about 2 different things. I have never once said that I am against downloading media illegally. I have no vested interest in it. I mocked people in this thread who are defending it because they can't just come to grips with the fact that it is a crime and that's that. Your made up list is a complete 180 from what I believe so you are not getting my point.
So to organize this debate here is my point: download all the free crap you want just don't cry injustice when people get caught breaking the law. If I got caught drinking and driving I wouldn't blame big business because I am smart enough to know that I chose to break the law. If a guy gets busted selling weed I don't say "damn the man, he's getting a bum rap!" because he chose to break the law. Again I'm not trying to say I'm better than anyone because I don't download illegally, I just choose not to break the law. How can you defend TPB by saying what they did isn't illegal? It was proven in a court of law that it was. Sorry if you don't agree with that, it may not even be socially correct but that's the way it is. Either forever or until it changes. Just be glad that these guys get a chance to appeal, also they might have the power to influence copyright laws. Either way at this point in history they have broken the law and for now they can't prove otherwise. I have no sympathy for them and I don't see them as some kind of crazy crusaders for artists rights.
---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |

Karma
Vortex Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 21:42:00 -
[147]
I read a piece in the paper today, about the fines they were 'handed'... sort of put it into perspective... shows you how absurd it it.
30,000,000 SEK. (almost wrote isk... been playing all day).
if you killed someone's child in sweden.. the court will usually order you to pay about 100,000 SEK in damages (and a healthy jail sentence as well, of course, but that's beside the point).
the life of a child, is worth 100,000 sek while music copied on the internet is worth 30,000,000 sek?
this is a screwed up country, man.
|

Malvaceae Veri
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 22:03:00 -
[148]
Good music rarely makes you money nowadays anyway. And the "business" approach to music can rot in hell anyways.
Yarr
|

Onus Mian
Amarr Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 22:15:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Dong Ninja
Originally by: Onus Mian
Originally by: Dong Ninja So someone explain to me how copyright infringement - an civil issue - end up in a criminal court? Does anyone else see any sense in that?
Because you are distributing a product to those who haven't payed the original owner for the right to have own a copy. This is no different from accepting stolen goods from someone.
So it's not really copyright infringement then, but theft of intellectual property. Of course on a technical standpoint TPB didn't actually steal anything, only made it available. So I'm still wondering how this is a criminal issue? Why not sue them instead? The only reason I see why they tried it in crimial court is because if "the law" said it was wrong then it was wrong, not just some cold faceless suit from the MPAA/RIAA. Is copyright infringement even a crime in Sweden, or is that just what's being touted around and they actually charged TPB (or rather, 4 people who own it) with something completely different like theft of intellectual property?
Why is it such a difficult concept to grasp?
Person A owns the product. Person B buy puchases only the right to use the product and not copy or distribute it. Person B then makes copies and distributes it despite the agreement. Person A gets rightfully ****ed off and takes person B to court for breaking the orginal agreement. Person A wins the court case and sets a precedent for future cases.
I can only assume that I have a stronger sense of right and wrong since so many seem to be unable to accept that this constitutes as stealing no matter how you try and dress it up. Relying on ambiguity in international law to back up your case is hardly a solid grounding since many countries simply haven't gotten around to dealing with the problems which the internet has thrown up regarding intellectual property and copyright laws.
International laws to protect intellectual ownership are more important than ever when someone can purchase a music cd, rip it to their hardrive and then make it accessible to millions of people through websites like TPB in matter of minutes. I find it hard to understand how people can defend such actions as being something other than stealing and those that try and justify it on moral grounds are just grasping at straws. I suggest that you listen to 'Hooker with a *****' by Tool because that song sums it nicely. ----
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 22:29:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Onus Mian
Originally by: Dong Ninja
Originally by: Onus Mian
Originally by: Dong Ninja So someone explain to me how copyright infringement - an civil issue - end up in a criminal court? Does anyone else see any sense in that?
Because you are distributing a product to those who haven't payed the original owner for the right to have own a copy. This is no different from accepting stolen goods from someone.
So it's not really copyright infringement then, but theft of intellectual property. Of course on a technical standpoint TPB didn't actually steal anything, only made it available. So I'm still wondering how this is a criminal issue? Why not sue them instead? The only reason I see why they tried it in crimial court is because if "the law" said it was wrong then it was wrong, not just some cold faceless suit from the MPAA/RIAA. Is copyright infringement even a crime in Sweden, or is that just what's being touted around and they actually charged TPB (or rather, 4 people who own it) with something completely different like theft of intellectual property?
Why is it such a difficult concept to grasp?
Person A owns the product. Person B buy puchases only the right to use the product and not copy or distribute it. Person B then makes copies and distributes it despite the agreement. Person A gets rightfully ****ed off and takes person B to court for breaking the orginal agreement. Person A wins the court case and sets a precedent for future cases.
Though, the person(s) in court is not Person B in your case, they are the people who created the website that person B used to facilitate his nefarious deeds. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|
|

FOl2TY8
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 22:33:00 -
[151]
Originally by: Onus Mian
Why is it such a difficult concept to grasp?
Person A owns the product. Person B buy puchases only the right to use the product and not copy or distribute it. Person B then makes copies and distributes it despite the agreement. Person A gets rightfully ****ed off and takes person B to court for breaking the orginal agreement. Person A wins the court case and sets a precedent for future cases.
I can only assume that I have a stronger sense of right and wrong since so many seem to be unable to accept that this constitutes as stealing no matter how you try and dress it up. Relying on ambiguity in international law to back up your case is hardly a solid grounding since many countries simply haven't gotten around to dealing with the problems which the internet has thrown up regarding intellectual property and copyright laws.
International laws to protect intellectual ownership are more important than ever when someone can purchase a music cd, rip it to their hardrive and then make it accessible to millions of people through websites like TPB in matter of minutes. I find it hard to understand how people can defend such actions as being something other than stealing and those that try and justify it on moral grounds are just grasping at straws. I suggest that you listen to 'Hooker with a *****' by Tool because that song sums it nicely.
All you know about me is what I've sold you, dumb fck I sold out long before you ever heard my name Sold my soul to make a record, dip$hit then you bought one.
It is perfect isn't it?
---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |

masternerdguy
Gallente Point of No Return Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 23:40:00 -
[152]
copyright infringement is a criminal offense in usa.
|

Dong Ninja
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 09:22:00 -
[153]
Originally by: masternerdguy copyright infringement is a criminal offense in usa.
Finally someone answers a simple question without going on a crusade.
Originally by: Xen Gin Indeed, upgrading an MS OS is like taking a **** into a cake mixture, then complaining that it doesn't taste good when it's all done.
|

masternerdguy
Gallente Point of No Return Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 10:40:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Dong Ninja
Originally by: masternerdguy copyright infringement is a criminal offense in usa.
Finally someone answers a simple question without going on a crusade.
no problem
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 14:19:00 -
[155]
Edited by: Blane Xero on 21/04/2009 14:19:20
Originally by: masternerdguy copyright infringement is a criminal offense in usa.
Servers were hosting torrents, not copyrighted content. Servers were in Sweden, not the USA. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

Onus Mian
Amarr Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 15:20:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Blane Xero Edited by: Blane Xero on 21/04/2009 14:19:20
Originally by: masternerdguy copyright infringement is a criminal offense in usa.
Servers were hosting torrents, not copyrighted content. Servers were in Sweden, not the USA.
"I didn't steal it. I just help the thieves move the stuff"
Yeah because that makes it ok. Also some counties have been slow in addressing this which doesn't mean its ok to run these websites just because in a particular country its not illegal yet. |

masternerdguy
Gallente Point of No Return Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 20:21:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Onus Mian
Originally by: Blane Xero Edited by: Blane Xero on 21/04/2009 14:19:20
Originally by: masternerdguy copyright infringement is a criminal offense in usa.
Servers were hosting torrents, not copyrighted content. Servers were in Sweden, not the USA.
"I didn't steal it. I just help the thieves move the stuff"
Yeah because that makes it ok. Also some counties have been slow in addressing this which doesn't mean its ok to run these websites just because in a particular country its not illegal yet.
i think the world commerce peepz are gonna try to get a standardized copyrifght act enacted in most countries, so this may soon end.
Secondly, saying hosting the torrents is ok is like using a 20 foot pole to poke a baby. |

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 20:26:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Onus Mian
Originally by: Blane Xero Edited by: Blane Xero on 21/04/2009 14:19:20
Originally by: masternerdguy copyright infringement is a criminal offense in usa.
Servers were hosting torrents, not copyrighted content. Servers were in Sweden, not the USA.
"I didn't steal it. I just help the thieves move the stuff"
Yeah because that makes it ok. Also some counties have been slow in addressing this which doesn't mean its ok to run these websites just because in a particular country its not illegal yet.
That doesnt change the fact what i said is true, and is relevant to this case whereas what mastenerdguy said is also true, yet completely irrelevant. |

masternerdguy
Gallente Point of No Return Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 20:33:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Blane Xero
Originally by: Onus Mian
Originally by: Blane Xero Edited by: Blane Xero on 21/04/2009 14:19:20
Originally by: masternerdguy copyright infringement is a criminal offense in usa.
Servers were hosting torrents, not copyrighted content. Servers were in Sweden, not the USA.
"I didn't steal it. I just help the thieves move the stuff"
Yeah because that makes it ok. Also some counties have been slow in addressing this which doesn't mean its ok to run these websites just because in a particular country its not illegal yet.
That doesnt change the fact what i said is true, and is relevant to this case whereas what mastenerdguy said is also true, yet completely irrelevant.
ive done some resey research. its more relevant than you think. |

Onus Mian
Amarr Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 20:43:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Blane Xero
Originally by: Onus Mian
Originally by: Blane Xero Edited by: Blane Xero on 21/04/2009 14:19:20
Originally by: masternerdguy copyright infringement is a criminal offense in usa.
Servers were hosting torrents, not copyrighted content. Servers were in Sweden, not the USA.
"I didn't steal it. I just help the thieves move the stuff"
Yeah because that makes it ok. Also some counties have been slow in addressing this which doesn't mean its ok to run these websites just because in a particular country its not illegal yet.
That doesnt change the fact what i said is true, and is relevant to this case whereas what mastenerdguy said is also true, yet completely irrelevant.
While I can see what you are saying their actions still aren't morally defendable. Yes I know there are a lot of things that are legal which aren't morally defendable either but they should be sorted out as well. ----
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams
|
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 21:05:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Onus Mian While I can see what you are saying their actions still aren't morally defendable. Yes I know there are a lot of things that are legal which aren't morally defendable either but they should be sorted out as well.
Indeed.
By the way, i wouldn't be opposing the ruling nearly as much if the prosecutors even had a real argument other than "But they dunnit guv'nah, innit. They be killin our biznez guv'nuh, innit" and constantly throwing evidence at the defendants that was either not cleared or completely irrelevant to the case. Referring to them as a business when they are just a team of people (organisation). And when their "Technology expert" or whatever couldnt turn on his computer? Yeah. They had no legs to stand on yet still won. |

Intense Thinker
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 21:35:00 -
[162]
Remember, juries are comprised of average citizens (meaning most of them are stupid) and the simple morality argument goes a long way with them.
Pomp FTW!!! |

Onus Mian
Amarr Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 21:41:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Intense Thinker Remember, juries are comprised of average citizens (meaning most of them are stupid) and the simple morality argument goes a long way with them.
Juries are requried to make their decision based on the evidence that has been put forward. I know people who have done jury service and have had to give a not-guilty verdict to complete scumbag chavs because there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had commited the crime.
If the jury could not be sure beyond reasonable doubt that TPB had broken the law then they wouldn't have been able to give a guilty verdict. ----
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 21:54:00 -
[164]
As previously stated in the thread this was a trial in the lowest level of swedish court and did not have a jury? Could be wrong though. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

Shar LaMayne
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 01:12:00 -
[165]
Quote:
Again I ask, can any of you pirate bay proponents come up with an argument for downloading software illegally?
Because I want to.
|

Onus Mian
Amarr Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 08:48:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Shar LaMayne
Quote:
Again I ask, can any of you pirate bay proponents come up with an argument for downloading software illegally?
Because I want to.
Well all actions have consequences. In the UK at least you can have your internet connection turned off for downloading stuff illegally. ----
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams
|

Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 12:17:00 -
[167]
This thread tells me I'm glad that the mob doesn't rule over verdict.
|

Doctor Penguin
Amarr Celestial Ascension Tenth Legion
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 12:27:00 -
[168]
Edited by: Doctor Penguin on 22/04/2009 12:28:36
Originally by: Onus Mian Well all actions have consequences. In the UK at least you can have your internet connection turned off for downloading stuff illegally.
No you can't - you'd need a court injunction anywhere in the EU to do that.
And, once again, TPB cannot be blamed for crimes that were committed thanks to impartial facilities it supplies. The logic requires one to also agree that a man who has his house burgled is guilty of aiding the robber, and the council that builds a park is guilty of selling drugs if a drug dealer sells stuff there. ________________________________________________
http://eve.drome.nl/CaodCleaner/ Help make CAOD readable. |

Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 13:16:00 -
[169]
Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 22/04/2009 13:16:46
Originally by: Doctor Penguin
And, once again, TPB cannot be blamed for crimes that were committed thanks to impartial facilities it supplies.
This is the main argument of those who think that the pirate bay were wrongly accused (and sentenced). Their so-called impartiality is however a house of cards at best. First of all, their very site name tells you (and everyone) what type of files they are niched to aid in supply of. Apologists would have us think different, that "pirate bay" is really as neutral as "google", but apologists never were right. Secondly, the "impartial" notion you claim is nothing but a convenient ruse to try and avoid responsibility for what goes on on their site. Together with the purpose of the site (come here for pirated software) that claim of impartiality is null and void.
Quote:
The logic requires one to also agree that a man who has his house burgled is guilty of aiding the robber, and the council that builds a park is guilty of selling drugs if a drug dealer sells stuff there.
This failed analogy, while providing with some comedy value (especially since you used the word 'logic') is a complete shambles. A man who has his house burgled? Who is this supposed to be? Are you trying to say that the pirate bay are victims of burglary somehow? What were you smoking when you made that comparison?
A park wherein crimes are perpetuated requires the state to take responsibility of said crimes. For public safety, and to preserve law and order. In that sense your second analogy is actually worse than your first. Secondly, a park is not created for the specific purpose to do illegal activities. But you can bet your hinds that if there was a sign saying "CRYSTAL METH BAY", there would be hell to pay (especially if the council was involved, lol).
|

Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 13:21:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Doctor Penguin Edited by: Doctor Penguin on 22/04/2009 12:28:36
Originally by: Onus Mian Well all actions have consequences. In the UK at least you can have your internet connection turned off for downloading stuff illegally.
No you can't - you'd need a court injunction anywhere in the EU to do that.
And, once again, TPB cannot be blamed for crimes that were committed thanks to impartial facilities it supplies. The logic requires one to also agree that a man who has his house burgled is guilty of aiding the robber, and the council that builds a park is guilty of selling drugs if a drug dealer sells stuff there.
...or like a car rental service is responsible for facilitating drive by shooting, hit and run, drunk driving, homicide by car and whatever bad you can do with the car one has rented out. And the things you can do with a car are much worse than a copyright infringement. Yet there has no car rental service been charged. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
|

MyOwnSling
Gallente Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 13:35:00 -
[171]
Edited by: MyOwnSling on 22/04/2009 13:41:19 Edited by: MyOwnSling on 22/04/2009 13:36:10
Originally by: Doctor Penguin Edited by: Doctor Penguin on 22/04/2009 12:28:36
Originally by: Onus Mian Well all actions have consequences. In the UK at least you can have your internet connection turned off for downloading stuff illegally.
The logic requires one to also agree that a man who has his house burgled is guilty of aiding the robber
This is a bad analogy. A person legally OWNS everything in their house (including the rights to any digital media they have bought). The TPB people did not own everything they distributed. A person does not collect items in their home for someone to take. TPB posted torrents specifically for other people to use. Again, not a good analogy.
Quote: the council that builds a park is guilty of selling drugs if a drug dealer sells stuff there.
Another poor analogy. A park is a public place and, as such, falls under the local/state law and law enforcement. Illegal activity is not allowed there, so someone performing such an activity is subject to punishment under the law. The park was not built for the purpose of illegal activites whereas the TPB helped to facilitate and had no measures to prevent illegal activites. -------------
Originally by: Puupuu dude... your face...
|

MyOwnSling
Gallente Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 13:44:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: Doctor Penguin Edited by: Doctor Penguin on 22/04/2009 12:28:36
Originally by: Onus Mian Well all actions have consequences. In the UK at least you can have your internet connection turned off for downloading stuff illegally.
No you can't - you'd need a court injunction anywhere in the EU to do that.
And, once again, TPB cannot be blamed for crimes that were committed thanks to impartial facilities it supplies. The logic requires one to also agree that a man who has his house burgled is guilty of aiding the robber, and the council that builds a park is guilty of selling drugs if a drug dealer sells stuff there.
...or like a car rental service is responsible for facilitating drive by shooting, hit and run, drunk driving, homicide by car and whatever bad you can do with the car one has rented out. And the things you can do with a car are much worse than a copyright infringement. Yet there has no car rental service been charged.
Except that after the customer drives away with the car, the rental service has no way of controlling what the customer does with the car. The TPB guys had control over what went on at their website. If something illegal was going on, they had the theoretical capacity to stop it (whether or not they had the manpower is another story). -------------
Originally by: Puupuu dude... your face...
|

Tob Seayours
Minmatar Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 13:45:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Abrazzar
...or like a car rental service is responsible for facilitating drive by shooting, hit and run, drunk driving, homicide by car and whatever bad you can do with the car one has rented out. And the things you can do with a car are much worse than a copyright infringement. Yet there has no car rental service been charged.
Is this ****ty analogy week or something?
You're comparing cars and software. And rental service with illegal software distribution. The act of renting out cars isn't a crime, because the company that rents out the cars own them, and have the legal right to distribute them. Furthermore they are not marketing the distribution of said cars via "DRIVE BY CARS BAY", or "HIT & RUN BAY". Or you would definitely see them convicted of any such felony. If they then would claim some kind of "impartiality" in crimes convicted with said cars, they would be a laughing stock.
|

Ratchman
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 13:50:00 -
[174]
Some people seem to be vehemently supporting Pirate Bay regardless of what argument is offered. The fact of the matter that everyone knows it is illegal. They may not be hosting the files, but they are facilitating illegal copyright infringement. This cannot be debated in any way, except for minor legal technicalities depending on what country you live in. The website is called "The Pirate Bay", and offers you access, albeit indirectly, to pirated material. How is that not a blatant illegal act?
I think the real reason people are defending them so rabidly, is because they use the site, or similar ones, to download pirated software themselves. Don't try and justify your own illegal activities, because you are still breaking the law, no matter what the provocation. You may discuss the relative merits of such illegal action, but it is still illegal. Myself, I'm not going to judge, but I can wait until Wolverine comes out at the cinema before I watch it. I just love the cinema experience, so I will keep going. You may justify your actions by saying it's a rip-off, but you can make a protest by simply not going or buying the product. By downloading pirated versions, you are stating that you must have it, by fair means or foul.
Someone offered the analogy of a gun shop selling the weapon used in a murder case. That shop could not be held responsible. However, this is more like someone supplying someone else with a weapon, then convincing them that another person was sleeping with his wife. It's all about intent, not providing a service. Had the Pirate Bay been called something else, and been more conniving and evasive, then the legal case would have been so much harder to prove. But they chose to be blatant and confrontational, so a criminal sentence was to be expected.
That said, the big media companies really need to learn to adapt to the emerging technology. Steps have been made with things like iTunes, but it is just the first few steps (and they really need to lower their prices). Some bad decisions have also been made (such as the SecureROM debacle). I like the fact that CDs are now much cheaper than they used to be, usually about half the price of ten years ago. DVDs are the same. Now I can pick up all manner of films for a couple of quid (of course, I rarely buy new releases). Blu Ray will go the same way in a couple of years.
Piracy will always exist, for as long as things are for sale, then their will be those who will steal them. I've always found that the more unreasonable the price is, the more likely that product will be stolen. I can remember the frenzy over audio tapes killing the music industry, but here we are, 30 years later, but the song remains the same. It won't kill the industry, just reduce their profits by a percentage.
Stealing is a fact of life, and these companies need to learn that. That doesn't mean they should sit back and accept it, but they don't need to be quite so fervent about it, because that will only serve to alienate them from their customers, as SecureROM did.
Mother Clanger made some very valid points in some of her later posts, but the truth of the matter is, it is still illegal. Tinfoil hattery aside, I don't think the judgement would have been different anywhere else, and without bribery or other form of corruption. But the big companies do need to learn to adapt and survive. |

Ratchman
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 14:08:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: Doctor Penguin And, once again, TPB cannot be blamed for crimes that were committed thanks to impartial facilities it supplies. The logic requires one to also agree that a man who has his house burgled is guilty of aiding the robber, and the council that builds a park is guilty of selling drugs if a drug dealer sells stuff there.
...or like a car rental service is responsible for facilitating drive by shooting, hit and run, drunk driving, homicide by car and whatever bad you can do with the car one has rented out. And the things you can do with a car are much worse than a copyright infringement. Yet there has no car rental service been charged.
One word: intent.
Pirate Bay's focus is obvious.
Let's look at these analogies:
1) The man leaving his house is complicit of aiding the burglar. Only if he has conspired with the burglar beforehand. The homeowner does not take part in the act himself, but he has arranged for someone else to do the act.
2) People who build parks are facilitating drug dealing. Only if they put up signs saying "drug dealers welcome".
3) Car rental services facilitate drive-by shootings and drunk driving. Only if they advertise their cars as "to be used in drive-by shootings" or "owner must be mullered before starting up car".
Why is it so difficult to understand the argument that Pirate Bay are complicit because not only do they give you the tools to find pirated software, they bloody site is called 'Pirate Bay' giving you clear indication of their intentions.
Other file sharing groups have been taking to court and have escaped serious punishment, because the issue of intent was difficult to prove. Pirate Bay is a big sign that tells you what kind of file sharing can be done through them. Simple word association. If they had been named some other dumb name like Napster or Kazaa, they could have avoided a jail sentence. |

Corwain
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 14:27:00 -
[176]
I'd think it would be hard for the court to prove exactly what kind of pirates are being referred to in the site's name.
After all I've pirated music before and I've never been on a pirate ship as is depicted in the logo.
Also, pirates are cool. -- Distortion| Distortion 2 Preview |

Tob Seayours
Minmatar Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 14:32:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Corwain I'd think it would be hard for the court to prove exactly what kind of pirates are being referred to in the site's name.
After all I've pirated music before and I've never been on a pirate ship as is depicted in the logo.
Also, pirates are cool.
Funny man.
|

masternerdguy
Gallente Point of No Return Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 18:15:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Corwain I'd think it would be hard for the court to prove exactly what kind of pirates are being referred to in the site's name.
After all I've pirated music before and I've never been on a pirate ship as is depicted in the logo.
Also, pirates are cool.
you are truly out of arguments huh |

Corwain
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 18:25:00 -
[179]
I was never involved in the debate to begin with. I think both sides are equally tools. |

Tob Seayours
Minmatar Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 19:00:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Corwain I was never involved in the debate to begin with. I think both sides are equally tools.
Especially the side which doesn't take any side. Tool. |
|

masternerdguy
Gallente Point of No Return Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 21:38:00 -
[181]
Originally by: Tob Seayours
Originally by: Corwain I was never involved in the debate to begin with. I think both sides are equally tools.
Especially the side which doesn't take any side. Tool.
how do you take a side on this issue?
If you say your anti pirate everyone acts like ur crazy or reactionary.
if you say your for it your a thief :P
|

EFT Warrior
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 09:50:00 -
[182]
So apparently the defendants are going for a retrial/mistrial because the judge has been accused of bias, as he is a member of pro-copyright groups - specifically he is a member of the SFU (Swedish Association of Copyright) and a board member of the SFIR, basically a lobby group for stronger copyright laws.
Also, this doesn't have much to do with the case but I thought this was amusing.
|

Karma
Vortex Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 12:21:00 -
[183]
Originally by: EFT Warrior So apparently the defendants are going for a retrial/mistrial because the judge has been accused of bias, as he is a member of pro-copyright groups - specifically he is a member of the SFU (Swedish Association of Copyright) and a board member of the SFIR, basically a lobby group for stronger copyright laws.
Also, this doesn't have much to do with the case but I thought this was amusing.
not only that... but he's in many of those groups *with* members of the prosecution, and even worked with Monique Wadsted.
AND... he ordered one of the lay judges in the case had to step down when his involvement in a music rights group became known.. but apparently thought the same shouldn't apply to himself.
|

Lomas Barisa
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 13:32:00 -
[184]
I laugh at the people that claim the pirate bay had every intention to violate copyrights, especially those that refer to the name as 'evidence'. May I remind you that the term 'pirate' has two common meanings. The oldest and best known meaning is that of people who rob or hijack ships. And guess what is displayed as the logo of the pirate bay...?
Also, the term bay according to wikipedia: "A bay is an area of water bordered by land on three sides. Bays generally have calmer waters than the surrounding sea, due to the surrounding land blocking some waves and often reducing winds."
Both the title and the logo of the website give us clues as to which meaning of 'pirate' was meant by the creators. And as EVE players you should know better too. So don't give me that bull****.
File sharing is not illegal. Hosting and indexing torrent trackers is not illegal. Calling a fully automated search system 'assisting with a crime' is extremely farfetched, especially when the defendants have never even seen the users that committed the crimes (Who are they anyway? There has to be a crime they were assisting with, right? Why was no one convicted for the crime they supposedly assisted?).
But I am not surprised with the verdict now that it has become clear the judge was biased. 
|

Onus Mian
Amarr Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 13:56:00 -
[185]
Originally by: Lomas Barisa I laugh at the people that claim the pirate bay had every intention to violate copyrights, especially those that refer to the name as 'evidence'. May I remind you that the term 'pirate' has two common meanings. The oldest and best known meaning is that of people who rob or hijack ships. And guess what is displayed as the logo of the pirate bay...?
Also, the term bay according to wikipedia: "A bay is an area of water bordered by land on three sides. Bays generally have calmer waters than the surrounding sea, due to the surrounding land blocking some waves and often reducing winds."
Both the title and the logo of the website give us clues as to which meaning of 'pirate' was meant by the creators. And as EVE players you should know better too. So don't give me that bull****.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that this site was supposed to be seen as a haven for the distribution of illegal files. The word Pirate has well known connotations relating to illegal activity of any kind and clearly by adding bay they were identifying themselves as haven for such activities. Its no coincidence that they called illegally copied media pirated.
Originally by: Lomas Barisa File sharing is not illegal. Hosting and indexing torrent trackers is not illegal. Calling a fully automated search system 'assisting with a crime' is extremely farfetched, especially when the defendants have never even seen the users that committed the crimes (Who are they anyway? There has to be a crime they were assisting with, right? Why was no one convicted for the crime they supposedly assisted?).
Ok so when the police discover a website linking child **** they are to just leave it because the owners of the site aren't actually making or hosting the movies and pictures? I guess people who are trying to sneak drugs through airports should be let off too because they didn't make it and weren't going to sell it? Ignorance and imcompetence aren't excuses when your website is used to spread copyrighted information around the internet. Being an idiot doesn't allow you to get away with crime, it just makes it easier to catch you.
Originally by: Lomas Barisa But I am not surprised with the verdict now that it has become clear the judge was biased. 
I've heard this before when the people in the wrong have been proven wrong in court. Even when those idiots pushing for ID to be taught in US school were soundly beaten (Bearing in mind the judge was a staunch republican put in that position by George W Bush) supporters of ID claimed that the judge was biased.
I grow weary and intolerant of people who refuse to face and constantly seek to justify their arguements with ever weaker arguements. ----
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams
|

Lomas Barisa
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 14:51:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Onus Mian Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that this site was supposed to be seen as a haven for the distribution of illegal files. The word Pirate has well known connotations relating to illegal activity of any kind and clearly by adding bay they were identifying themselves as haven for such activities. Its no coincidence that they called illegally copied media pirated.
Nice strawman you have there. In the common world: pirate + bay + ship = 'buccaneer', not 'copyright infringement'.
Originally by: Onus Mian Ok so when the police discover a website linking child **** they are to just leave it because the owners of the site aren't actually making or hosting the movies and pictures? I guess people who are trying to sneak drugs through airports should be let off too because they didn't make it and weren't going to sell it? Ignorance and imcompetence aren't excuses when your website is used to spread copyrighted information around the internet. Being an idiot doesn't allow you to get away with crime, it just makes it easier to catch you.
Your child **** analogy fails, because a link on a website is not inherently illegal no matter what it links too. Especially not if the users of the website created the link instead of the owners.
Your drug/airport analogy fails because possession of drugs is illegal and smuggling is illegal too. We are talking about the airport (TPB website), not the travelers (TPB users).
Originally by: Onus Mian I've heard this before when the people in the wrong have been proven wrong in court. Even when those idiots pushing for ID to be taught in US school were soundly beaten (Bearing in mind the judge was a staunch republican put in that position by George W Bush) supporters of ID claimed that the judge was biased.
Oh, I am sure. I found the verdict surprising for such a farfetched accusation, but now the judges neutrality has been called in question not so much. We'll see if this leads to a retrial though. Even though we're on opposite sides, you've got to be in favour of a fair trial.
Originally by: Onus Mian
I grow weary and intolerant of people who refuse to face and constantly seek to justify their arguements with ever weaker arguements.
Talking about weak arguments, we've got to stop establishing intent from ambiguous wording and equating the maintenance of a website with assisting in a crime that has never gone to court in the first place.
|

Onus Mian
Amarr Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 15:06:00 -
[187]
I give up. If you can't see that what TPB was doing was wrong then you have a deeply skewed sense of right and wrong which is impervious to common sense. Those making files which freely available who had no right to do so are in the wrong and TPB which was directly supporting the distribution of these files was also in the wrong.
I can only assume that those like you who are still defending TPB are people who make use of this service and prefer to steal rather than pay for right to listen, watch or use these files. Seems to me that basic moral standards are almost non-existanct in the general populace and instead they prefer to divert attention from their lack of moral standards by blaming ambiguity and loopholes in the law that allowed them to get away with it. Reminds me of those ministers in the UK who have been making excessive and innapropriate expenses claims (and in at least one case have deliberately profited from renting out a second home paid for by the tax payer) and don't see that they have done anything wrong because the rules don't explicitly forbid such beheaviour.
A decent person would know that it is wrong to claim such expenses. A decent person would know that sites like TPB are in wrong and those hosting files that are linked to the TPB are also in the wrong. While its generally considered poor form to attack an invidual personally when discussing things in some cases its entirely appropriate when the opposition displays a clear lacking of moral integrety. ----
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams
|

Corwain
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 15:29:00 -
[188]
Originally by: masternerdguy
Originally by: Tob Seayours
Originally by: Corwain I was never involved in the debate to begin with. I think both sides are equally tools.
Especially the side which doesn't take any side. Tool.
how do you take a side on this issue?
If you say your anti pirate everyone acts like ur crazy or reactionary.
if you say your for it your a thief :P
Well, yes, that...and also that it's so futile to argue about it that doing so just proves your own stupidity. I never said I didn't have an opinion, I'm just not gonna argue about it when I know I'll only end up frustrated. -- Distortion| Distortion 2 Preview |

nahtoh
Caldari Fleet of the Damned Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 16:07:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Onus Mian
Originally by: Shar LaMayne
Quote:
Again I ask, can any of you pirate bay proponents come up with an argument for downloading software illegally?
Because I want to.
Well all actions have consequences. In the UK at least you can have your internet connection turned off for downloading stuff illegally.
no you can't...or the ISP has no responsblity to do so...other intresting fact, Virgin were trying to get a leagal p2p setup going in partnership with the music companies....which the music comoines killed.
Oh Yeah and teh judge on the case in sweden is a mbr of a lobbying group for stricter IP laws, not going to help much when it gets nailed for a mistrial now is it? ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |

Onus Mian
Amarr Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 16:20:00 -
[190]
Originally by: nahtoh
Originally by: Onus Mian
Originally by: Shar LaMayne
Quote:
Again I ask, can any of you pirate bay proponents come up with an argument for downloading software illegally?
Because I want to.
Well all actions have consequences. In the UK at least you can have your internet connection turned off for downloading stuff illegally.
no you can't...or the ISP has no responsblity to do so...other intresting fact, Virgin were trying to get a leagal p2p setup going in partnership with the music companies....which the music comoines killed.
Oh Yeah and teh judge on the case in sweden is a mbr of a lobbying group for stricter IP laws, not going to help much when it gets nailed for a mistrial now is it?
I read it on the BBC website a while a go and can't find anything else about it at the moment apart from that they tried to put a similar thing through in France but it ended up not being made to law for some reason. The ISP wouldn't have any say in the matter and it would be the government turning off your internet connection so no doubt you'd still be expected to pay your ISP for an internet connection you aren't able to use. Sounds good to me 
If the music industry doesn't like the idea ofa P2P sharing system (Which you can't exactly blame them for disliking considering its previous experiences with them) then thats up to them. I really don't see whats so hard about going to the shops or ordering albums online?
As for the judge everyone has their stances on issues and I don't see any problem with them being a supporter for stricter IP laws if they are still doing their job properly. ----
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams
|
|

Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 19:59:00 -
[191]
Originally by: EFT Warrior So apparently the defendants are going for a retrial/mistrial because the judge has been accused of bias, as he is a member of pro-copyright groups - specifically he is a member of the SFU (Swedish Association of Copyright) and a board member of the SFIR, basically a lobby group for stronger copyright laws.
Quoting myself here:
Originally by: Abrazzar Court got paid off. The verdict was already written at the beginning of the case, that's why no one of the companies made any effort in arguing their case. This is a farce.
This whole industry is about the last to whine about immoral behavior.
-------- Ideas for: Mining
|

masternerdguy
Gallente Point of No Return Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 22:41:00 -
[192]
A RETRIAL WONT MAKE A DIFFERENCE
|

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 23:28:00 -
[193]
I just upgraded to a new ISP that have said they will not turn over any IPs to the police or anyone else as they simply won't save them.
Keep on plucking in the free world.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 23:33:00 -
[194]
Originally by: masternerdguy A RETRIAL WONT MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Yeah. The next judge will get paid off too. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

masternerdguy
Gallente Point of No Return Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 23:35:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus I just upgraded to a new ISP that have said they will not turn over any IPs to the police or anyone else as they simply won't save them.
Keep on plucking in the free world.
wtf kind of isp doesnt have to turn data to the police? 
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 23:41:00 -
[196]
Originally by: masternerdguy
Originally by: Danton Marcellus I just upgraded to a new ISP that have said they will not turn over any IPs to the police or anyone else as they simply won't save them.
Keep on plucking in the free world.
wtf kind of isp doesnt have to turn data to the police? 
One that has user privacy protection?
Either that or any ISP outside the UK and possibly US. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 23:56:00 -
[197]
Edited by: Danton Marcellus on 23/04/2009 23:58:11
Originally by: masternerdguy
Originally by: Danton Marcellus I just upgraded to a new ISP that have said they will not turn over any IPs to the police or anyone else as they simply won't save them.
Keep on plucking in the free world.
wtf kind of isp doesnt have to turn data to the police? 
Bahnhof
Link from that site
So far they've said they won't save IP records but that may all change, consider it a last stand before the internet truly become domesticated, farmland, what have you bland electronical landscape of marketing info collection and opinion registration.
You might need some translation but the ISP via their associates cites paragraphs from the UNs article on human rights.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |

nahtoh
Caldari Fleet of the Damned Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 03:07:00 -
[198]
Originally by: Onus Mian
I read it on the BBC website a while a go and can't find anything else about it at the moment apart from that they tried to put a similar thing through in France but it ended up not being made to law for some reason. The ISP wouldn't have any say in the matter and it would be the government turning off your internet connection.
If the music industry doesn't like the idea ofa P2P sharing system (Which you can't exactly blame them for disliking considering its previous experiences with them) then thats up to them.
They tried to get a 3 strikes setup going but failed, thats the reason you fialed to find anything else about it.Actually I can blame them for killing the virgin p2p setup, quite happly blame em. Legal substitute that could recover/mitigate whatever loses they actually suffering (and I don't think that download=lost sale balls they try to sell). Actually you did not read much about the UK 3 strikes as the government would have had nothing to do with it, all it would have taken was 3 totaly unsupported and unproven accusations from the music companies attack lawyers...
========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |

Lomas Barisa
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 06:50:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Onus Mian I give up. If you can't see that what TPB was doing was wrong then you have a deeply skewed sense of right and wrong which is impervious to common sense. [...] A decent person would know that sites like TPB are in wrong and those hosting files that are linked to the TPB are also in the wrong.
(emphasis mine)
You mean sites like Google? That is a site that links to the Pirate Bay and also indexes torrent trackers. The Pirate Bay is specialized in torrent trackers, while Google is more general, but in principle they are doing the same thing. Is Google wrong? Are they assisting too? Why aren't they being prosecuted?
To make my morals clear: I am against copyright infringement. Infringers should be punished. This case had **** all to do with that. It's a farce and sets a stupid precedent. The prosecuters should stop grasping at straws and focus on the real criminals.
|

Tob Seayours
Minmatar Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 08:27:00 -
[200]
Originally by: Lomas Barisa Google
I know reading is hard and all that, but please don't bring up arguments that already have been met.
|
|

Whotan
Gallente Sci-Tec
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 09:58:00 -
[201]
Sharing is caring. balle |

Lomas Barisa
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 10:21:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Tob Seayours I know reading is hard and all that, but please don't bring up arguments that already have been met.
I know reading is hard and all that, but I've already disputed the 'intent' that was claimed as being the difference between Google and the Pirate Bay.
As for the supposed cooperation from Google, that's a bull**** claim. It's more like the opposite: Google actively caches copyrighted content and they haven't stopped doing that for anybody.
File sharing is not illegal, indexing links and websites is not illegal. And now we can add another one to that list: mocking takedown notices is not illegal either.
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 11:20:00 -
[203]
Edited by: EliteSlave on 24/04/2009 11:21:54
Originally by: Lomas Barisa
Originally by: Tob Seayours I know reading is hard and all that, but please don't bring up arguments that already have been met.
I know reading is hard and all that, but I've already disputed the 'intent' that was claimed as being the difference between Google and the Pirate Bay.
As for the supposed cooperation from Google, that's a bull**** claim. It's more like the opposite: Google actively caches copyrighted content and they haven't stopped doing that for anybody.
File sharing is not illegal, indexing links and websites is not illegal. And now we can add another one to that list: mocking takedown notices is not illegal either.
Wow, you are just ******ed, as for someone Who works for Google, I think i would know what we do here, ie: I deal with the copyright infringement requests pretty much every day, I cant show you the papers as I have NDA's to worry about, but I can tell you that yes we do index some torrents, but if we are notified about it, we do our best to take it out of the search querie,
But as new sites are formed and new sites are indexed they do have a nasty habit of popping back up. And I can tell you that we have been working with the MPAA / RIAA since the TPB verdict has been released to assist them in anyway to protect their intellectual property as best as we can.
See the difference between TPB and Google is that we have the staff to maintain the legality of the search engine, ie: we delete upwards of 20,000 illegal items from the queries everyday ranging from child **** to movies and music. Also, if you goto the TPB site you will see that they didnt go to any length of trying to assist the companies that sued them from Copyright infringement, its funny how people do not understand that if you cooperate just a little, it gets you out of alot of trouble and headache down the road. Instead they tried to taunt the companies and now look at where they are.
|

Lomas Barisa
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 11:55:00 -
[204]
Originally by: EliteSlave Wow, you are just ******ed, as for someone Who works for Google, I think i would know what we do here, ie: I deal with the copyright infringement requests pretty much every day, I cant show you the papers as I have NDA's to worry about, but I can tell you that yes we do index some torrents, but if we are notified about it, we do our best to take it out of the search querie,
But as new sites are formed and new sites are indexed they do have a nasty habit of popping back up. And I can tell you that we have been working with the MPAA / RIAA since the TPB verdict has been released to assist them in anyway to protect their intellectual property as best as we can.
See the difference between TPB and Google is that we have the staff to maintain the legality of the search engine, ie: we delete upwards of 20,000 illegal items from the queries everyday ranging from child **** to movies and music. Also, if you goto the TPB site you will see that they didnt go to any length of trying to assist the companies that sued them from Copyright infringement, its funny how people do not understand that if you cooperate just a little, it gets you out of alot of trouble and headache down the road. Instead they tried to taunt the companies and now look at where they are.
Thanks to someone from Google to pretty much confirm what I have just said. By caching copyrighted content their search engine violates copyrights left and right. No wonder they have to cooperate to with copyright holders. They are not only assisting with copyright violations, they are doing it themselves.
Thanks for also proving my point about going after the wrong people. Websites and links keep popping up left and right, giving you and other websites a ****load of work 'keeping the search engine legal'. TPB gave them the finger when they asked them to do the same, and rightly so. You are just fighting symptoms. Go after the infringers instead of ****ing around.
Also, what does MPAA/RIAA have to do with Sweden?
|

Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 12:04:00 -
[205]
Originally by: EliteSlave Wow, you are just ******ed, as for someone Who works for Google
Now i get it. You're ****ting brix that the company you work for might be next in the line of sight for the corporate money cannon. I feel for ya. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 14:22:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Lomas Barisa
Thanks to someone from Google to pretty much confirm what I have just said. By caching copyrighted content their search engine violates copyrights left and right. No wonder they have to cooperate to with copyright holders. They are not only assisting with copyright violations, they are doing it themselves.
Thanks for also proving my point about going after the wrong people. Websites and links keep popping up left and right, giving you and other websites a ****load of work 'keeping the search engine legal'. TPB gave them the finger when they asked them to do the same, and rightly so. You are just fighting symptoms. Go after the infringers instead of ****ing around.
Also, what does MPAA/RIAA have to do with Sweden?
Yes Google does index the sites and torrents, but we are working towards new software that will immediately delete it with out having to manually go into db to delete, ie: if wolverines.divx.mpeg is indexed it is immediately removed from it. the problem we are running into is the fact we dont want to block legitimate searches of wolverine or the likes. But we should be rolling this software out by the end of the fiscal year.
MPAA / RIAA communicate on the behalf of the movie / music producers to the copyright offices of different countries and to the legal authorities / isp companies that are needed to enforce the laws.
Also if you participate in the google links and provide copyrighted materials that you are not authorized to share legal action will be taken.
|

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 14:30:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Onus Mian I give up. If you can't see that what TPB was doing was wrong then you have a deeply skewed sense of right and wrong which is impervious to common sense. Those making files which freely available who had no right to do so are in the wrong and TPB which was directly supporting the distribution of these files was also in the wrong.
I can only assume that those like you who are still defending TPB are people who make use of this service and prefer to steal rather than pay for right to listen, watch or use these files.
What place is there for the traditional extraction of royalties in a world where any kind of information can be copied flawlessly by anyone? Of course people are going to take advantage of these capabilities; DRM doesn't work and is often highly counter-productive. Most old copyright laws depend on a significant economic barrier to entry in order for them to remain widely enforceable. Now that that barrier is gone, we should reconsider what is practical. A law that cannot be evenly enforced makes a mockery of the whole system and creates martyrs; the resulting popular cause then starts to attract political support.
We've already seen a great deal of change brought about by the rise of PCs and the internet - witness the rapid uptake of digital cameras (in just a few years, after film had been around for over a century), and the slow but steady decline of TV and newspapers, for example. Comparisons can be drawn with the invention of the printing press- it ultimately led to widespread social upheaval. This is just another step along the way towards whatever will eventually be left standing.
I am prepared to accept that any work I publish, if it proves popular, may rapidly become freely available to anyone. For many upcoming artists, this is preferable to trying to achieve publicity via traditional means, as it costs very little and doesn't involve signing restrictive contracts at an early stage. If this is at the expense of those made rich by the old system, so be it. Everyone else is better off.
In short, I hold that what constitutes right and wrong depends very much on whatever views prevail among society. Technology rapidly changes the way we live, and as a result, whatever views were normal a decade or even a year ago may very quickly disappear. Our laws, and our sense of right and wrong, should reflect this, and this is already beginning to happen. In the UK, for example, the law governing radio broadcasts was recently changed, because it was unnecessarily criminalising thousands of people who were using a gadget that enabled them to play their ipods through their car radios. --- 20:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |

Onus Mian
Amarr Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 14:45:00 -
[208]
Edited by: Onus Mian on 24/04/2009 14:45:38 Stupid forum messed up my reply... ----
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams
|

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 15:39:00 -
[209]
I suppose this comes down to a number of more fundamental questions: should society shape itself to a form prescribed by the law, or should the law be adapted to match the society it protects? I believe the latter is more appropriate. What is wrong at one time is not necessarily wrong forever.
As for feeling guilt; well, TPB demonstrates that once a work has been created, it can be reproduced and distributed at (or near) zero cost to the creator. Why then pay for a copy, if providing the copy costs virtually nothing, once the original has been made? By all means let its creators be paid at source - be it for a printed copy of a book, a CD, for entry to a showing of a film in a cinema, or a live concert- as long as some tangible, costly product or service is being provided.
--- 20:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |

Onus Mian
Amarr Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 16:10:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro I suppose this comes down to a number of more fundamental questions: should society shape itself to a form prescribed by the law, or should the law be adapted to match the society it protects? I believe the latter is more appropriate. What is wrong at one time is not necessarily wrong forever.
Of course that is true but its not a reason to allow basic morals to be eroded. Society needs to progress but that doesn't mean throwing away reasonable laws with a moral basis.
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro As for feeling guilt; well, TPB demonstrates that once a work has been created, it can be reproduced and distributed at (or near) zero cost to the creator. Why then pay for a copy, if providing the copy costs virtually nothing, once the original has been made? By all means let its creators be paid at source - be it for a printed copy of a book, a CD, for entry to a showing of a film in a cinema, or a live concert- as long as some tangible, costly product or service is being provided.
Problem with that is even letting the creator be payed at the source doesn't stop people getting hold of a copy of the product free. You just need one person to pay for it and then make it freely available for the rest of the internet. I think most artists prefer the current system where they get paid large amounts of money by publishers and record labels (Or whatever else you want) who then market this product and make a profit themselves from the sales.
These companies also have the money to afford court costs which I imagine an independ artist would struggle to raise when people only ever buy their songs once and then spread them over the internet. ----
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams
|
|

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 16:50:00 -
[211]
Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 24/04/2009 16:54:27 I see nothing wrong with copies or recordings of performances being distributed in this way - it's still not the same as being there, live, or owning something that actually cost someone else money to produce and distribute. There are still markets for such things, and people should focus their efforts there instead of trying to earn revenue from digital copies.
Besides, a large part of the revenue from the sale of a copy probably wouldn't even go the creator - it would go to an unnecessary third party distributor. Yes, this means the demise of part of an industry, and I don't expect those people to be in favour.
--- 20:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |

EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 17:03:00 -
[212]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 24/04/2009 16:54:27 I see nothing wrong with copies or recordings of performances being distributed in this way - it's still not the same as being there, live, or owning something that actually cost someone else money to produce and distribute. There are still markets for such things, and people should focus their efforts there instead of trying to earn revenue from digital copies.
Besides, a large part of the revenue from the sale of a copy probably wouldn't even go the creator - it would go to an unnecessary third party distributor. Yes, this means the demise of part of an industry, and I don't expect those people to be in favour.
Wow you should be banned from the internet, Thats like saying Eve shouldnt be paid for, since its on the internet it should be free.
|

Onus Mian
Amarr Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 17:11:00 -
[213]
Edited by: Onus Mian on 24/04/2009 17:17:36 Edited by: Onus Mian on 24/04/2009 17:16:49
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 24/04/2009 16:54:27 I see nothing wrong with copies or recordings of performances being distributed in this way - it's still not the same as being there, live, or owning something that actually cost someone else money to produce and distribute. There are still markets for such things, and people should focus their efforts there instead of trying to earn revenue from digital copies.
It is the same because you don't have the right to own a copy regardless of the storage medium. Bands do tour but they can only be in so many places a year and perhaps they want to live their life a bit rather than performing all the time. Besides there are bands I like which aren't particually good live in comparison to digital recordings.
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Besides, a large part of the revenue from the sale of a copy probably wouldn't even go the creator - it would go to an unnecessary third party distributor. Yes, this means the demise of part of an industry, and I don't expect those people to be in favour.
The large part goes to these companies because they invest huge amounts to begin with. The creator also makes a nice amount of money too. In the system you propose the creator makes pretty much no money in return for their product no matter how wide spread and popular it becomes. That alone will kill the music industry since bands wouldn't be able to support themselves through their music unless they want to spend their lives on the road and I can tell you from personal experience that having a job which involves living out a bag is no fun. You can say goodbye to films that cost a lot of produce because they won't have the funds to even begin making them since they will only ever sell one copy.
Basically wanting things for free will kill the industry and remove the incentive for artists to make a living from their work. Most the people I know in bands are looking to get a record deal because they know thats the only way they are going to make a proper living from what they do. ----
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? - Douglas Adams
|

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 20:29:00 -
[214]
Originally by: EliteSlave Wow you should be banned from the internet, Thats like saying Eve shouldnt be paid for, since its on the internet it should be free.
No, because an EVE subscription is a service. It costs CCP money to run the servers and pay their employees, and that's something that's worth paying for. A copy of the software that runs the cluster would be useless to me; I wouldn't want the hassle of running it myself or trying to build up a userbase to interact with. --- 20:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 21:05:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Onus Mian
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro I see nothing wrong with copies or recordings of performances being distributed in this way - it's still not the same as being there, live, or owning something that actually cost someone else money to produce and distribute. There are still markets for such things, and people should focus their efforts there instead of trying to earn revenue from digital copies.
It is the same because you don't have the right to own a copy regardless of the storage medium.
I'm talking about the experience, not the legal point of view. Of course I acknowledge that copyright infringement is illegal.
Quote: Bands do tour but they can only be in so many places a year and perhaps they want to live their life a bit rather than performing all the time. Besides there are bands I like which aren't particually good live in comparison to digital recordings.
If you like their music and are prepared to pay for it, no-one will stop you. If the money they make is enough for them to live off, good for them. If not, where's the harm? Most people need to work full-time to earn a living. Why should musicians (or anyone else) get special treatment?
Quote: The large part goes to these companies because they invest huge amounts to begin with. The creator also makes a nice amount of money too. In the system you propose the creator makes pretty much no money in return for their product no matter how wide spread and popular it becomes.
It wasn't my idea. It just seems to be how things are turning out. Besides, doesn't the current situation seem rather circular? Should we keep paying publishers lots of money so they can keep investing lots of money in redundant distribution to enable us to pay them even more money? Traditional publishers are becoming unnecessary from the consumer's point of view, and it seems inevitable that market forces will gradually cut them out of the loop.
Quote: You can say goodbye to films that cost a lot of produce because they won't have the funds to even begin making them since they will only ever sell one copy.
Most, if not all, of the studios that would want to do this already have a large amount of money. These films still have the potential to gross tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office alone. If the studios insist on producing a steady stream of unpopular or poor quality films that can't turn a profit, what right do they have to exist?
Quote: Basically wanting things for free will kill the industry and remove the incentive for artists to make a living from their work. Most the people I know in bands are looking to get a record deal because they know thats the only way they are going to make a proper living from what they do.
I speculate that the people who will be left will be those who are motivated more by art than money. If they can adapt and take advantage of the way things are changing, they'll do better in the long term, but for people who cling to the way things have been, the future probably will be rather bleak. --- 20:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 21:48:00 -
[216]
There's much talk about how filesharing harms the industry, music and movies. How about putting some pressure on China to own up and put a damper on their huge pirating market? You can't do that, the pirating market is too important in their economy and their economy is too important to this global economy fiasco. Instead what we have is western nations paying lipservice while China and much of the third world pays jack all.
My beef with recording industry is; they said the price on CDs would come down once established as a media, it never did. They said the CD was almost indestructible, stop laughing, they did. A scratch on vinyl you could live with, hell it even improved some tunes, one scratch on a CD and the whole thing could be ruined and they scratch easy. They continue to push crap artists with little to no substance and pay them silly amount of money and expect me to pick up the check when paying for my genre that is all about the music and less about the ice and Christal, **** no!
Going after Pirate Bay and convicting them opens up a whole new can of worms, what about eBay? Surely they should be held accountable for all the stolen items that are traded on their site, we all know it's there, some items are even blatantly obvious.
This concludes my evening rant.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 22:26:00 -
[217]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus A scratch on vinyl you could live with, hell it even improved some tunes, one scratch on a CD and the whole thing could be ruined and they scratch easy.
And yet the error-correcting codes on most music CDs are such that you can drill a small hole in one and it'll usually still work without any perceptible difference. It's just a shame that this isn't typical wear  --- 20:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |