news.cnet.com— What made the Swedish court in the Pirate Bay copyright infringement case go for guilty? CNET News looks more closely at the verdict to find out.
Apr 21, 2009View in Crawl 4
As much as I really dislike the MPAA, RIAA, and their ilk, this verdict does make sense. The conviction was due to the defendants' engaging in a conspiracy to assist in copyright infringements, even if they were only facilitators. The key is that they knew and stated why they were engaged in running the search and tracker functions, and did have the means to honor "take down notices" and not only failed to do so, but actively thumbed their noses at them.In short, they were convicted for being smug assh**es engaged in criminal behavior for money and politics. Their subsequent behavior has been pretty awful as well - saying "We'll NEVER pay these silly fines" is just begging for a charge of contempt of the court. I can support a lot of their political agenda, as copyright is often abused by large corporations. But I can in no way support flat-out criminal behavior in persuit of those goals.
You got buried for being wrong. Copyright infringement has been illegal in Sweden since 2005. The charges refer to material released (and therefore infringed, with TPB's assistance) AFTER that date. Therefore the activity took place when the laws were in effect.
Keep telling yourself that, which part of copyright you don't understand? If I copy your HDTV and distribute it to millions, you would have no problem with it. But if that HDTV is created by you, then you will lose your opportunity and right to sell it. Don't blame your ill-logic on the poor judge.
@mabsarkAre you that delusional or that stupid?The torrent is just a delivery system. Nobody is arguing the delivery system. We're talking about the data in the torrent you c**k weasel.Is child porn legit simply because nobody owns the IP packet?Is decrypting satellite and cable signals legit because nobody owns the radio waves? Take your head out of your ass.
@allfatherblackallfatherblack so, the simple fact that one album was downloaded it cant be sold to anyone? by that logic, the second an album is downloaded means the album got $0 in sales total... makes perfect sense.
Then what purpose does the sale of a handgun have? When was the last time you knew someone that went deer hunting with a handgun? I totally understand the idea/importance of intent, but sometimes you need to pull your head out of your ass and realize that big business controls the courts. That is why they still allow people to purchase hand and automatic guns and tobacco manufacturers to continue to sell their products. They know that their products are causing general harm, they may not have had the intent, but they knowingly continue to put their products in the marketplace. From my understanding of the article, it isn't really the intent that got them, it was the fact that TPB knew their product was being used for illegal activities and they did not shut it down.
@doctechnical: successful argument of (c) would require there to be successful argument of (b). I.e., there would have to be a legal right somewhere for someone to use a torrent to download the information that was requested be de-listed. That would require precedent, or clear legislative description (or at least less unclear) on fair use, which doesn't exist anywhere of which I am aware. But, if (b) could be made an argument (hey, in this country these guys bought your movie, and have a legal right to transfer it for their own use, and I have no way of knowing that's not what they're doing), and they did de-list things for which no copyright license had ever been granted (leaked movies, etc.), well, they may have had a legal leg to stand on. As it was, the 'you can't hold us liable for helping people do things illegally along with helping other people do things legally' argument obviously didn't fly.
maz2331Apr 22, 2009
As much as I really dislike the MPAA, RIAA, and their ilk, this verdict does make sense. The conviction was due to the defendants' engaging in a conspiracy to assist in copyright infringements, even if they were only facilitators. The key is that they knew and stated why they were engaged in running the search and tracker functions, and did have the means to honor "take down notices" and not only failed to do so, but actively thumbed their noses at them.In short, they were convicted for being smug assh**es engaged in criminal behavior for money and politics. Their subsequent behavior has been pretty awful as well - saying "We'll NEVER pay these silly fines" is just begging for a charge of contempt of the court. I can support a lot of their political agenda, as copyright is often abused by large corporations. But I can in no way support flat-out criminal behavior in persuit of those goals.
covertbadgerApr 22, 2009
You got buried for being wrong. Copyright infringement has been illegal in Sweden since 2005. The charges refer to material released (and therefore infringed, with TPB's assistance) AFTER that date. Therefore the activity took place when the laws were in effect.
Closed AccountApr 22, 2009
Once again, the Pirate Bay guys.
turnuonApr 23, 2009
Keep telling yourself that, which part of copyright you don't understand? If I copy your HDTV and distribute it to millions, you would have no problem with it. But if that HDTV is created by you, then you will lose your opportunity and right to sell it. Don't blame your ill-logic on the poor judge.
drmangrumApr 23, 2009
@mabsarkAre you that delusional or that stupid?The torrent is just a delivery system. Nobody is arguing the delivery system. We're talking about the data in the torrent you c**k weasel.Is child porn legit simply because nobody owns the IP packet?Is decrypting satellite and cable signals legit because nobody owns the radio waves? Take your head out of your ass.
4degreesApr 23, 2009
@allfatherblackallfatherblack so, the simple fact that one album was downloaded it cant be sold to anyone? by that logic, the second an album is downloaded means the album got $0 in sales total... makes perfect sense.
raswan77Apr 25, 2009
Then what purpose does the sale of a handgun have? When was the last time you knew someone that went deer hunting with a handgun? I totally understand the idea/importance of intent, but sometimes you need to pull your head out of your ass and realize that big business controls the courts. That is why they still allow people to purchase hand and automatic guns and tobacco manufacturers to continue to sell their products. They know that their products are causing general harm, they may not have had the intent, but they knowingly continue to put their products in the marketplace. From my understanding of the article, it isn't really the intent that got them, it was the fact that TPB knew their product was being used for illegal activities and they did not shut it down.
njankMay 4, 2009
@doctechnical: successful argument of (c) would require there to be successful argument of (b). I.e., there would have to be a legal right somewhere for someone to use a torrent to download the information that was requested be de-listed. That would require precedent, or clear legislative description (or at least less unclear) on fair use, which doesn't exist anywhere of which I am aware. But, if (b) could be made an argument (hey, in this country these guys bought your movie, and have a legal right to transfer it for their own use, and I have no way of knowing that's not what they're doing), and they did de-list things for which no copyright license had ever been granted (leaked movies, etc.), well, they may have had a legal leg to stand on. As it was, the 'you can't hold us liable for helping people do things illegally along with helping other people do things legally' argument obviously didn't fly.