Hopefully this will work
If it doesn't, well it made me chuckle anyway. Also I pledge my 1 SEK!
P2P-ers furious over the Pirate Bay case are being asked to get back at lawyers for the entertainment industry via the counter-intuitive route of ostensibly giving them money. By sending very small amounts of money of 1 SEK ($0.13) to Danowsky & Partners, who brought the prosecution, through the Swedish web-based payment …
If this 1000 free transactions bit was a fib!
As to getting 'mistaken' payments back surely that would be a task for the bank rather than the law firm? If so one assumes the bank would be rather keen to head off this attack. Plus if you do deposit 1SEK into their account like hundred of others that it would be difficult to argue you did it by mistake.
Well I would imagine the banks would sort something out for them.
Wouldn't it be awful if they thought outside the box a bit, and got someone with swine flu or some other lurgy to sneeze on the cheques first, eewww or a small bit of faeces placed on it that would be teaming. Horrible, hope no one does anything like that.
Best laugh I've had all day, pure genius. Got rid of my paypal account a while ago but I'll sign back up to take part in this, well worth 10 quid to help stick it to the screwed up music industry where it hurts.
Keep it up lads, your going to be heroes.
PS, to anyone who has an issue with this, I spent over a grand on music last year, almost all of it on independent labels or directly to the artist. Nothing against paying for art, everything against paying to make fat fuckers fatter.
That it's probably very simple for the account holder to block this type of payment. Indeed since we're dealing with lawyers don't be surprised if they don't figure a way of turning the charges round on the payers. Don't know how the banks work over there, but a British bank could probably be convinced to reverse the charge and charge an additional sum for writing a letter to inform the payer of this.
Anybody who still believes the pirate bay can win this one probably shouldn't be allowed sharp objects.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Avalanche distribution is one of the greatest inventions ever as far as leveraging bandwidth is concerned.
Used properly, it would make movies and other big content managable for the local network providers.
Instead, the freetards have made it their own, resulting in the kind of silliness we see here.
...with friends like these... I fear that what will happen here is a strengthening of copyright laws to the detriment of fair use, and a conviction and terrible legal precedent putting legitimate torrenting/file sharing (eg, OSS, user made game mods, etc) at risk.
And all because these guys couldn't just show up with the evidence and present it, but have to act like arrogant, self-aggrandizing twits. They're going to get themselves strung up just because they're being dickheads, and the rest of the world will have to pay for the precedent that sets.
In the US it is NOT legal to pay a large bill in 1¢ pieces. (I think the limit is a few dollars.) The rational is that YOUR intent is harm - and to not pay for something. I would not be surprised if the same holds in most countries.
SO - good luck and all - I hope that you don't mind paying a fine to the government. (Think the MPAA gets frosted when they aren't paid - try a government!)
"And all because these guys couldn't just show up with the evidence and present it, but have to act like arrogant, self-aggrandizing twits. They're going to get themselves strung up just because they're being dickheads, and the rest of the world will have to pay for the precedent that sets." ..... By David Wiernicki Posted Tuesday 12th May 2009 23:54 GMT
I think it is more a case of the evidence being presented by the first party to third parties who rejected and misinterpreted/misrepresented it to protect/propagate Status Quo Interests/Closed Systems ......... for when well explained to them, it would be impossible for an intelligent being to fail to understand the priceless value and worth in the evidence/testimony/valid opinion.
"Alternatively you could all just pay for your movies and music instead of downloading it from the fucking Pirate Bay. Twats."
Well played for showing a complete lack of knowledge as to how the system worked (as did the judge !). You did NOT download any copyrighted material from the pirate bay servers, you downloaded basically links to SHARED (note shared, not always copyrighted its a users choice what they share) files that are hosted on peoples machine.
If you don't like pirates fine, i'm not sure about them half the time, but at least argue a valid point!
The companies have had so many chances to get back to the real world and use technology in a friendly way.
So when I get a chance to stick it to the man like this in a non-violent way I say TAKE IT!
@David Wiernicki: With the investigating copper on their payroll (yes, he had a job offer from record company at the time when he was interviewing the lads) The judge a member of an outspoken pro copyright/musiclabel "club" together with the prosecuting lawyers..what is the point in presenting "evidence"?
No matter how you turn the issue they did not host any illegal material! You find exactly the same things using google or any other searchengine.
by sending them money you are providing them with your name/address/IP/DNA and anything else worth having.
I for one wouldn't want to be popping up their radar any time soon.
It all seems a little childish as well as dangerous. Why not just get an ID card and put you occupation as Freetard/Pirate
Can I have an icon for 'I didn't get where I am today by sending my enemies money to try and piss them off.
I find it interesting that people are suggesting this sort of prank etc. should/could affect the outcome of their appeal. I thought the law was based on a set of rules. If you transgress these rules, you get a punishment as specified in the rules. Unless Sweden has a rule about being a pratt etc., doing this does not transgress any laws and therefore is irrelevent to the outcome. You're supposed to be tried according to the evidence you have transgressed the rules. Can anybody identify a court case where someone was found guilty for being a pratt or plank or whatever?
Unfortunately, the whole case shows that laws no longer matter. Pirate Bay (whether you like them or not) did not transgress any laws and the prosecution lawyers played on the judges lack of technical knowledge to get a conviction. Morally, Pirate Bay may be guilty, but that doesn't mean they are technically guilty of breaking the law. They are two different things and kept seperate for a very good reason. Morals are variable, laws can't be.
The current debacle about politicans expenses (I would love to see judges expenses!!) shows the same stupid debate in that politicians are showing they can't understand the difference between technically wrong (outside the rulebook) and morally wrong. They are guilty as charged of being morally in the wrong (which is why the public are complaining so bitterly), but are technically in the right.
"but are technically in the right." .... By Mad Mike Posted Wednesday 13th May 2009 10:01 GMT
I think the problem is that they are technically in the wrong too. And now the Law and Stupidity are being Tested to do Justice to Themselves, in the Eyes and Minds of Everyone Else. A Challenge which not to Rise to and/or Address Clearly will Discover a Scam and a Sham Servering Deceit rather than Delivering Unimpeachable Wisdom and Future Guidance.
The point is to at the very least not look like a bunch of twats. Those sitting on the fence with this issue will likely be tipped toward the 'pro copyright' side by this kind of childish grandstanding - and the grandstanding itself will do no more to help them win their case against a biased judge than anything else.
Throwing a temper tantrum can only hurt their case, in the legal *and* PR sense.
"...I find it interesting that people are suggesting this sort of prank etc. should/could affect the outcome of their appeal..."
If the guilty verdict is upheald and the judge sees fit, he could change the punnishment. That would be enough reason to not behave in this manner.
Also, I thought that the law they broke was facilitating copyright theft, which they plainly did do and made no bones about it. If they had just responded to takedown notices/emails (as major search engines do) they wouldn't be in this mess.
If TPB had started responding to takedown notices, which they were deliberately not equipped to handle, there would be a prompt storm of takedown notices that they definitely weren't able to handle if they'd wanted to. That's not excusing or condemning them, it is what it is and if it didn't exist someone else would fill their shoes.
It does all seem a bit childish though, if they cost the law firm a few bucks before they shut the account or whatever else is necessary it is not as though the firm won't have other work to make up the difference, it is good for a chuckle and that's about all.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021