I am neither an attorney nor sure how this verdict would apply to people who use stolen NCSoft code to run illegal servers. However, the sentencing of four people to prison for knowingly profiting off of copyrighted code, plus the fines of $905,000 each, could be considered to be a clear victory for the software industry against pirates.
Personally, I would be delighted if there were enforcement actions against those who make bot programs, use bot programs, run adena selling sites and buy adena, too. Just my opinion, of course.
I am neither an attorney nor sure how this verdict would apply to people who use stolen NCSoft code to run illegal servers. However, the sentencing of four people to prison for knowingly profiting off of copyrighted code, plus the fines of $905,000 each, could be considered to be a clear victory for the software industry against pirates.
Personally, I would be delighted if there were enforcement actions against those who make bot programs, use bot programs, run adena selling sites and buy adena, too. Just my opinion, of course.
its a victory for a war on theft and fraud, not piracy.
theres a VAST internet underground thriving on the free exchange of data that goes untouched because the people touching these sites are both not paying for the stuff they grab, and are not selling the stuff with any paper trail.
piracy simply involves copying. you take a copy of something that people dont want copied. selling these copies is a matter all in itself.
regardless, we can still get free stuff from youtube; theres no need to torrent music anymore.
given the nature of torrenting in the first place there would only ever once be a charge laid in private server code theft; that of the original thief.
They were only convicted because they don't advertise for these companies that brought up the lawsuit in the first place. You can easily use Google, MSN and Yahoo to find pirated music, software, movies online, it's not just sites like pirate bay.
I am neither an attorney nor sure how this verdict would apply to people who use stolen NCSoft code to run illegal servers. However, the sentencing of four people to prison for knowingly profiting off of copyrighted code, plus the fines of $905,000 each, could be considered to be a clear victory for the software industry against pirates.
Personally, I would be delighted if there were enforcement actions against those who make bot programs, use bot programs, run adena selling sites and buy adena, too. Just my opinion, of course.
Clearly you do not understand the matter in question at all, there is no parallel what-so-ever between the case and the theft of NCSoft's property, as the people in charge of tpb did not steal anything, and that is also why they will appeal and win.
Whereas obviously those who stole from NCSoft were acting illegally.
Basically what this boils down to is a case similar to the one napstor or how ever it is spelled, faced years ago, same concept, file shareing of copyrighted works.
Boiled down to, they were making money by charging fees or whatever, and allowing copyrighted items to be freely shared though there site. Basically all the greedy rock bands that make millions a year wanted a piece of the action.
If these guys can be jailed for providing infrastructure that was then used for the purpose of sharing copyrighted material, youtube, google video etc. should be shut down as well.
Hypocrisy fails.
Youtube provides an infrastructure that people use to share copyrighted materials. Wether you watch it in an embedded application or download it and watch it in winamp/wmp/whatever, it's the exact same thing.
(at the most technical level, it is really the exact same thing, as the flv files on youtube are streamed (downloaded) to your computer as a flash player running on your machine plays it.)
So am I to assume we'll all be boycotting youtube now?
I guess the simply numbers 1 and 0 cannot be copyrighted, meaning TPB shouldn't be closed & the owners jailed for one year, also if showing people where to find copyrighted material is a crime, why isn't google closed? by typing most warez groups names into google you can easily find that many of the links provided by google have .torrents on them, with links to warez.
also The Pirate Bay does not host copyrighted material, it simply hosts .torrent files, that are uploaded by it's community, meaning they are not responsible for anything their users upload, only they have the responsibility to moderate it.
I guess it is because they have had like over 9,000 trials and won them all, appart from this. I think the government / anti-piracy groups have got it in for them.
Basically what this boils down to is a case similar to the one napstor or how ever it is spelled, faced years ago, same concept, file shareing of copyrighted works.
Boiled down to, they were making money by charging fees or whatever, and allowing copyrighted items to be freely shared though there site. Basically all the greedy rock bands that make millions a year wanted a piece of the action.
Basically what it "boils" down to is, you have no idea what you are talking about =P. TPB doesn't charge money for anything. It is a free website where people host .torrent files. Not many musicians are racking in these so called millions either, especially rock bands. Most bands who arn't signed to a major labels are all for illegal downloads of their music.Heck, some bands on major labels are now sharing their music for free like NIN did and a few others. Only people that have problems with it are the ones who get paid for doing nothing, like Metallica.
Basically what it "boils" down to is, you have no idea what you are talking about =P. TPB doesn't charge money for anything. It is a free website where people host .torrent files. Not many musicians are racking in these so called millions either, especially rock bands. Most bands who arn't signed to a major labels are all for illegal downloads of their music.Heck, some bands on major labels are now sharing their music for free like NIN did and a few others. Only people that have problems with it are the ones who get paid for doing nothing, like Metallica.
Perhaps you need to chill the ** out, this form of file sharing has been fought over for the last 10-15 years. Even before torrent came into being.
Napstore was the largest known case where file sharing LOST and was forced to make changes and pay those they supposedly harmed by allowing files to be shared to those that had not orginally paid for those files. Movies, songs and even software that has been shared for many years with the legal owners trying to seek out payments for those has been fought in the courts. Napstor was basically shut down and forced to make drastic changes by the music companies and groups, seeking millions for supposed damages caused by napstor allowing the free exchange of copyrighted songs that the music companies were loosing sales from.
I am not talking about unknown artist, they as you say like there work shared, the main ones countering file sharing are the main known bands and there music companies that sought damages. I suggest you do a search on napstor and its history including the suits that were brought against them to see and understand what i am talking about.
TPB was easy pray for the copywrite companies, they dont have millions of dollars as google or youtube (American companies)!
The American goverment and loobyist have been harazing the Swedish goverment for a long time to "do something about this threat", read TPB. Unfortunatly the Swedish goverment gave way for the USAs threat. This has happend before like CIA operations inside the Swedish border.
What TPB is lacking was a serious case and evidence that filesharing are not hurting the companies in the long run. They were secure that the Swedish court would free them, cause there it is not against any Swedish laws to host torrent files. Also law suits for million of dollars are completely unheard of in Sweden. Girls that gets ***** dont get more than 10000 dollar in compensation, for example.
They were convicted on "hearsay" and very faint evidences, and it is a ruling that will be over ruled to a higher court and probably the case will go on for a few years.
The case would state that companies like Google and Youtube are illegal but because they (after a while, or actively) shuts down "pirazy" links they cant be prosecuted
Perhaps you need to chill the ** out, this form of file sharing has been fought over for the last 10-15 years. Even before torrent came into being.
Napstore was the largest known case where file sharing LOST and was forced to make changes and pay those they supposedly harmed by allowing files to be shared to those that had not orginally paid for those files. Movies, songs and even software that has been shared for many years with the legal owners trying to seek out payments for those has been fought in the courts. Napstor was basically shut down and forced to make drastic changes by the music companies and groups, seeking millions for supposed damages caused by napstor allowing the free exchange of copyrighted songs that the music companies were loosing sales from.
You're wrong. TBP doesn't host any illegal files, they host .torrent files which by themselves are not illegal since they aren't breaching any kind of copyright.
the ones who do something illegal are the ones who do the copying and uploading, but that's not TPB who does that.
they'll appeal and I'm 90% sure they'll win. I don't think there are any country that has laws explicitly forbid websites like that to exist. There are plenty of countries that have laws against the opposite side, the people who upload/download the illegal stuff. But not against the website.
You're wrong. TBP doesn't host any illegal files, they host .torrent files which by themselves are not illegal since they aren't breaching any kind of copyright.
the ones who do something illegal are the ones who do the copying and uploading, but that's not TPB who does that.
they'll appeal and I'm 90% sure they'll win. I don't think there are any country that has laws explicitly forbid websites like that to exist. There are plenty of countries that have laws against the opposite side, the people who upload/download the illegal stuff. But not against the website.
No i am not, its just i have been around the file shareing world alot longer then most of you and realize no matter wether you zip, compress or break up a copyrighted program with another program that re compliles it at a later time the item is still copyrighted material. If you zip a copyrighted item, it is still a copyrighted item, if you break it into pieces with a program that then re compiles it at a later time it is still copyrighted material.
You all are taking the stand i am against file sharing when i am not, been there done that, even before there was an internet, try user groups, before that we shared by direct client to client.
The fact remains no matter wether you are the sharer or the host, wether the shared files are in plain format or broken into bits (meaning multiple parts for easier transfering) or what ever by the current laws you are shareing copyrighted material. Severial different hosting sources that never charged BUT made you share or upload a certain # of files to be able to download any files were deamed as charging also.
The main people that fought this were the film industry and certain rock groups. They not only targeted the hosting groups but tried going after the sharers as well. Both groups stated they were loosing millions a year by the file sharing network globially.
No i am not, its just i have been around the file shareing world alot longer then most of you and realize no matter wether you zip, compress or break up a copyrighted program with another program that re compliles it at a later time the item is still copyrighted material. If you zip a copyrighted item, it is still a copyrighted item, if you break it into pieces with a program that then re compiles it at a later time it is still copyrighted material.
You all are taking the stand i am against file sharing when i am not, been there done that, even before there was an internet, try user groups, before that we shared by direct client to client.
The fact remains no matter wether you are the sharer or the host, wether the shared files are in plain format or broken into bits (meaning multiple parts for easier transfering) or what ever by the current laws you are shareing copyrighted material. Severial different hosting sources that never charged BUT made you share or upload a certain # of files to be able to download any files were deamed as charging also.
The main people that fought this were the film industry and certain rock groups. They not only targeted the hosting groups but tried going after the sharers as well. Both groups stated they were loosing millions a year by the file sharing network globially.
You're right about copyright.
BUT
Nothing you said in this post applies to the website hosting the .torrent files. that website doesn't upload or download any copyrighted material, that is all done directly between clients, the torrent files on their own arne't illegal.
Basically what it "boils" down to is, you have no idea what you are talking about =P. TPB doesn't charge money for anything. It is a free website where people host .torrent files. Not many musicians are racking in these so called millions either, especially rock bands. Most bands who arn't signed to a major labels are all for illegal downloads of their music.Heck, some bands on major labels are now sharing their music for free like NIN did and a few others. Only people that have problems with it are the ones who get paid for doing nothing, like Metallica.
Oh, I am chill. No where in my post was I even close to becoming hostile. Was just pointing out your facts, which happen to be wrong.
Pirate bay didnt do anything more illegal than google or youtube. All they did was to provide a free search engine for torrents. They just got targeted because of their name and reputation and the fact that they weren't a multi million dollar company. The big guns in the movie and music industry wanted them gone, so they spent a large sum of money to "convince" the swedish justice system.
If these guys can be jailed for providing infrastructure that was then used for the purpose of sharing copyrighted material, youtube, google video etc. should be shut down as well.
Hypocrisy fails.
Youtube provides an infrastructure that people use to share copyrighted materials. Wether you watch it in an embedded application or download it and watch it in winamp/wmp/whatever, it's the exact same thing.
(at the most technical level, it is really the exact same thing, as the flv files on youtube are streamed (downloaded) to your computer as a flash player running on your machine plays it.)
So am I to assume we'll all be boycotting youtube now?
Seriously?! Do you actually believe what you just wrote?
YouTube actually monitors their content for copyrighted material whereas the people at Pirate Bay don't. True they don't pull everything down right away, but they remind users not to post copyrighted material in their EULA and each time one uploads a video.
Piratebay does the same thing as google and youtube,
it just happen that they choose the wrong name for a web torrent site. They monitor and they delete illegal software, however its not that quite easy to monitor files that are 1GB+ size, you need to actually download them and watch them to see their content, some are even encrypted with a 10 digits password (numbers, letters and symbols).
They were naive to choose such a name like pirateybay, they saw the benefit of such a name for search engines, but at the same time didnt want to see the bad things about such name.
Just think about it, if you were a judge and some big companies sue another company because of copyright infringements and that company in question has in its name pirate something... what will you think about it...
I will think the reason to choose such a name is because you intent to do that thing in reality to pirate things.
Its just like if I create an store that is called illegalsoftware and I sell windows oem copies, and microsft sued me, the first thing that will come to my mind is why in earth I choose such a name, to deceive customers about something? bad answer, to sell illegalsoftware? bad answer, because I am stupid? bad answer.
Piratebay does the same thing as google and youtube,
it just happen that they choose the wrong name for a web torrent site. They monitor and they delete illegal software, however its not that quite easy to monitor files that are 1GB+ size, you need to actually download them and watch them to see their content, some are even encrypted with a 10 digits password (numbers, letters and symbols).
They were naive to choose such a name like pirateybay, they saw the benefit of such a name for search engines, but at the same time didnt want to see the bad things about such name.
Just think about it, if you were a judge and some big companies sue another company because of copyright infringements and that company in question has in its name pirate something... what will you think about it...
I will think the reason to choose such a name is because you intent to do that thing in reality to pirate things.
Its just like if I create an store that is called illegalsoftware and I sell windows oem copies, and microsft sued me, the first thing that will come to my mind is why in earth I choose such a name, to deceive customers about something? bad answer, to sell illegalsoftware? bad answer, because I am stupid? bad answer.
Unfortunatley, for TPB most of their files are labeled pretty well so that users can find the files they are looking for...which in turn would make it pretty easy for them to write a filter and delete any file or flag any file that has Microsoft or any number of spellings. However, they don't do that...this is very similiar to the Napster case so I expect the people of TPB to be found guilty, but stranger things have happened. Just look at what happened with the OJ case. I guess TPB guys should go hire Johnny C.
No i am not, its just i have been around the file shareing world alot longer then most of you and realize no matter wether you zip, compress or break up a copyrighted program with another program that re compliles it at a later time the item is still copyrighted material. If you zip a copyrighted item, it is still a copyrighted item, if you break it into pieces with a program that then re compiles it at a later time it is still copyrighted material.
You all are taking the stand i am against file sharing when i am not, been there done that, even before there was an internet, try user groups, before that we shared by direct client to client.
The fact remains no matter wether you are the sharer or the host, wether the shared files are in plain format or broken into bits (meaning multiple parts for easier transfering) or what ever by the current laws you are shareing copyrighted material. Severial different hosting sources that never charged BUT made you share or upload a certain # of files to be able to download any files were deamed as charging also.
The main people that fought this were the film industry and certain rock groups. They not only targeted the hosting groups but tried going after the sharers as well. Both groups stated they were loosing millions a year by the file sharing network globially.
There is nothing in a .torrent file that contains any copyrighted material what so ever. It's nothing more than a link. Since when it is illegal to link to copyrighted material? Maybe some day it will even be illegal to link to a link of copyrighted material.
Maybe some day it will even be illegal to link to a link of copyrighted material. http://thepiratebay.org/
oops, did I just do something illegal?
:cool:
Well the sentence are stating that they helped and provided a service to distribute copyrighted material. They did not get senteced for spreading copyrighted material just helping to spread it.
And a corection they all have to pay 3.504.000 us dollars together. So its not split in 4 or somthing like that cause if one cant pay the other 3 have to pay. So the one earning most cash have to pay more.
Piratebay does the same thing as google and youtube,
it just happen that they choose the wrong name for a web torrent site. They monitor and they delete illegal software, however its not that quite easy to monitor files that are 1GB+ size, you need to actually download them and watch them to see their content, some are even encrypted with a 10 digits password (numbers, letters and symbols).
They were naive to choose such a name like pirateybay, they saw the benefit of such a name for search engines, but at the same time didnt want to see the bad things about such name.
Just think about it, if you were a judge and some big companies sue another company because of copyright infringements and that company in question has in its name pirate something... what will you think about it...
I will think the reason to choose such a name is because you intent to do that thing in reality to pirate things.
Its just like if I create an store that is called illegalsoftware and I sell windows oem copies, and microsft sued me, the first thing that will come to my mind is why in earth I choose such a name, to deceive customers about something? bad answer, to sell illegalsoftware? bad answer, because I am stupid? bad answer.
You acctualy belive this your self? If so i feel sorry for you for being so blue eyed that you realy belive somthing like that.
We all know the soul purpouse of the piratebay and there is no arguing about that what so ever.
(i am an active pirate, and bin that for year and years. Started back when we where using amiga 500 and so on. So ive bin around the scene for a long time now)
1. As they said they will apeal and apeal and apeal and apeal. In the long years of apealing there surely will be some judge which hate the arrogant music industry so the verdict will fall.
2. Nothing is said in the verdict about the site itself - which exists and will proceed to exists at least in not so near future.
3. My grandma has a saying "You cannot extinguish something which cannot be extinguished". Even if the zillions torrent sites are shut down this will happen long after new ways of mass distribution of "free" movies and music is found.
4. The music industry knows this. They are suing not to stop the distribution but to achieve 3 things:
I. The first is very simple. They are doing this because of the shareholders. "You see, we are doing everything blah blah blah..."
II. Advertizing. Basically the legal expenses are offset by the free advertizing you get being in every newspaper.
III. Complaining. Complaining about the billions of dollars they lose (actually they don't lose anything) gives them the possibility to claim extremely high prices of the CDs and the DVDs. The cost for making a CD are less then 10 cents and as I understood the artists get not more then 50-60 cents from every CD sold. Put there about 10 cents for advertizing and 10 cents about packaging and such. This makes less then a buck. Everything above this goes in the musical industry pocket.
Seriously?! Do you actually believe what you just wrote?
YouTube actually monitors their content for copyrighted material whereas the people at Pirate Bay don't. True they don't pull everything down right away, but they remind users not to post copyrighted material in their EULA and each time one uploads a video.
Videos with copyrighted matrials (for music) they pull the song off the Video and let you pick from their crappy list of songs as a replacement *I know two of my vids had the music stripped even though I own the cd that the music came off of*
as for Videos they acaully remove the video itself if has a copyright infrigment.
Yea they do it on request of the copyright holders. Torrentspy used to do the same thing and look where they are. It's the same thing. Copyright material is on youtube and people have watched it.
There's absolutely no way you can convince me, or anyone with any common sense that youtube hasn't provided infrastructure to the average person to share copyrighted materials, and that's what the court said thepiratebay did.
The only differences are that you can't see yourself unable to youtube, and thus can't stand to admit it, and youtube actually HOSTS the illegal content.
I've had a good laugh at the people that "have been around the file shareing world alot longer then most" who seem to think TPB was "breaking up files" or "zipping them".
People that claim to have been around long enough to know things and then prove they have no idea how it works. Pure win.
For those that want to know, torrent trackers like TPB maintain lists of people that have files. When you start up uTorrent, or bitTorrent or whatever client and start seeding a file, you are contacting the trackers listed in the torrent and saying "hey over here, I have this file to share".
When you start downloading from a torrent, you are asking the tracker to give you a list of people sharing the file. You then download the files directly from those people, not from TPB or mininova or whatever tracker.
They didn't "break up files" or "zip" them, they didn't host any illegal material whatsoever. No content actually came from a TPB server, or was even transferred across TPB controlled network resources.
They have been accused of "providing an infrastructure by which copyright violations can be commited".
Youtube and such of course actually host the files on thier own servers for you to freely download. Once even one person watches something, it's been shared. It's not really important if they remove it later or not.
Besides, if you think youtube are so vigilant, feel free to search for some metallica videos. We all know how much metallica hates having thier music freely shared, but there they are, and the videos have been up for quite a long time.
All over the swedish news this morning: The judge in the trial has been found to be a member of the same copyright organization as those that were sueing Pirate Bay. It looks like this might go to retrial.
All over the swedish news this morning: The judge in the trial has been found to be a member of the same copyright organization as those that were sueing Pirate Bay. It looks like this might go to retrial.
REALLY!? HOW THE **** COULD I MISS THAT! O___ o
Less than a week after the Pirate Bay copyright trial ended with a guilty verdict, lawyers for the defense are calling for a retrial. Swedish radio station Sveriges Radio (http://www.sr.se/sida/artikel.aspx?ProgramId=1646&Artikel=2785979) P3 news program revealed that Judge Tomas Norström holds close ties to pro-copyright organizations and his ruling may be considered a substantial conflict of interest. If it can be proven that Norström has a legitimate bias against the Pirate Bay Four based on his affiliations, there is a possibility the original verdict could be thrown out. Sveriges Radio reported that Norström is a member of the following pro-copyright or copyright-relevant organizations that may have impacted his decision-making abilities at the trial:
The Swedish Association of Copyright, a discussion forum. While such an affiliation may seem harmless, other members of the organization include Henrik Pontén, Monique Wadsted, and Peter Danowsky — three key representatives in the entertainment industry’s case against Pirate Bay.
The Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property, an organization devoted to implementing stronger copyright laws. Norström sits on the board.
.SE, The Internet Infrastructure Foundation, another harmless-sounding affiliation with another questionable allegiance: Monique Wadsted is also a member of this group that oversees the .se name domain and handles domain disputes.
Peter Althin, the lawyer who represents Pirate Bay spokesperson Peter Sunde, told The Local (http://www.thelocal.se/19028/20090423/) that in setting up this case, several lay judges were thrown out due to conflicts of interest. That Norström somehow sneaked past this deletion process raised suspicion and anger in the defense team. Norström claims that his decision was not colored by his associations. “My view has been that these activities do not constitute a conflict of interest,” he told Sveriges Radio. It’s evident that Judge Norström has strong ties to the pro-copyright lobby. I think he should have stepped down from the case in the beginning. That he didn’t shows a serious perversion of justice. Last Friday, Pirate Bay was sacked with a bill for 30 million Swedish kronor (US$3.6 million) and a one-year prison sentence for the Pirate Bay Four: Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde and Carl Lundström.