Originally by: Roguehalo

---

Can you nano Titans?

---

Originally by: Xelios

---

If he'd been a member of the Pirate Party and found TPB not guilty you can bet the MAFIAA would have been all over him and declared it a mistrial.

---

Originally by: Onus Mian

---

The difference is TPB was in the wrong and the judge's stance of this issue is one which more acturately represents what is morally and legally acceptable. You may as well complain that a judge are too harsh on rapists just because the judge supports a **** victim support group.

---

Originally by: Karma

---

Originally by: Onus Mian

---

The difference is TPB was in the wrong and the judge's stance of this issue is one which more acturately represents what is morally and legally acceptable. You may as well complain that a judge are too harsh on rapists just because the judge supports a **** victim support group.

---

enable sharing of music and film on the internet: 30,000,000SEK in damages.
kill someone's child: 100,000SEK in damages.
fair and balanced? morally and legally acceptable?

and besides... he was a member of a group that lobbied for stricter punishment for copyright crimes!. being apart of that group means he *wanted* stricter punishment too. you cannot say that he was unbiased.

---

Originally by: Onus Mian

---

Edited by: Onus Mian on 27/04/2009 07:10:21

Originally by: Xelios

---

If he'd been a member of the Pirate Party and found TPB not guilty you can bet the MAFIAA would have been all over him and declared it a mistrial.

---

The difference is TPB was in the wrong and the judge's stance of this issue is one which more acturately represents what is morally and legally acceptable. You may as well complain that a judge are too harsh on rapists just because the judge supports a **** victim support group.

---

Originally by: Onus Mian

---

Originally by: Karma

---

Originally by: Onus Mian

---

The difference is TPB was in the wrong and the judge's stance of this issue is one which more acturately represents what is morally and legally acceptable. You may as well complain that a judge are too harsh on rapists just because the judge supports a **** victim support group.

---

enable sharing of music and film on the internet: 30,000,000SEK in damages.
kill someone's child: 100,000SEK in damages.
fair and balanced? morally and legally acceptable?

and besides... he was a member of a group that lobbied for stricter punishment for copyright crimes!. being apart of that group means he *wanted* stricter punishment too. you cannot say that he was unbiased.

---

The problem with that comparison is that firsty its very difficult to work out the value of a human life...

---

Originally by: Onus Mian

---

Originally by: Karma

---

The problem with that comparison is that firsty its very difficult to work out the value of a human life and secondly TPB didn't just help distribute one copy of each product. The amount they were fined was partially reflective of loss of earning and partially a severe slap on the wrist to discourage them and others of taking part in such activities. Seeme morally and legally acceptable to me to give out such a punishment for what TPB did. As for how much you should pay out for killing someones child that has nothing to do with this and as I've already said its a difficult thing to quantify.

There is nothing wrong with a judge wanting stricter punishments for those that act immorally. No doubt if he had judged TPB innocent you would be singing his praises so really this is just about your personal view on the matter and nothing to do with what is right or wrong. When the law is moving towards a more morally acceptable stance that can only be a good thing.

---

Seek help? And its claimed damages not proven damages...they are handing out worse punishments for IP infringment than for violent crime sometimes FFS. They are missusing laws that were originally designed for massive industrial infringemnt against privite citizens. TBFH the music compinies should be nailed to a wall for restrictive practives and price fixing.

They claim massive losses while their profits are still rising. They are going after peopleon hearsay testimony and quite posssably breaking the law against demanding money with menises, wanting the law changed to make civil offense into criminal ones. Wanting to extend copyright to insane lvls. They need to slapped down and slapped down ****ing hard.
=========
"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

Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker

---

Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!

---

Originally by: Blane Xero

---

Morality has nothing to do with it.

---

Originally by: Blane Xero

---

The judge was supposed to be unbiased and hear both sides of the case. Having the attachments he has, not only to Copyright enforcement, but to the prosecutions lawyers (Or one of them, at least) puts him in a direct position where he cannot be unbiased.

---

Quote:

---

Onius, you argue "What they did was against the law" and then i'll argue "The only people breaking the law are those who do not have a right to own the file". Owning a digital backup of something you already have is a right in several countries, But if you want to completely remove a perfectly viable form of sharing completely legal files, that is entirely your opinion. Do not kid yourself, this is NOT a war on piracy, its a war on the free exchange of information, whether it be digital or not. It won't stop with TPB, Mininova, Mightynova, Demonoid, or any other torrent site, It will not stop at torrents (And i'm surprised it started with torrents, just look at rapidfail, Megaupstink etc), it will only stop when the industry realises that people who torrent were either already buying their product, or they never intended to. Removing the torrents affects nothing, it will not force more profit their way. It will not stop the industry from "dying".

---

Originally by: Blane Xero

---

In short; The judge acted in his own interests, which he specifically removed one of the lay judges because they might do the same. Yet he had more vested interest and stayed on.

---

Originally by: Xen Gin

---

The thing is if he had been member of a lobby group that called for looser copyright laws and punishments, and found in favour of TPB, the other side would be having the same ****storm.

---

Originally by: Onus Mian

---

Originally by: Xen Gin

---

The thing is if he had been member of a lobby group that called for looser copyright laws and punishments, and found in favour of TPB, the other side would be having the same ****storm.

---

That is true. I guess I'm just in favour or judges with a bias towards whats morally acceptable.

---

Originally by: Xen Gin

---

Originally by: Onus Mian

---

Originally by: Xen Gin

---

The thing is if he had been member of a lobby group that called for looser copyright laws and punishments, and found in favour of TPB, the other side would be having the same ****storm.

---

That is true. I guess I'm just in favour or judges with a bias towards whats morally acceptable.

---

I don't think it's either moral or non-moral to have an opinion on Copyright laws, since Copyright is an abstract, it doesn't really interfere with people, because you could easily have a world without Copyright laws, and people would still be designing, creating and publishing ideas and 'IP'.

---

Originally by: Onus Mian

---

Edited by: Onus Mian on 28/04/2009 14:12:54

Originally by: Xen Gin

---

Originally by: Onus Mian

---

Originally by: Xen Gin

---

The thing is if he had been member of a lobby group that called for looser copyright laws and punishments, and found in favour of TPB, the other side would be having the same ****storm.

---

That is true. I guess I'm just in favour or judges with a bias towards whats morally acceptable.

---

I don't think it's either moral or non-moral to have an opinion on Copyright laws, since Copyright is an abstract, it doesn't really interfere with people, because you could easily have a world without Copyright laws, and people would still be designing, creating and publishing ideas and 'IP'.

---

Without copyright laws to protect IP there wouldn't be the financial incentive to carry out such work. We're not just talking about movies and songs here either. It has impacts on the development of technology because nobody is going to invest money into developing technologies without some kind of return.

---

Quote:

---

Well, there's no financial interest to climb mount Everest, but people still do it. Really the greatest incentive there really is, should be the better of man kind and our world. This is why everyday, many people like scientists, go to work, trying to bring new ways to help us all, and they are on crappy salaries.

---

Quote:

---

And remember, Open Source is funded not from selling the product, but giving it away and providing a support service, so it really could work without Copyright laws.

I'm not saying it's the only way to go.

---

Originally by: Onus Mian

---

Are you saying that morality has no place in law making?

No, I'm saying it has nothing to do with enforcement of law, both current and possable future laws.

I can see where you are coming from but unless you can prove that he allowed his personal opinion to affect his decision it doesn't amount to much legally.

Given the "evidence" (Or lack thereof) that was used against TPB, And the fact the judge was ALSO involved in the ground case that got this one where it is (From what i've read into on this), i would say that is enough to remove any doubt that his personal opinion is getting in the way. What other reason is there for staying on? He could have easily sat down and avoided this whole Sh*tstorm, The only REAL reasons are that he's either being paid off, has a personal interest in the case, or the far out one is "he wants to be part of history"


There is a difference between owning a digital backup and making that backup available others. The bottom line is when you purchase a product for personal use you do not have the right to distribute that product to others free or otherwise. You seem to think that its ok to steal because you would never have got yourself a copy if you had to pay. Its like saying its okay to steal things from shops because you would never have taken those items if you would have had to purchase them. I know you seem to think that there is some kind of difference between a physical and digital products but ultimately they still exist as a product regardless of the medium they appear in. Stealing one car is no different to stealing one song.

Then in this case it is those who seed the illegal files that are breaking the law, not TPB, wouldn't you say?. Also, the difference between digital and physical copies is that Physical has labour costs, It involves time and money to create. It costs to redistribute and has physical / material value. Digital does not. When you download a file from the internet, you are not taking something from someone who paid for it and now they cannot use it or sell it. The difference between two copies of the same item in digital and physical is apparently nil to you, whereas that is not true. There is a difference, beyond a certain limit it does not COST them to recreate and redistribute a second copy of a file digitally. Physical items have a "per unit" cost. Digital does not, and if the distributor is smart, they can easily cut down 90% of "production" costs. Yet the prices always remain identical to physical copies, Oh woe is me.

If you didn't really want the item then why did you download it? It seems strange behaviour to me to go around downloading stuff that you have no interest in owning.

You did not "get" where i was coming from. People who torrent a file either; Do so to see if it is worth buying. If not it will get deleted, if yes, More money to the producers OR; They would never buy it even if they had to because of one of numerous reasons; Simply supply issues or even due to the cost of the product, hell even just out of their OWN moral obligations. (People can be funny at times). When someone downloads a a file, they may be cheating the producers out of "potential money". But as soon as you realise that the money would not be reaching them even if torrents did not exist, the point is moot. (And i'm sure you'll argue this to your grave)

---

Quote:

---

Quick Analogy

TPB is a Gunstore; Both provide a service that can be missused. the Torrentors are the people buying the guns, Both have potential for mis-using the "service" and breaking the law because of it.

If, suddenly, loads of people who can legally buy guns, decided to do so and go on a massacre (essentially what you say torrent users have done recently), Is the gun store at fault?.

Feel free to pick that analogy apart. Though i'm sure you'll play the morality card (Again)

PS. Sorry if this is hard to read.

---

Originally by: Onus Mian

---

Edited by: Onus Mian on 28/04/2009 16:13:25

Quote:

---

Quick Analogy

TPB is a Gunstore; Both provide a service that can be missused. the Torrentors are the people buying the guns, Both have potential for mis-using the "service" and breaking the law because of it.

If, suddenly, loads of people who can legally buy guns, decided to do so and go on a massacre (essentially what you say torrent users have done recently), Is the gun store at fault?.

Feel free to pick that analogy apart. Though i'm sure you'll play the morality card (Again)

PS. Sorry if this is hard to read.

---

Your analogy fails and I'll pick it apart because of that. A gun store which sells guns legally and then has its guns used in a crime isn't guilty of any crime. Of course when this happens it immediately raises questions of why it was so easy for people to obtain weapons which they then used to commit a massacre. Any sane society would then impliment laws that make it much more difficult for people liable to cause harm to get hold of such weapons. TPB was facilitating the distrubution of copyrighed files and was fully aware of this given that numerous companies wrote letters to it demanding that they stop doing it. Given that for years there has been a warning which pops up at the begining of movies and is written on cd and dvd boxes that these products are copyrighted and only for personal use those who host these files knew they were breaking copyright. Those that downloaded these also know they are breaking copyright. TPB, file hosters and file downloaders were all complicit in this breach of copyright.

Of course he has a personal interest in this case but does that automatically mean he ignored the evidence? As for TPB the were facilitating the distribution of copyrighted materials. You can't claim ignorance and incompetence as an excuse for this. If you run a website you are responsible for its content and especially so if you are using it to advertise where people can download data which may be copyrighted.

It doesn't matter if the costs of copying a file are minimal because they still own the product and you have to pay for the right to own a copy. How much do you think it costs to create an album or film and market it? The cost of the product reflects that investment which is something that you and other seems unwilling to even consider. Buying stuff in a pure digitical form should be cheaper because of the reduced production costs but in place of those you instead of that you have the costs of running an online store and the associated staff. Its cheaper for the company but does not remove all running costs.

I don't agree with the idea that people only download stuff to see if they like it before they purchase it given the number of people I know who have downloaded thousands of songs, movies and programmes which they use on a regular basis and have no intention or purchasing. I knew people at uni who had to buy external hardrives because they could no longer fit all their downloaded stuff on their already huge internal hardrives. I refuse to accept that its ok to steal because you wouldn't have tried to obtain a copy if it meant paying.

Why is it so hard to understand what copyright means? Please put on a DVD or something (Assuming you own one and haven't downloaded all your movies from torrents) and read the warning that comes up explaining what you are entitled to do with your copy of this movie. Once you've done that see if its compatable with copying it to a computer and hosting it for everyone on the internet to download.

EDIT

This isn't going to go anywhere because we have opposing views on the ownership of intellectual property.

---

Originally by: Xen Gin

---

Originally by: Onus Mian

---

Edited by: Onus Mian on 28/04/2009 16:13:25

Quote:

---

Quick Analogy

TPB is a Gunstore; Both provide a service that can be missused. the Torrentors are the people buying the guns, Both have potential for mis-using the "service" and breaking the law because of it.

If, suddenly, loads of people who can legally buy guns, decided to do so and go on a massacre (essentially what you say torrent users have done recently), Is the gun store at fault?.

Feel free to pick that analogy apart. Though i'm sure you'll play the morality card (Again)

PS. Sorry if this is hard to read.

---

Your analogy fails and I'll pick it apart because of that. A gun store which sells guns legally and then has its guns used in a crime isn't guilty of any crime. Of course when this happens it immediately raises questions of why it was so easy for people to obtain weapons which they then used to commit a massacre. Any sane society would then impliment laws that make it much more difficult for people liable to cause harm to get hold of such weapons. TPB was facilitating the distrubution of copyrighed files and was fully aware of this given that numerous companies wrote letters to it demanding that they stop doing it. Given that for years there has been a warning which pops up at the begining of movies and is written on cd and dvd boxes that these products are copyrighted and only for personal use those who host these files knew they were breaking copyright. Those that downloaded these also know they are breaking copyright. TPB, file hosters and file downloaders were all complicit in this breach of copyright.

Of course he has a personal interest in this case but does that automatically mean he ignored the evidence? As for TPB the were facilitating the distribution of copyrighted materials. You can't claim ignorance and incompetence as an excuse for this. If you run a website you are responsible for its content and especially so if you are using it to advertise where people can download data which may be copyrighted.

It doesn't matter if the costs of copying a file are minimal because they still own the product and you have to pay for the right to own a copy. How much do you think it costs to create an album or film and market it? The cost of the product reflects that investment which is something that you and other seems unwilling to even consider. Buying stuff in a pure digitical form should be cheaper because of the reduced production costs but in place of those you instead of that you have the costs of running an online store and the associated staff. Its cheaper for the company but does not remove all running costs.

I don't agree with the idea that people only download stuff to see if they like it before they purchase it given the number of people I know who have downloaded thousands of songs, movies and programmes which they use on a regular basis and have no intention or purchasing. I knew people at uni who had to buy external hardrives because they could no longer fit all their downloaded stuff on their already huge internal hardrives. I refuse to accept that its ok to steal because you wouldn't have tried to obtain a copy if it meant paying.

Why is it so hard to understand what copyright means? Please put on a DVD or something (Assuming you own one and haven't downloaded all your movies from torrents) and read the warning that comes up explaining what you are entitled to do with your copy of this movie. Once you've done that see if its compatable with copying it to a computer and hosting it for everyone on the internet to download.

EDIT

This isn't going to go anywhere because we have opposing views on the ownership of intellectual property.

---

All I've go to say!

---

Originally by: Onus Mian

---

I have to admit I laughed

---