• 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

Originally by: ReaperOfSly

---

So the big faceless corporations won despite having a case with more holes in it than a colander. Fan-bloody-tastic.

---

Quote:

---

All four defendants were accused of æassisting in making copyright content availableÆ

---

Originally by: EliteSlave

---

serves them right for doing illegal activities

---

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...

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: EliteSlave

---

If you dont have the support staff to operate the site, then that is Negligence.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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...

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Abrazzar

---

And you should be put into jail for linking this on a public forum. Just following your logic.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: masternerdguy

---

Officer mods arent spread out because the bpos are innacesible to 99% of eve.

---

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

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

Originally by: Amoxin

---

My vent is talking to me in a devil voice...

---

Originally by: Corwain

---

Edited by: Corwain on 17/04/2009 20:41:49
How creativity is being strangled by the law

---

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.

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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".

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: EliteSlave

---

Actually the screens that i provided were no user provided input, just clicked on top 100 and on movies or software.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Revonanist

---

I am a little behind the times, but I think the 'music industry' needs to be killed.

---

Originally by: Corwain

---

Edited by: Corwain on 17/04/2009 20:41:49
How creativity is being strangled by the law

---

Originally by: Revonanist

---

"Home taping is killing music!"

---

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.

---

Originally by: mama guru

---

All you "It's a crime" folks might wanna do some research on Swedish law.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Corwain

---

Edited by: Corwain on 17/04/2009 20:41:49
How creativity is being strangled by the law

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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!

---

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.

---

Originally by: EliteSlave

---

Can you come up with atleast one decent argument that supports TPB?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

• 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).
  

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).

---

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.

---

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

---

Originally by: Tobias Sjodin

---

You didn't watch 11:50 and forward, did you?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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]

---

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.

---

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).
  

---

• 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.
  [*]
  

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.

---

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

---

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?

---

Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro

---

Google is one step further removed- it doesn't host the torrent files.

---

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?

---

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.

---

Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro

---

Related, interesting article.

---

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).

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?.

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: FOl2TY8

---

*Cough*

---

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

---

Originally by: Blane Xero

---

words

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: masternerdguy

---

copyright infringement is a criminal offense in usa.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: masternerdguy

---

copyright infringement is a criminal offense in usa.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Again I ask, can any of you pirate bay proponents come up with an argument for downloading software illegally?

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Doctor Penguin

---

And, once again, TPB cannot be blamed for crimes that were committed thanks to impartial facilities it supplies.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

Quote:

---

the council that builds a park is guilty of selling drugs if a drug dealer sells stuff there.

---

Originally by: Puupuu

---

dude... your face...

---

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.

---

Originally by: Puupuu

---

dude... your face...

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Corwain

---

I was never involved in the debate to begin with. I think both sides are equally tools.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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****.

---

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?).

---

Originally by: Lomas Barisa

---

But I am not surprised with the verdict now that it has become clear the judge was biased.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---