Pirate Bay reports pirating anti-piracy group to police The Pirate Bay has lodged an official police complaint against the anti-piracy group that copied its famous pirate ship logo. Last week the Pirate crew warned that they were considering action against the Finnish Copyright Information and Anti-Piracy Centre (CIAPC) after that organization copied the CSS style sheet to get the …
What else? Tosh. It's a stonkingly, ridiculously misguided and meritless case and argument as usual from TPB and they will lose money.
'Good cause' alteration of a logo of a non-commercial organisation (TPB), where there's no chance of confusion in the minds of consumers between the two orgs, and where the pro-copyright org is clearly fighting a bunch of thieves and vandals trying to destroy others' property rights for nothing other than the titillation of getting others' efforts for free, comes under many legal labels of "allowable".
As for karma, that will arrive when TPB users are asked to work for the rest of their lives for free, "y'know, to promote their product".
"'Good cause' alteration of a logo of a non-commercial organisation (TPB), where there's no chance of confusion in the minds of consumers between the two orgs, and where the pro-copyright org is clearly fighting a bunch of thieves and vandals trying to destroy others' property rights for nothing other than the titillation of getting others' efforts for free, comes under many legal labels of "allowable"."
Ah yes. The you have to follow the law, but I don't sort of response. The you broke the law (allegedly) first, therefore I can break the law argument. All completely without merit and with much case law showing the argument is total b**locks. If the anti-piracy group has broken copyright (and we'll await the court case to find out), they're guilty. Whether the victims are convicted criminals or not is irrelevant. Even criminals are allowed the use the legal system against others. Terrible, but true. When you get into power, you can correct this gross injustice of criminals having access to the law.........................
"Even criminals are allowed the use the legal system against others. Terrible, but true."
Legally speaking, you're quite right.
It rather makes TPB look like hypocrites to the wider media and public, though. And - as their foes stated - would require them to very publically and formally acknowledge 'ownership', which might make them Actionable in future.
@Psyx
I think you're missing the point. Whether they publically and formally acknowledge 'ownership' is not relevant to any action that may be taken against them, as the law acknowledges it. Therefore, they are actionable in the future regardless of the stance they take on this. If the law required the offender to acknowledge the crime before action could be taken against them, the law would be pretty useless.
Also, I don't think the general public (and in this case, they're the ones that matter) have any problem at all with the hypocracy. They understand TPB are doing this to show the stupidity of the anti-piracy camp, largely because TPB have publically stated this. So, in the general publics mind, I think there's one clear winner here. Something with anti-piracy campaign groups should take into account if they wish to get anywhere in the future.
"I think you're missing the point."
My point is that if they launch legal action, it will require them to very much put names on pieces of paper as regards the ownership of TPB in a legally binding and transparent manner. Which might then later be used in court to pin TPB activities onto individuals in un-related cases. As can be seen from this quote: "CIAPC has not yet been contacted by Pirate Bay but we do hope that the site's operators come out publicly with their real identities and get in touch with us", the inference is that TPB's current legal owners are unknown.
"Also, I don't think the general public (and in this case, they're the ones that matter) have any problem at all with the hypocracy. They understand TPB are doing this to show the stupidity of the anti-piracy camp, largely because TPB have publically stated this. So, in the general publics mind, I think there's one clear winner here."
I disagree. I think you credit 'the general public' with knowledge that is more specialised. An easy thing to do for one familiar with the details who works with other people familiar with the details, but remember that the average 'man on the street' has barely even heard of TPB. The man on the street will not have heard TPB's statement anywhere. That type of person makes up the majority of society and -like it or not- that type of person will take in only the following base fact, as reported briefly by mass media: "Piracy organisation are trying to sue some people for piracy".
And from that, they will snort "hypocrites!"
Like it or not, that's the way the public will see it, based on the soundbite they will hear.
"My point is that if they launch legal action, it will require them to very much put names on pieces of paper as regards the ownership of TPB in a legally binding and transparent manner. Which might then later be used in court to pin TPB activities onto individuals in un-related cases. As can be seen from this quote: "CIAPC has not yet been contacted by Pirate Bay but we do hope that the site's operators come out publicly with their real identities and get in touch with us", the inference is that TPB's current legal owners are unknown."
Ah. Sorry, I misunderstood your meaning. I thought you meant 'ownership' in the sense of copyright rather than 'ownership' of TPB. I do agree and have commented as such in a later entry.
"I disagree. I think you credit 'the general public' with knowledge that is more specialised. An easy thing to do for one familiar with the details who works with other people familiar with the details, but remember that the average 'man on the street' has barely even heard of TPB. The man on the street will not have heard TPB's statement anywhere. That type of person makes up the majority of society and -like it or not- that type of person will take in only the following base fact, as reported briefly by mass media: "Piracy organisation are trying to sue some people for piracy".
And from that, they will snort "hypocrites!"
Like it or not, that's the way the public will see it, based on the soundbite they will hear."
I'm afraid you're undermining the case of the anti-piracy groups there. If the average 'man on the street' has barely heard of TPB, then how can they be costing the copyright owners so much money. They can only be costing that much money if the average man HAS heard of them and is using them. So, either the anti-piracy groups claims are without merit (in terms of magnitude of losses etc.), or the man on the street is very aware of TPB and understands the issues and therefore knows what TPB are doing and why. So, you're argument is either wrong, or you're implicity saying the anti-piracy groups have no case. Which do you choose?
"I'm afraid you're undermining the case of the anti-piracy groups there."
I'm just stating the facts. It doesn't really matter whose case I undermine: It's the simple truth and I have no particular axe to grind and emotional attachment to the matter either way.
"So, either the anti-piracy groups claims are without merit (in terms of magnitude of losses etc.), or the man on the street is very aware of TPB and understands the issues and therefore knows what TPB are doing and why."
I have a lot of exposure to illegal downloading because I'm tech savvy and not too old, and the people around me in life do it. That gives me a perception bias that it's common. But actually ask 'normal' people over the age of 25, and the intricacies of TPB are likely to be an unknown factor to them. Hell: Even most of the people who I know who pirate aren't in the IT sector, don't read IT news and have NO IDEA about the politics of TPB, merely how to get to it and use it.
But that said, I don't think we can declare anti-piracy groups 'without merit' if 'only' 10% of the public download illegally, no more than we could declare -picking another headline today- the Sea Shepherd bunch moot because 'only' a couple of nations harpoon whales.
"So, you're argument is either wrong, or you're implicity saying the anti-piracy groups have no case. Which do you choose?"
I'm not making an 'argument'. Why does every point raised have to be emotively defended? Why do I have to have a 'side'. I'm just stating a fact. I don't see why that needs to be vigorously down-shouted and confronted. Dislike what I'm saying all you like, but it doesn't make it any less of a fact, and no amount of clicking on little down-turned thumbs changes it.
" then how can they be costing the copyright owners so much money. They can only be costing that much money if the average man HAS heard of them and is using them."
That's a very black-or-white logic, and not at all true. I don't see how anyone can logically leap to "The majority of people don't pirate, ergo it doesn't cost the industry a lot of money".
Just because piracy is not a majority interest, it doesn't mean that it's essentially victimless and not costing lots of money. Over-claimed, ,vastly vastly over-inflated amounts of money, sure. But still lots of money. Which makes the anti-piracy groups legitimate in their goals for the industry which they represent. You really think that they should just give in and pack up because 90% of us aren't ripping off every movie that's released?
"Which do you choose?"
I choose a rational middle-ground, rather than nailing my flag to one side and taking a viewpoint on the matter which leads me to make knee-jerk judgements and see everything as black or white.
"I'm just stating the facts. It doesn't really matter whose case I undermine: It's the simple truth and I have no particular axe to grind and emotional attachment to the matter either way."
I know you keep calling them facts, but they're not. You haven't provided anything to back up the facts. They're what you believe to be true, but just because you believe it, doesn't make it fact.
"I have a lot of exposure to illegal downloading because I'm tech savvy and not too old, and the people around me in life do it. That gives me a perception bias that it's common. But actually ask 'normal' people over the age of 25, and the intricacies of TPB are likely to be an unknown factor to them. Hell: Even most of the people who I know who pirate aren't in the IT sector, don't read IT news and have NO IDEA about the politics of TPB, merely how to get to it and use it."
Someone doesn't need to know the technicalities to 'understand' (at least at the high level) the issues. Even someone who just downloads and knows little more about the TPB knows it's golliath against david. They also know their downloads will disappear. They also know the media companies are stomping around like big bullies as the mass media are putting the stories out there. If you reduce it to soundbites, the TPB look even better to people and the media companies even worse.
"Just because piracy is not a majority interest, it doesn't mean that it's essentially victimless and not costing lots of money. Over-claimed, ,vastly vastly over-inflated amounts of money, sure. But still lots of money. Which makes the anti-piracy groups legitimate in their goals for the industry which they represent. You really think that they should just give in and pack up because 90% of us aren't ripping off every movie that's released?"
I'm not saying it doesn't have a victim and doesn't cost money. What I was simply saying is that if the entire populatuion of the planet were pirating all the time, claiming losses of hundreds of millions or billions might be reasonable. However, if only say 1% of the planets population is pirating, either the costs simply can't be that high, or their broadband connections must be permanently at full throttle. In other words, the losses must be in proportion to the number taking part in the piracy. Either way, the figures given out by the media companies and the methods by which they come to them (e.g. every download is a lost sale) are simply preposterous and actually undermine their case in the eyes of the public.
This post has been deleted by its author
“Ah yes. The you have to follow the law, but I don't sort of response. “
No, legislatures with a code on copyright generally include explicit fair use clauses, including among other for satirical, journalistic, and educational purposes. But use of a logo for purposes of description and identification is also pretty universally accepted as 'fair'. This isn't a case of 'passing-off', or a case where goodwill or material benefits are being unjustly enjoyed without a morally and/or legally proper level of permission and/or recompense. It is a very far cry from Pirate Bay destroying human beings and industries and art through stealing the fruits of peoples' professional lives. TPB has no mission. The copyright org here has a very important one. Weighing these factors will always play a role in any judicial balancing of harms.
“The you broke the law (allegedly) first, therefore I can break the law argument.”
This isn't about breaking the law, as I said, the law is flexible and intelligent enough to discriminate between people's purposes.
“All completely without merit and with much case law showing the argument is total b**locks.”
Citation please.
“If the anti-piracy group has broken copyright (and we'll await the court case to find out), they're guilty.”
But consider the provisions, this isn't even an if, there is no case to answer.
“Whether the victims are convicted criminals or not is irrelevant. Even criminals are allowed the use the legal system against others.”
We're not talking about protecting convicted criminals, we're talking about preventing very serious ongoing and utterly unjustified industrial sabotage, i.e. crime, on a massive scale. But the criminality isn't the problem, the consequences of it are the problem.
“Terrible, but true. When you get into power, you can correct this gross injustice of criminals having access to the law.........................”
But this isn't the law, you have no law or actual moral case on the side of your argument, otherwise you would have included even the slightest smidgen. In the event, all you could say was “oh it's not good to deprive criminals of justice”. If you accept they're criminals, presumably you accept they're also continuing themselves to commit crime, and calling for others to do so too, with hugely damaging economic and social consequences, on an ongoing basis through their activities. This is the real question at issue: how to stop them, and doing so is an important cause which will be weighed by a judge in the unlikely event he or she ever admits this “case” for hearing.
"No, legislatures with a code on copyright generally include explicit fair use clauses, including among other for satirical, journalistic, and educational purposes. But use of a logo for purposes of description and identification is also pretty universally accepted as 'fair'. This isn't a case of 'passing-off', or a case where goodwill or material benefits are being unjustly enjoyed without a morally and/or legally proper level of permission and/or recompense. It is a very far cry from Pirate Bay destroying human beings and industries and art through stealing the fruits of peoples' professional lives. TPB has no mission. The copyright org here has a very important one. Weighing these factors will always play a role in any judicial balancing of harms."
I agree there is a balancing of harms when weighing the law. However, that's precisely what isn't happening. How is there is weighing when an organisation raids someones house using the police, confiscates property and for what? A small girl has tried ONCE to download something and then her father legally purchased it when he found out. Is that a balanced view? Of course not. The media industry etc. are the people who are showing NO balance and NO moral code. They are pursuing people for trivial violations with significant force and bully boy tactics. The courts are helping them and therefore often showing no balance either. Both these bodies are the ones taking a literal view of the law and not showing any balance or reasonable behaviour. They are the ones who cite preposterous losses against people.
"This isn't about breaking the law, as I said, the law is flexible and intelligent enough to discriminate between people's purposes."
So, you're suggesting that deliberately using someones copyright material with forethought (anti-piracy group) is OK, but going after the girl above for ONE violation is also OK? You're seriously having a laugh. All these incidents show beyond doubt that the law is not being flexibly and intelligently enough implemented for the majority of people.
"But consider the provisions, this isn't even an if, there is no case to answer."
As you like to say, citation please. WIthout one, this is a meaningless opinion. Can you show by legal precedent etc. there is no case to answer.....no. This is your opinion, currently based on nothing.
"We're not talking about protecting convicted criminals, we're talking about preventing very serious ongoing and utterly unjustified industrial sabotage, i.e. crime, on a massive scale. But the criminality isn't the problem, the consequences of it are the problem."
Serious and unjustified sabotage.....again please provide a citation. I think you'll find a significant proportion of the population don't believe it's unjustified against media companies at least. They've been allowed to run cartels (against the law) and artificially inflate prices for years without any action being taken against them. As to the impact on their businesses? All their figures are beyond stupid. They create figures out of thin air that have no basis in reality and then cite them as fact. Some artists are now even beginning to realise that putting their work on the internet can actually provide THEM with better earnings. They're beginning to realise the media companies are the ones taking all their money, not so much the pirates. This will just become more and more over time. The general population simply don't believe their grossly inflated figures. You'll note I'm not saying they aren't loosing money. I'm just saying that if they kept the figures they quote within the bounds of reason, people might have more sympathy for them. But, they don't and stomp around like jackbooted stormtroopers. They are loosing the popularity war with then pirates simply because people don't believe a word they say and consider many of their actions morally reprehensible. All they ever do is threaten people.
"But this isn't the law, you have no law or actual moral case on the side of your argument, otherwise you would have included even the slightest smidgen. In the event, all you could say was “oh it's not good to deprive criminals of justice”. If you accept they're criminals, presumably you accept they're also continuing themselves to commit crime, and calling for others to do so too, with hugely damaging economic and social consequences, on an ongoing basis through their activities. This is the real question at issue: how to stop them, and doing so is an important cause which will be weighed by a judge in the unlikely event he or she ever admits this “case” for hearing."
What utter rubbish. My moral case is rather than kicking down some small girls door and taking her laptop etc. for ONE violation, they could have sent a letter. The father would then have replied showing his purchase, explained what happened and apologise on behalf of his daughter after explaining what she did wrong. That's the reasonable and moral way to do things, but they choose to kick the door down, take the laptop and threaten stupid costs and losses. If the media industry and judges actually thought about things, they might try a different approach, which might have more success, because the current one isn't working!! But not, they simply threaten more and use more bully boy tactics. They have to realise that the law operates with the consent of the population (as do the police), not inspite of it. If the majority of the population don't agree with something, it won't go away, which is exactly what's happening here. If the law (and police) start operating without the consent of the population, you end up with little more than a banana republic.
"It's funny that we have to teach the copyright lobby the meaning of the law. The fact that they wrote it doesn't mean that they are above it."
Granted there's some irony here, but they've glossed over the part where they're litigating on copyright grounds, but as an organization are completely against it. So either they don't recognize that fact (and they'd have to be pretty dense), or are intentionally fighting hypocrisy with hypocrisy (which is quite petty).
Forget the law. Both of these groups have a set of beliefs, and both are violating them. And from what I've seen, one is pretending they're not while the other is silent about it.
I think you missed the point. They are well aware that they're being a bit hypocritical by proceeding with a copyright suit here. They seem to recognize and acknowledge this -- but the goal, insofar as I understand their motives, is to teach copyright organizations that if they are to be respected they must follow their own laws.
I bet if they just admitted they filched it and fessed up that they were wrong, the Pirate Bay would probably drop it entirely. Although there might need to be an apology to the little girl first too. ;)
"The fact that they're aware of their hypocrisy does not excuse it."
Agreed. However, one side of the argument (the anti-piracy group) does not even acknowledge it is being hypocritical. At least TPB admit it publically and know it and completely own up to being hypocritical to make a point. They're not hiding it in the least. And very effective it is too. The anti-piracy group are being shown to only respect copyright when its THEIR copyright. Everyone else can go hang as far as they're concerned. Being hypocritical is fine when you're making a valid point (TPB are) and when you acknowledge it publically. It's a means to an end and people understand this.
Depends on whether or not you think 'do as we say not as we do' is a satisfactory mode of conduct for copyright organisations and holier-than-thou institutions/individuals in general.
Personally I'm happy to sit and watch TPB force feed them their own damned dog food. Too many of these 'privileged' organisations think they only have to write the law, not follow it. Fighting hypocrisy with hypocrisy would seem apt, also.
The CSS was sent every machine that visited their site. Each one was a copyright violation. The first thing I would do is to ask the court for the logs. I have the sneaking suspicion it would show a pattern of willful, systemic, criminal copyright violation.
I'm thinking, as was done in cases of just linking to violating material, jail time may be in order.
This is likely to be the same sad old troll or shill that appears with the same tired "pirates are going to prison" comments every time, completely ignoring the fact that copyright infringement is civil, not criminal (in most cases). He (because it almost certainly is a bloke) is best ignored.
From Wikipedia :
"A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he has a close relationship with that person or organization.
"Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that he is an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom he is secretly working."
As such, the word was used in a perfectly justifiable manner given that definition.
Therefor, I must ask : what exactly is your point ?
I do tend to agree and they're doing so very well.
What the copyright groups need to realise is that they require public support to make it work. Regardless of what laws they get implemented etc., if the public don't back them (at least in majority), it doesn't really matter. Rather than trying to hang every single offender, they need to show they can be reasonable. Then, maybe, the public will listen to their argument. At the moment, they appear to everyone to be a bunch of nasty bully boys going round beating everyone up, even small girls. Gives them so much respect!!
Bringing the girl into this is pure genius by TPB. The copyright groups should probably hire TPB as they seem to be far better at public opinion and marketing than they are!!
This post has been deleted by its author
Really? Piracy means artists don't get paid? Glad to see you're not letting facts get in the way of your opinion. Sometimes the biggest criminals are the ones in the suits.
Return Of The Jedi Still Isn't Profitable
Courtney Love does the maths on a recording contract
Morrissey: Don't Buy My Box Sets
Do tell me again how pirates are damaging the music industry???
"Really? Piracy means artists don't get paid? Glad to see you're not letting facts get in the way of your opinion. Sometimes the biggest criminals are the ones in the suits."
Fuck the big labels and the big-money artists. What about the small label and Indy artists who are working their arses off and doing all their own work and being stiffed by piracy? Those are the ones that I actually give a shit about, and those are the only ones who are affected in a real and tangible way, yet those are the ones who are rather ignored in the debate. The anti-piracy crowd aren't being paid to represent them, and the pro-piracy crowd are busy lumping them in with the major labels and conveniently forgetting them in their keenness to see their point illustrated in the 'best' possible light.
"Fuck the big labels and the big-money artists. What about the small label and Indy artists who are working their arses off and doing all their own work and being stiffed by piracy? Those are the ones that I actually give a shit about, and those are the only ones who are affected in a real and tangible way, yet those are the ones who are rather ignored in the debate. The anti-piracy crowd aren't being paid to represent them, and the pro-piracy crowd are busy lumping them in with the major labels and conveniently forgetting them in their keenness to see their point illustrated in the 'best' possible light."
I agree totally with what you've said. However, they can do things about it. Firstly, they can publically disown the actions of the larger labels and artists and the anti-piracy organisations that pretend to operate for everyone. Secondly, they can move to a business model that makes it less of an issue. Unfortunately, in any war (and this is a war), there is always collatoral and small labels and indies are the victims. Maybe if they were seen to have a decent business model and distanced themselves, people might prefer dealing with them than the big boys? Piracy is a knee jerk reaction by people to the excesses of the industry in the past when the tools became available to do it easily and quickly. No matter how much people want to turn the clock back, the genie is out the bottle and will stay out until the masses decide to put it back in. They won't do that in response to threats. So, the pragmatic view is to work with the consumer rather than against them, but that's exactly what the labels are refusing to do. Hence, the war will continue.
"Or does that only apply when you're depriving artists of money due to them, rather than when you're using a version on an image used by people doing the depriving?"
Granted; I've been a bit loose in using the word crime. As you say, it's a civil matter and it's a civil matter regardless of who has broken the copyright of whom. Makes no difference. However, that's precisely what the anti-piracy groups don't seem to understand and get. Mind you, when you have bought and paid for some law, it's probably not unreasonable to think you can invoke it only when you choose to.
g e
Yes, in this country the Labour Party would sue, but then, they are a legal entity. Is TPB a legal entity? Is there a company behind it? If so, whatever entity doing the suing would have to acknowledge those controlling it (company secretary etc.), so their names would come out. If they're not a legal entity, they can't sue. I don't know the answer to the above, but I think TPB is going much more for publicity than actually suing. Bringing the girl into this is a work of genius. TPB maybe amateurs (one assumes) at this, but they're showing big media companies and their public relations firms how to do public relations and advertising.
I do not know if Finnish law has a parody exception to copyright and if it does then PB are screwed. If it does not then PB just look like a bunch of humorless copyright trolls.
There is a universal truth that no one cares about copyright until theirs is infringed or at least they think it is.
My better half brought home Skyfall on a BluRay - this apparently entitles me to a "digital" copy (not sure what they think is on the BluRay or DVD they supplied, but that's beside the point).
However I don't have a PC/MAC* to download their (possibly dodgy, if history with Sony is anything to go by) software onto, nor to load the DVD or type in the silly long code on the leaflet in the box (almost as if they *want* me to lose it).
So I fire up TPB, and in under an hour have a non DRM 1080p copy of Skyfall on my NAS.
If they'd put a 2D barcode on the inside of the printed cover then I could/would have scanned it and downloaded the file easily - but instead I took the easy option and used TPB to find a magnet link which I then used to "infringe" copyright in order to use the rights I had licensed (i.e. paid for). I would also be MUCH less likely to lose that than some random bit of paper in a box without a sensible place to hold it, so it falls out when I open the box to watch the film**...
AC (Obviously)
* We are a "post PC" household - tablets, smartphones and a NAS - no PCs any more
** Yes, I know I won't have to open the box any more, I can stream it from the NAS
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
