Pirate Bay prosecutor tosses infringement charges overboard Half of the charges made against the four men behind the notorious file-sharing website The Pirate Bay have been sensationally dropped on day two of the trial. Prosecutor Håkan Roswall made the surprise move this morning, according to reports on The Local and TorrentFreak. He has amended the charges against Carl Lundström, …
I hate to say it, after a ping pong match between a solicitor and an friend of mine, I can only assume that the legal teams have no idea how torrents work or how that glowing box on their desk functions for that matter.
I look forward to seeing the boys from the Bay sail off in to the sunset with out being found guilty.
The next time the MPA(A)/etc try suing anyone, they should at least have the decency to employ lawyers (sic) that actually know what BitTorrent is, or the difference between a bit and a byte for that matter.
It's a crying shame to see the whole shebang is nearly over now, as I was readying myself for a lengthy, fun trial - popcorn and nachos by my side. Shame on them for ruining my spring entertainment.
I'm not a Pirate Bay fan, but the prosecution is basically trying to do the equivalent of going after someone because their web page may have links that can eventually lead someone to other sites that contain material that might infringe on someones copyrighted material. The fact that Amazon, MSN, Google, etc all have similar links that can eventually lead someone to other sites that contain material that might infringe on someones copyrighted material not withstanding. The prosecution knows that if they went after, say, Google, he'd have his head handed to him on a platter. Basically, this is a waste of taxpayer's money in the hopes of exploiting the technical ignorance of the courts.
I'm not a lawyer, but as I far as I understand, you break the law when you actually DISTRIBUTE copyrighted material without the copyright's holder approval. I'm not so sure they have a strong case against the Pirate Bay with just the "making available" claim.
The fact the prosecution ever charged TPB with "complicity in the production of copyrighted material" is absurd, as is their tenuous 'evidence'.
Bearing in mind that the accused are a smart bunch of guys expect the defence to make mincemeat of the remaining charges - unless the prosecutor has a dynamite PowerPoint presentation on that useless laptop of his!
The entire point of a search engine is to point at something. Google, as an example, does not make the sites it indexes available, it merely simplifies finding them. This is what TPB does. Amend the law to 'facilitating copyright infringement' and you'd have a case. Be prepared to go after some companies with very deep pockets if you do though...
It's pretty obvious that before this issue went to court, no-one on the prosecution side really did any research into into what a torrent is or what TPB actually does; they were just mesmerised by the big sack o cash the Industry was waving around.
Now they actually have (because of the defence using technical terms like "internet", "file-sharing" and - possibly - "computer"), they realised there wasn't really any *actual* infringement of copyright performed by TPB themselves.
Damn them for changing the charges. I was looking forward to a fortnight of comedy watching the smug prosecution lawyer systematically get torn a new one. Oh well...
But Pirate bay DOES make it easier for people to infringe copyright..
CDs may be overpriced. The RIAA may be idiots and The Labels may be ripping off Artists. But free is too cheap and would mean the end of new music.
I hope they do get prosecuted and shut down. But with charge of aiding copyright infringement.
I find myself asking questions about the logic of the case. Those in the know are clear on the pro's and cons of a torrent related file sharing protocol. If TPB are complicit, then so are the ISP's OEM's and O/S vendors.
Clearly, the solicitors involved in this case believe they have a winner on their hands. They would not take the case on if they didn't. Is it a case of these people believing their own propaganda, solas system sized egos or just plain old greed?
TPB are no more guilty of copyright infringement than my dog is and the suits know it. I can only assume that there is no mention of a "No win, no fee" clause!
Aren't they guilty of aiding in this if they developed the software being used?
And what about all the computer manufacturers and component makers who have aided in this by supplying the equipment for the copyrighted material to be downloaded to or uploaded from?
And what about the ISP?
How about the planet Earth for making life, which has done this foul deed?
Or if you believe in such things, what about the gods for not putting "thou shalt not use Pirate Bay", in their holy books, or for just making it possible for this to be done and not smiting anyone who has done it?
It's the Universe's fault for existing.
I think I finally figured out where the recording industry Ass and movie industry is losing their millions of dollars of revenue a year. There losing it paying stupid ass lawyers to chase people down and sue em just think of how much money they would not lose by just halting the mindless lawsuits. Only people I truly seeing the need to prosecute and sue are the people who sell the bootleg DVD's for $10 of movies still in the theaters, and $5 for new CD's, because that actually does hurt their sales when the actual product hits the shelves.
And with the new savings with my idea they could go and hire people who can actually sing without computer assistance to make them sound good, or hire someone with a new idea for a movie instead of rehashes.
And for the record I don't use TPB at all seeing there has not been one thing released in recent years I actually found worth wasting my bandwidth downloading and hard drive space storing, let alone worth paying to see.
Hey, no-one has piped in with the anti freetard rant yet ! Capitalist scumbags must be out of fashion, what with the economic collapse and all :-) OK so here goes...........
GNASH GNASH NOOooOO you freetarded morons JUST DONT REALIZE that us overlords must have our tribute, it is our right to exist by taking 99% from the public because in our boundless generosity we deign to give 1% back to the artists !! THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTION MODEL !!!! Every artist LOVES THE CORPORATE OVERLORDS, not just metallica.......god dammit, satan dammit WE DEMAND TRIBUTE......WE ARE THE OVERLORDS.......Freetards and file sharers are ALL SIMPLE THIEVES and most of them are TERRORIST KIDDIE FIDDLERS too !!! Every recording shared ever is clearly a sale lost to us. EVERY transaction must be brought into the commercial sphere. We own every breath, every move EVERYTHING. WE ARE THE OVERLORDS.....WE OWN EVERYTHING....AIR, WATER, EVERY THOUGHT, EVERYTHING.........commie freetards caused the recession.....WITHOUT YOUR OVERLORDS YOU ARE NOTHING. GNASH GNASH......YOU ARE SCUM ! On your knees and worship the free market, worship the invisible hand, worship your global corporate masters. YOU WILL ALWAYS BE A NUMBER !! NEVER A FREE MAN !! Without us to tell you, how will you ever know what to do ? what to think ? MONITOR !! CONTROL !! EXTRACT !! LEVERAGE !! PUNISH!! EXTERMINATE !!! LITIGATE!!! SQUEEEEEZEE!!!! GRRRrrrrrRRR PAY PAY PAY!!!!!!!! No breath without payment, no word, no thought GRAHHHHHAgggHHHHHHHHHHHghhhhhhhhhhhhnrrg
so if this is the measuring stick then surely car manufacturers should be prosecuted for 'complicity' in every hit'n'run, every drive'by shooting, and every armed robbery using a vehicle, AND the appropiate gun manu's should be charged with 'complicity' in every gun crime, AND all computer manu's for 'complicity' in providing suitable kit for use in every computer based fraud, and hacking, AND lets not forget every ISP for 'complicity' in aiding every illegal download and hacking,... i could go on but i'm bored now, but you get my point
so much money is being wasted on this ill thought out prosecution ? and what idiot(s) thought it would be a good idea
PS - please remember to support Ubuntu, Open Office, and other legit quality software by making them available on the legal distribution system known as BitTorrent via sites like Pirate Bay (err,.. hope thats not inappropiate)
mine the one,... 20 epsom,.. pocket
"Clearly, the solicitors involved in this case believe they have a winner on their hands. They would not take the case on if they didn't. Is it a case of these people believing their own propaganda, solas system sized egos or just plain old greed?"
I'm guessing the huge bags of cash they'll get from the music and film companies could be a firm inducement, aside from any prospect of winning.
Call me a silly optimist but you know I have hope that some day the recording industries and all these people constantly suing downloaders and places like pirate bay will wake up. They are tilting at windmills instead of stopping for a moment and asking themselves the obvious question. That is why are people downloading, why do services like pirate bay exist, and what can we do that will not only stem the tide of useless prosecution but at the same time start bringing money back into our pockets.
I don't claim to have the ideal solution but it starts with offering people the product they are looking for at a reasonable price (and NO 20 bucks a pop for a CD is NOT a reasonable price) at a decent quality. Some day maybe they will clue in on this, but I'm not holding my breath. Admittedly it wont stop pirating all together as that is a part of human nature and will always exist in some form some where. However figuring out an equitable solution all around would reduce it a great deal and perhaps in the process give rise to a better quality of entertainment for our dollar/yen/euro/pound/etc.
"But Pirate bay DOES make it easier for people to infringe copyright.."
So do most electronics companies for creating computers, so does Microsoft/Apple for creating a user friendly OS, so does Google for allowing you to also search for torrents, so do all ISPs for allowing you to connect to the net where you can download copies, so does the music industry for allowing their songs to be played on the radio so I know what copyrights there are out there. Fuck it, let's send everyone down for aiding copyright infringement!
"I hope they do get prosecuted and shut down. But with charge of aiding copyright infringement."
I hope people like you get a clue, but unfortunately things we want like this are unlikely I'm afraid.
As far as I can tell this isn't a civil suit, since the public prosecutor is involved. "Conspiracy" might be a crime under Swedish law, but "Complicity" in committing a offence that is punishable only by a fine and isn't on it's own grounds for even a search warrant is likely to get thrown out of court.
I bet the R. Ass. don't want their bastard dirty cop dragged through the wringer either.
The defense has already spent the time and money to prepare for the trial. While trial lawyers are paid a higher rate for time in court, it's still only a few days compared to the larger set people involved in the months of preparation.
Not to speak of the stress on the people involved. I've been in that situation -- a meritless civil case where the other side delayed and did everything to raise our cost. The personal stress was immense. And even a meritless case is a lottery ticket.
Sanctioning the prosecution doesn't do anything positive here. They didn't have anything at risk. The only effective balance would be prosecuting the people or companies that put them up to the original prosecution, but those people are out of reach.
This isn't a victory. It's another lesson in how an industry can use the legal system to harass, thus create de facto rights even beyond copyright laws. And a lesson that it happens all over, not just in the U.S.
"But Pirate bay DOES make it easier for people to infringe copyright.."
But Google DOES make it easier for people to infringe copyright..
But Microsoft DOES make it easier for people to infringe copyright..
But Yahoo DOES make it easier for people to infringe copyright..
But Flikr DOES make it easier for people to infringe copyright..
But Dell DOES make it easier for people to infringe copyright..
But the 'leccy company DOES make it easier for people to infringe copyright..
But Toshiba DOES make it easier for people to infringe copyright..
But your local library DOES make it easier for people to infringe copyright..
But every TV/radio station DOES make it easier for people to infringe copyright..
Actually, any record company DOES make it easier for people to infringe copyright..
I could go on and on, it's all true. Heck, you, Mage, DO make it easier for people to infringe copyright. I can hack into your wireless and use it to distribute copyrighted material. Off to jail you go, my dear sir.
PLR is a widely adopted system for paying authors (but not publishers) every time a book is loaned. It's worth something like 6p for each loan, up to a maximum of about £6000. Perhaps it's time for a similar system for the internet, to pay back all the creative types who lose out every time their stuff gets downloaded.
http://www.plr.uk.com/
Making available...
Lemme see:
The power company for providing the juice that allows it all to happen.
The chip manufacturers for providing the technology that makes it possible.
The computer vendors for providing the equipment.
The ISP/telco for providing the link.
The OS manufacturer and supplier for the means to do it.
Above all, the rights owners for effectively producing nothing more than a stream of ones and zeroes and attempting to charge ridiculous sums for it. Shoulda stuck to making pizzas, guys, nobody gonna make free copies of that!
I've probably missed out loads of potential co-defendants, but the list above should fill out the courtroom nicely. Some of those guys have hot-shot lawyers too :)
Penguin - in the dock with all the rest
Copyright is nothing but artifical scarcity imposed upon a market. It worked in the age if manufactured goods because you need skillsets to assemble and distribute a similar product. The business of the day found a leverage tool to artificially control other businesses in a free market and so lots of money and time has been put into the development of copyright legislation and lobying campaigns to get it into markets where they were less developed as business went global.
The digital age has changed the entire landscape and copyright and artificial scarcity tricks of business no longer work. 100% duplication is free and perfect and the copyright is a dinosaur that no longer lives in a market reality that can sustain its need fir existance. Instead of new models and ways if approaching the new market business has attacked the market and tried to prop up copyright with ugly warty patch-in DRM, DCMA, and other instruments that have taken the honest consumer and stripped everything from the consumer so that they don't buy or own an item anymore but a figment of someones imagination that can be merged into reality by making a license that can be sold with extreme legal restrictions.
And you CopyrightTards and businessTards who control the market side thusly and then apply your tactics to control the access to thevmarkets by imposing legal restrictions, limitations, and only one way to access the market on the artists wonder why world is turning against you and your empires are falling around you and failing deserve everything that comes your way.
Free distribution has allowed cancelled programmes to become so popular that DVD sales increased exponentially and the income and demand curves have forced the studios to return the programmes to air and to create new shows. Apples 99cent songs have made it billions while your archaic business models sink. Time you actually have to work again instead of riding on the coat tails I your predecessors who built the business models that aren't working today but did in the makers of their day.
So... let me get this right...
Pirate Bay is now up in court for "making available" copyrighted material which someone could copy. Yeah?
What's the difference then to me going to Blockbuster Video (or any other), browsing all that copyrighted material, taking one home and making a copy.
Neither Pirate Bay nor Blockbuster Video made the copy for me, I did that, however they both supplied that material in the first place, actually, you could argue PB didn't supply it at all, they just told me where to find it whereas BV actually did supply it to me.
They are hoping that the court won't understand. The reduction in charges suggest they have decided that the judges may not be as stupid as they had initially hoped. Given that similar cases have been thrown out before, I can't see why they think this one will be any more successful. If TPB are guilty, then so are Google and simlar search engines.
OK, the usual disclaimer - IANAL but:
As I understand it (from other blog posts somewhere) there actually is an offence of "making available" in Sweden which is taken fairly seriously but probably doesn't translate to exactly the same concept as you or I would understand those words in English. It will be interesting to see whether the courts believe TPB is guilty of this offence, most of the English-speaking commentators seem to think a not guilty is in the bag but a number of bloggers with suspiciously Scandanavian sounding handles seem a lot more cautious, even pessimistic.
And of course the problem with crowing about the prosecution's lack of technical knowledge and how if the lawyers knew anything they would never have taken the case misses the point that if judges in Sweden are anything like judges anywhere else they will have started out as lawyers and so will have a similar technical backgeround. It then comes down to whether the defence lawyer can get the technical concepts across or whether the prosecution can convince the judge otherwise.
"Can we now get the price fixing cartels and blockers of free trade (RIAA, Sony BMG etc al) in the dock?"
Sony are in the dock by extension if making illegal activity available counts. Or doesn't kiting rootkits without the user's knowledge so that the pwned computer becomes a bot for anyone who knows how how latch onto it, fit the description?
... can they pursue Ford for making available the crime of speeding? and any other car and motorcycle manufacturer that makes a vehicle that is *capable* of exceeding 30mph in a built up area? or 20mph near a school on a weekday, you could have a go at bicycle manufacturers too... where's my lawyers number I feel a class action coming on.
Or have these idiots forgotten that the end user who actually infringes the copyright or law has a freedom of choice in this matter, these people [TPB] don't *force* anyone to commit copyright infringement.
And thus when some idiot does 45 down a cul-de-sac in a Suzuki Leanna it's Joe Speedster in the dock and not the Suzuki corporation. Or for that matter Top Gear that "listed" the Leanna as being capable of doing a lap of the Top Gear track in 1:48 - thereby "facilitating" the idiot with the heavy right foot.
</rant>
<evil>
If you thought about it you could use Torrent/P2P listing sites to obtain the IP's of file sharers and then systematically close them down one by one (by DoS attacking them if necessary, if the ISP's won't play ball), in this manner by indexing the infringers TPB makes it easier for the media to collect their missing revenue. Why atangonise the largest source of data on the location of the infringers? If I was the recording industry I'd hold the file sharers net connection hostage with a DoS attacking zombie bot-net until I got my pound of flesh.
</evil>
@Duncan Lundie 14:24 GMT
"The entire point of a search engine is to point at something. Google, as an example, does not make the sites it indexes available, it merely simplifies finding them. "
Actually, Google grabs a snapshot of your website and makes it available after the fact. Ever noticed the "cached" link at the end of every hit? If you click on that, you end up seeing the page Google has stored on their server.
So, technically, Google would be *even more* guilty than TPB.
Because they posted links to a website hosting illegal copies of MY work on at least 3 websites controlled by them and refused to pay me an appropriate license fee..
They claimed that they didn't host the material, and therefore didn't infringe my copyright as it was on a third party server...
So.. if they win against PirateBay - they have no defence against my case.. if they win against PirateBay, the email I have from Sony's VP of legal affairs which should help them win an appeal.
"But Pirate Bay DOES make it easier for people to infringe copyright.."
As previously stated, so do computers, CD-RW drives, mp3 files, photocopiers, blah blah blah. That's not a sufficient reason to ban something.
As it happens, I don't particularly care if PB is used to distribute the latest dross from hollywood - firstly because most of their output is worthless dross which barely conceals contempt for the audience, and secondly because I'm not convinced that Tom Cruise is going to miss those few cents of royalties.
But it's not about my opinion, or Mage's, it's about what's lawful in the proud independent nation of Sweden. RIAA & associates have no right or power to impose US laws upon them, and the dropped charges are a welcome recognition of that.
The Devil is an interesting bloke, but he tends to keep to himself, so allow me to advocate.
PirateBay is not Google, Microsoft, Sony or Toyota. Your analogies are inept. Sony does not sell Walkmans pre-loaded with gigs of unlicensed copyright material. Google does not solicit donations in return for hosting torrent files and a torrent tracker. Microsoft does not encourage, condone, turn a blind eye to or feign ignorance of software piracy. Toyota does not equip its vehicles to automatically accelerate when approaching stop signs.
The lawyers involved in this case are not making bags of cash from the phonogram industry, this is a criminal prosecution.
The difference between the Pirate Bay making copyright material available and Blockbuster doing it is that Blockbuster has paid a license fee to the copyright holder for this very purpose. Pirate Bay material is not similarly covered.
The Pirate Bay, despite what some people here seem to believe, is not a mere link aggregator, like Google or Yahoo! The Pirate Bay hosts torrent files and trackers to facilitate P2P file exchange. They decide what torrents are available on their site and trackers. The Pirate Bay is not a technology; it is not the photocopier, the VCR or the BitTorrent protocol. If you want to use BitTorrent for legitament purposes such as downloading Fedora you go to RedHat's tracker. BitTorrent, like DVD burners and high-powered rifles, has many uses. The Pirate Bay exists for one reason only - as the name suggests, to provide a haven for piracy.
If facilitating copyright infringement is a crime*, then writing it off as a fair accompli is not an appropriate response in an enlightened society. Arguing that copyright infringment is here to stay and we need to adapt our business models around it isn't much different from arguing that fraud, robbery, assault, rape, murder and usury are something we should accept too. Crime exists, does this mean we should simply let it exist? Or should we rail against it and attempt to prevent and discourage it where-ever possible, to the appropriate standard or justice?
* If on the other hand, copyright infringement has been unjustly maligned and, like for example The Register's favoured vices pot smoking or prostitution, should not be a crime, then make that your argument and take it to your democratic leaders by whatever means neccessary.
Yes I agree. I think TPB could potentially WIN if they use the analogy of Google, Microsoft, British Telecom, Toshiba, Comcast, etc of being just as guilty as they are for promoting piracy for creating, promoting and further expanding the technology that is used by pirates. They're just about as guilty as the sun at the center of our solar system for making life possible on this planet because some of those lifeforms are pilfering music and movies. Just as guilty as as our universal BIG BANG event that created all matter in the universe, some of the matter went on to create some humans that are pirating music/movies. Good lord...yeah, the anti-piracy lawyers are going to win alright.
I remember seeing Telus's ads here in Canada boldly staying in their ads that with DSL you can download music and movies faster. Gee...so Telus is profiting from Piracy.
some thoughts on your arguments sorry these are out of order
"The difference between the Pirate Bay making copyright material available and Blockbuster doing it is that Blockbuster has paid a license fee to the copyright holder for this very purpose. Pirate Bay material is not similarly covered."
block buster have a licence to LEND you the dvds but they are also fecliating your copying of them by lending you them by lending you a dvd they are making it easer for you to take it home and copy it and you copying it is defently out side of there licence and so you can argue they are doing a simlar thing to TPB (I know it is a technical argument but the law should be about logic not emotions)
"PirateBay is not Google, Microsoft, Sony or Toyota. Your analogies are inept. Sony does not sell Walkmans pre-loaded with gigs of unlicensed copyright material. Google does not solicit donations in return for hosting torrent files and a torrent tracker. Microsoft does not encourage, condone, turn a blind eye to or feign ignorance of software piracy. Toyota does not equip its vehicles to automatically accelerate when approaching stop signs."
true but nether do they make any effort to stop you doing any of those things it would be very easy for car manufactures to put a speed limiter in ther cars sold in UK to stop them going over 70 but they do not google makes money off adds a lot of witch are dubus legality (see el reg article on adobe adds) and as for Microsoft well I believe they changed media player to enable you to rig unprotected mp3s that sounds like encouraging pepol to copy to me
and yes TPB do host torrents but they do not host FILES see all the previous arguments
As long as TPB remove links that copyright holders protest about I can't see how they can be held responsible for what their users post, it seems to work for Google and checking out the links themselves would mean they were committing an offence by downloading copyright material so it's probably best not to police what users post.
Strikes me that the lawyers *still* don't have a grip on how the technology works and/or rely on the judicial system not knowing.
BTW, anyone else think twitter would be an excellent way to distribute torrent links, (with the added bonus that if TPB lose their case Twitter would go down too)
Paris, she's probably got as much understanding of the tech involved as the prosecutors.
"and, like for example The Register's favoured vices pot smoking or prostitution,.." .... By Adam White Posted Wednesday 18th February 2009 05:23 GMT
Whoa, now just hold on a cotton pickin' minute there, Adam, .... that is grossly unfair and deserves mighty correction. Don't you realise the inclusive nature of El Regers requires the and/or moderator whenever you offer choice waffle for example.
You realise now that there'll be many thinking the staff do Tricks, as well as bringing you News and Views on the IT Front. I know times are hard, but smoking isn't good for you as it can cause cancer, allegedly [ well, I'm sure everyone knows of quite a few people who have smoked all of their lives and have died of shortage of breath and/or old age]
While I will admit that some of the comparisons posted on this page do not stand up, the comparison to Google DOES.
Yes, the pirate bay hosts torrent files, but a torrent is not a copy of the file itself, it is just a set of instructions on where to find it that you load into an application like U-Torrent which then goes off and downloads the file. This is morally and legally no different from the link that Google supplies that you then load into your browser which then goes and downloads the file. It is irrelevant whether that link is generated by an algorithm or a bloke in Sweden, it is still just a link.
You are breaking copyright law if you sell pirate DVDs. You are breaking copyright law if you buy pirate DVDs. However you are not breaking any law if you tell your mate that there is someone in the pub selling pirate DVDs and if he goes down he can buy one.. Not even if you get him to buy you a pint for letting him know.
"The Pirate Bay hosts torrent files and trackers to facilitate P2P file exchange. They decide what torrents are available on their site and trackers. The Pirate Bay is not a technology; it is not the photocopier, the VCR or the BitTorrent protocol."
I believe the point is that they don't host the actual copyrighted material. The key word is 'facilitate'. A torrent file is just a signpost to copyrighted material. Whether they decide what 'signposts' they display is not relevant really. Whether they 'solicit' for cash isn't relevant, as isn't 'condoning' or 'turning a blind eye'.
Forget Google, it's YouTube that actually host and make available copyrighted material. But if YouTube just pointed to videos hosted elsewhere it would be a different matter.
>>If facilitating copyright infringement is a crime*, then writing it off as a fair accompli is not an appropriate response in an enlightened society. Arguing that copyright infringment is here to stay and we need to adapt our business models around it isn't much different from arguing that fraud, robbery, assault, rape, murder and usury are something we should accept too. Crime exists, does this mean we should simply let it exist? Or should we rail against it and attempt to prevent and discourage it where-ever possible, to the appropriate standard or justice?<<
Ignoring the debate around comparing civil and criminal activities, actually, yes this is exactly what we should do. Crime exists. Therefore, we must adapt our business models around it. For example, banks have sophisticated anti-fraud measures not to prevent the fraud from happening, which is impossible, but to identify the fact that it DID happen, and if possible narrow down when where and who. Armorgard accepts that robbery of armored cars happens, so has procedures to minimise the amount of money in circulation and carries the money in boxes that will cause dye packs to explode if mishandled. This doesn't stop them being robbed, it merely tries to make the potential reward not worth the hassle.
Risk management is all about identifying what the risks are, and then either avoiding, mitigating or accepting the risk. The only way to completely avoid a risk is to not do the activity the risk is associated with. If you do that activity, the risk is there, you can only mitigate it to some extent, or accept it and wait for it to happen.
Railing against crime and attempting to prevent it isn't going to stop it existing on a macro scale, only on a micro scale. While crime continues to provide a tangible benefit over not being a criminal, it will happen. If companies start to accept that the first thing that will happen to their product is that it will be the victim of copyright infringement then they will either adjust their business practice to mitigate the effects (whether through providing additional benefits to their customers, or by some other means where the original can be proved superior) or they will go out of business and someone else will take their place.
This is not rocket science by any means.
While I sincerely hope that the whining media guys get arsefucked by a huge mustard-smeared cactus in this trial, I'd not be surprised if the final judgement hinged on the very name of The Pirate Bay showing intent...
If they'd just called themselves TorrentSeek or something a BIT LESS OBVIOUS....
The purpose of the Pirate Bay is facilitate with exchanging pirate material - it's the site's intention. This obviously separates it from Google, Sony et. al, and I would expect in a legal way too. Although intention is often hard to prove in court, I don't think they'd have too much difficulty with the Pirate Bay as it's so blatent. I expect it to be shut down, just as the early music sharing sites were a few years back.
You're missing the point. They're not exchanging pirate material, whatever you think (or they declare) their intentions to be. It's everybody else who's doing the exchanging.
I can't be charged with murder if I go outside, shout "I'm going to murder Mr Smith" but don't actually murder anyone. Maybe threatening behaviour, but not murder.
"In fact it simplifies the prosecutor’s case by allowing him to focus on the main issue, which is the making available of copyrighted works."
and at the same time screws the defence case as half of it is now irrelivant.. talk about a waste of time and money!
If they were up before me I'd be having words about wasting my time.
I'm not sure on this one, but Google's cache makes copies of sites, which may or may not contain copyright material/code. Google's cache is held on it's servers, so Google is making copies of and distributing copyrighted material.
TPB makes available links for copyrighted material (as does Google), but does not host the material.
So surely Google's caching is more illegal than the TPB?
Can anyone clear that up for me?
Thanks!
Google is an index of all content on the web it can find, compiled automatically, without rhyme or reason. The Pirate Bay is a directory on torrent files. If The Pirate Bay was a web spider which exclusively indexed .torrent files from random sites so you could connect to them, your analogy might hold up so, but it's not - it is a site for hosting user submitted torrents and tracking them.
A better analogy would be YouTube, which not only facilitates the exchange of unlicensed material but actively engages in it.
"As long as TPB remove links that copyright holders protest about I can't see how they can be held responsible for what their users post..."
That's where the copypigs will nail TPB if indeed they do. Google, YouTube et. al. DO actually remove links that copyright owners complain about. TPB not only refuse to remove or even investigate the alleged infringement, they publish the complaint and *openly ridicule* the complainant!
That, in itself, is pouring petrol on the fire and I'm surprised it took this long for this case to happen. The prosecution can easily prove intent to facilitate infringement simply by pointing at TPB's inflammatory responses to their complaints. TPB would have stood a chance if they simply responded by saying something like "We acknowledge your complaint and will investigate the matter as time and resources permit", and then doing nothing, because they could then rightly say "Your honour, we simply don't have the resources to be able to investigate every torrent or every complaint we receive". This would at least get them some plausible deniability. Instead they tell the complainant to fuck off and/or bring it on. This, more than any other factor in the case, is what I think will result in TPB being shut down.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
