*** trial and file sharing

[Boobinator]

First of all, this site seems to censor a certain word closely related to this article. Can't blame FreeOnes for this, it's understandable.
The word is this one, except I'll call it 'torment' from now on.


Here's the news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8003799.stm



Basically, four of the people behind The Pirate Bay, one of the largest (if not the largest) bittorment search engines were sentenced to one year in jail today, and fined for 30 million kronor (roughly 3 million euro.)

This may not sound like a significant punishment, but coming from Sweden myself, I can say it's quite high when put in relation to rape, murder, wife-beating and pedophilia - crimes that the morepart of this planet's sane population would argue are more serious.

On top of that, The Pirate Bay did no more than host a site where users could share torments for downloading files, illegal or not. In other words, *** has done nothing to directly spread files, but rather made it available, just like Kazaa, DC++, Mininova or the numerous other services out there.
You could argue that *** knew what they were doing and that torments featuring copyrighted material was bound to find its way to their network as well. But that would also be the same as:

* Prohibiting the sale of rolling papers because people obviously roll joints with them.
* Suing Google for displaying results when you for example search a movie tite plus 'torment' or even child porn.
* Suing car manufacturers for making engines that go well above the maximum speed limit, thus causing car accidents related to fast driving.

I could present a dozen more examples just as accurate, but you probably get my point.


In short, this verdict is a scandal, and coming from my own country it makes me feel ashamed. The rest of the world probably thinks we are complete idiots for punishing file sharing higher than violent crimes.
And besides, this the whole trial is a scandal for many reasons, but I've ranted enough than to name them all.

It has begun like just a drop of water in an ocean, but I'm expecting more similar trials like this, where private persons can't even afford to put up with a decent legal defence when going against multi-billion dollar companies.


What do you all think about this?


:crash:

 

[BigSwede]

It was right,but they should have got a longer jail sentence.

 

[hedonis]

Longer jail, way less money.

 

[anairhead999]

i thought Verdict and sentence were both wrong

 

[usmc071984]

this is the exact same kind of bullshit that happened when vhs recorders and tape recorders happened. o my god they can record tv and the radio they will never buy anything again. its a form of art people. art is free to the public and is wrong to deny anyone. its part of culturing ourselves and our children. to deny anyone these things is the same as a government burning books or banning religion or anything that doesnt agree with their plan for the country. its wrong. its evil. it needs to be stopped. he needs to be released like yesterday.

 

[Spleen]

A year in jail... They never hurt anyone, and never personally stole anything.

I understand jail isn't just for keeping dangerous people away, it's for punishment, but 3 million euro should be punishment enough for people who never laid a finger on anyone.

Save that jail cell for a rapist. Although the rapist would probably only get 6 months...

 

[Boobinator]

this is the exact same kind of bullshit that happened when vhs recorders and tape recorders happened. o my god they can record tv and the radio they will never buy anything again. its a form of art people. art is free to the public and is wrong to deny anyone. its part of culturing ourselves and our children. to deny anyone these things is the same as a government burning books or banning religion or anything that doesnt agree with their plan for the country. its wrong. its evil. it needs to be stopped. he needs to be released like yesterday.

Yep.

The thing is, speaking from personal experience, downloading hasn't kept me from going to the cinema, to concerts or from buying games. But I won't even bother going into why the crusade against file sharing is absurd.

I'm just baffled at how retarded this trial has been all the way, and it even ended stupid. Hopefully they're overrule it.

 

[Violator79]

I think just having the trial was bullshit. Do these movie companies really think they're losing that much from file sharing? Besides, the verdict did not include an order to shut down ***. That doesn't make any sense. If the judge thinks the site's illegal, hence them getting a guilty verdict, shouldn't he have ruled the site taken down as well? Almost sounds like a double-standard.. maybe grounds for an appeal? Furthermore, *** isn't the only site like that out there. If those fuckers from Sony, WMG, etc, want someone to go after, look at Google, Youtube, pretty much any site that contains non-homemade videos. The one thing *** did wrong, the only thing that is, they have the word "pirate" in their fucking title!!!

 

[ChefChiTown]

its a form of art people. art is free to the public and is wrong to deny anyone.

Sooooo, it's ok to steal from people just because their product (music, movies, TV shows, etc) is considered "art"...??? I'm a chef and, technically, my career is considered an "art", so, should people be able to eat my food for free? No. Fuck no.

I don't think downloading music is a big deal, because all it does is promote the bands that are being downloaded, but downloading movies, TV shows and video games is blatantly stealing from people and taking away from their sole avenue of profit. Musicians make most of their money through tours, not CD sales, so downloading music isn't preventing them from making a ton of money. But, movie companies and video game companies SOLELY rely on the sale of their product to make a profit. When people download their product online, for free, those companies are losing money hand over fist.

Oh, and art isn't free to the public. I don't know where you got that idea from. Every art museum I've ever been to has had a price of admission. Every concert I've ever been to has had a price of admission. Every movie I've ever been to has had a price of admission.

 

[usmc071984]

thank you chef for pointing out an error in what i was saying. you are absolutely correct, when a product changes hands absolutely there is a charge for it. and depending on the quality of the product the price goes up or down. like your food for example. a quality chef charges a higher price then say a burger flipper at mc donalds, not implying whatsoever that they are anywhere near the same but just an example. whats goin on here tho, is no product exchanges hands. its electronic signals. nothing tangible. u cant put a bow on this and give it to someone. its just there. in my downloading times, i do it for myself, and only myself to watch on my computer in my down time. if the movie or tv show is good, i buy a copy of it to use on my real television and to share with friends. thus the reason why i own every season of oz, the wire, lost, aqua team hunger force, the venture brothers...... list goes on..... see where im goin with this? data by and large is free to those who know how to find it, as it should be. god bless the internet, right? i mean shit, pretend that freeones didnt have permission of everyone on its sight to post their pics and stuff. should the wonderful people who run freeones now be fined and sent to jail because they provide a forum for the free shairing of images that we all find enjoyable to look at but dont feel we should have to pay for???? think on it....

 

[No_Man]

My inclination is to say that the verdict was probably right, but since this was kind of a precedent setting case, the punishment was severe. It doesn't really make much sense to "make an example" of someone when so many people (the defendants included) weren't even sure that they were committing a crime. Let this go to the Supreme Court, be clear on the interpretation of the law, make sure everyone knows the future consequences, and then start enforcing it with a heavy hand.

 

[thinger]

It's pointless, purely for show, and doesn't change a thing. Every time they shut down a website, another 3 will appear. It's an outdated industry who only think about the bottom line trying to punish a system that often HELPS artists more than they ever will. I don't think music and movies should always be free, but this kind of show-trial does nothing constructive.

 

[Violator79]

Oh, and art isn't free to the public. I don't know where you got that idea from. Every art museum I've ever been to has had a price of admission. Every concert I've ever been to has had a price of admission. Every movie I've ever been to has had a price of admission.

Most museums, I'm not an art museum fan, I've ever been to have some great objects and are worth the price of admission. Every time I go to the movies it costs at least 20 dollars for the ticket, popcorn and drink. For the same 20 dollars, I can go to the store, buy a hell of a lot of food and come home, download a movie for FREE and enjoy it. The same goes for concerts. I've only paid for 1 concert in my life. It was the lawn section and the seats weren't that great.

I'd rather be home, download music and movies for free and spend my money on food, clothes, pay bills, etc, things that last for a while, instead of being in a theater for 2 hours. And it's not like movie or music companies or actors need our money. They have and make more money for not really "working" then we'll ever see. Actors "work", what....4-6 months out of the year? Most of them don't even do their own stunts! At least break a leg or something, literally. I'd love to see those rich Hollywood trouser stains come to a city like Pittsburgh, pick up a 20lb sledge hammer and swing it for 16 hours every day. The first thing they'd do is cry after 2 minutes and have their stunt double do the work. In the real working world, there is no stunt double.

As long as there are sites like ***, I will continue downloading movies for free and I have no shame or second thoughts about it at all, not for a single moment.

Food, on the other hand, is something I will pay for, but not in a restaurant that charges $50 for a steak the size of a peach. Give me Wendy's, Pizza Hut, etc. Sure I love Red Lobster, but I go there 1 or 2 times a year. No restaurant should ever charge $50 dollars for a steak, chicken, fish, etc. It's not like there's a shortage of cows, chickens or fish. You're paying for the name and nothing more. If I want a steak, I'd go kill a cow, cook it and all it would cost me is the price of a bullet, not $50 bucks.

 

[jamrak]

These greedy record labels and other assholes will NEVER win.

They ban one sharing system, another one appears. It is endless. Internet providers won't be able to ban all their clients. Every friend of mine downloads music/movies from the net. What they gonna do? Ban everybody? Fuck off!

So I tell all that suckers from record labels and other "copyright fighters" to suck a big fat dick.

File sharing can't be banned. No matter how much they want it.

 

[Violator79]

These greedy record labels and other assholes will NEVER win.

They ban one sharing system, another one appears. It is endless. Internet providers won't be able to ban all their clients. Every friend of mine downloads music/movies from the net. What they gonna do? Ban everybody? Fuck off!

So I tell all that suckers from record labels and other "copyright fighters" to suck a big fat dick.

File sharing can't be banned. No matter how much they want it.

Fucking Right!!!!!!

 

[fred1]

* Prohibiting the sale of rolling papers because people obviously roll joints with them.
If that happens and people complain, the recipe will change. I don't think PB removed links to films that were obviously copyright material

* Suing Google for displaying results when you for example search a movie tite plus 'torment' or even child porn.
That's like saying that people should sue the telephone register because they helped you find the telephone number to Bernard Madoff. You can still find it but do you think they put it there in order to facilitate fraud

* Suing car manufacturers for making engines that go well above the maximum speed limit, thus causing car accidents related to fast driving.
There is such a limit, there's a device on BMW, Porsche and so on that prevents them from going faster than 250 km/h

I don't understand why you're upset. If you want to see a film, why can't you pay 19 kr and rent it? You can still share files for which the copyright holder says it's OK

 

[georges]

verdict and sentence were both wrong. It remembered me the kind of bullshit that the riaa and mpaa had as arguments when they closed kazaa. In France, there was a law against file sharing that should have been voted and accepted but it was rejected because it was said of being not adapted and totally out of context. The law will be represented again at the French senate the 29th april but I don't think it will pass.

 

[Sicario]

First of all, this site seems to censor a certain word closely related to this article. Can't blame FreeOnes for this, it's understandable.
The word is this one, except I'll call it 'torment' from now on.

Here's the news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8003799.stm

Basically, four of the people behind The Pirate Bay, one of the largest (if not the largest) bittorment search engines were sentenced to one year in jail today, and fined for 30 million kronor (roughly 3 million euro.)

This may not sound like a significant punishment, but coming from Sweden myself, I can say it's quite high when put in relation to rape, murder, wife-beating and pedophilia - crimes that the more part of this planet's sane population would argue are more serious.

On top of that, The Pirate Bay did no more than host a site where users could share torments for downloading files, illegal or not. In other words, *** has done nothing to directly spread files, but rather made it available, just like Kazaa, DC++, Mininova or the numerous other services out there.
You could argue that *** knew what they were doing and that torments featuring copyrighted material was bound to find its way to their network as well. But that would also be the same as:

* Prohibiting the sale of rolling papers because people obviously roll joints with them.
* Suing Google for displaying results when you for example search a movie title plus 'torment' or even child porn.
* Suing car manufacturers for making engines that go well above the maximum speed limit, thus causing car accidents related to fast driving.

I could present a dozen more examples just as accurate, but you probably get my point.

In short, this verdict is a scandal, and coming from my own country it makes me feel ashamed. The rest of the world probably thinks we are complete idiots for punishing file sharing higher than violent crimes.
And besides, this the whole trial is a scandal for many reasons, but I've ranted enough than to name them all.

It has begun like just a drop of water in an ocean, but I'm expecting more similar trials like this, where private persons can't even afford to put up with a decent legal defense when going against multi-billion dollar companies.


What do you all think about this?


:crash:

They [your country Boobinator] are trying to save face, that's all. There is nothing that anyone can do or implement anything that will prevent millions of people from file sharing off the Internet. Imaging if *** had it's servers in Iran, North Korea, Russia or in some other rogue nation . . . what then? Nothing! Sadly, thats already the case.

 

[calpoon]

I'm a chef and, technically, my career is considered an "art", so, should people be able to eat my food for free? No. Fuck no.

If someone eats at your restaurant and does not pay, that is stealing.

BUT what if someone orders a steak from you, pays their bill and then takes it home and cuts it up into five peices and gives each one to thier freinds?

is that stealing from you because he didn't buy five steaks and make his freind pay for each one?

If I buy a movie then I have purchased that movie from the company. I now own it, so it should be my right to make five copies of it and give it to my freinds if I want to.


If it is illegal to make copies, then they should stop selling Cd-R's and burners. Why don't they go after Microsoft and Apple for piracy because they put the tools to do it in every computer? I don't see how they did anything less than PB did as a hosting site.

what they are really saying is that you can never own anything, you can only pay for it and then the company still reserves the right to have control over that product that you paid for. That sounds like bullshit to me.

and furthermore that you are not paying for that plastic disc. you are paying for the information on it. That's like saying that if I go to the library and read a book, that I am stealing from the publisher because the words in the book are the property, not the pages and the ink.

yeah, how do they get away with it? the library buys one copy of a book and then gives it out to hundreds of people. why are they not being sued for piracy?

 

[fred1]

If someone eats at your restaurant and does not pay, that is stealing.

BUT what if someone orders a steak from you, pays their bill and then takes it home and cuts it up into five peices and gives each one to thier freinds?

is that stealing from you because he didn't buy five steaks and make his freind pay for each one?

If I buy a movie then I have purchased that movie from the company. I now own it, so it should be my right to make five copies of it and give it to my freinds if I want to.


If it is illegal to make copies, then they should stop selling Cd-R's and burners. Why don't they go after Microsoft and Apple for piracy because they put the tools to do it in every computer? I don't see how they did anything less than PB did as a hosting site.

what they are really saying is that you can never own anything, you can only pay for it and then the company still reserves the right to have control over that product that you paid for. That sounds like bullshit to me.

and furthermore that you are not paying for that plastic disc. you are paying for the information on it. That's like saying that if I go to the library and read a book, that I am stealing from the publisher because the words in the book are the property, not the pages and the ink.

yeah, how do they get away with it? the library buys one copy of a book and then gives it out to hundreds of people. why are they not being sued for piracy?

If I buy a movie then I have purchased that movie from the company. I now own it, so it should be my right to make five copies of it and give it to my freinds if I want to.

You own the movie but not the right to distribute it. You can still invite your friends to your home and watch the movie there.

yeah, how do they get away with it? the library buys one copy of a book and then gives it out to hundreds of people. why are they not being sued for piracy

Well, I think the library has a deal that gives them the right to lend it. That's probably why you can't lend the recycled sci-fi stuff that the scientologists claim to be their bible or similar.