back to article The Pirate Bay's stor ost Peter Sunde collared at farm in Sweden

The Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde, who has been fighting his conviction on charges of facilitating copyright infringement, has been arrested in Sweden. The arrest comes just days after Sunde's bid for a seat in the European Parliament as a Pirate Party representative came to nought, with the party garnering just 0.7 per …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Cliff

    Why flee to Asia?

    Somalia is closer.

    1. king of foo

      Re: Why flee to Asia?

      Yarr, tharr be too much competition me arties

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why flee to Asia?

        are there not quite a few somalian pirates too ?

        1. Cliff

          Re: Why flee to Asia?

          I really wasn't expecting my choice of Somalia in the first post to need spelling out!

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. king of foo

    I'm lost...

    What if I were to set up a website tomorrow and allow my users to share files through it.

    What if I allow people to use the site for free, anonymously, without requiring user accounts, and let them choose to share content privately or publicly.

    I could call it "therapemurderstealfrauddodrugssosdomylistentojustinbieberbay"

    Say I make a little money from advertising on the website.

    If my users are perverts and pirates where do I stand? I respect the privacy of my users therefore I wouldn't dream of rooting through their files.

    Would I be an evil nasty pirate that deserves to be locked up?

    1. bigtimehustler

      Re: I'm lost...

      In answer to your question, yes you would. At least as far as current precedent suggests. The only issue with the site was its name. If you set up a website to purely let people share a certain file type I fail to see how you can found guilty of anything, particularly if your a site that doesn't try to promote the sharing of illegal content through those file types. The fact that people commit crime using it is there problem and they should be taken to court.

      It is akin to me walking into a local government building and murdering somebody, is the local government guilty of allowing this to happen in their building or as the perpetrator of the crime is it solely my responsibility?

      1. Grifter

        A completely reasonable comparison!

        >>It is akin to me walking into a local government building and murdering somebody

        Yes, downloading a movie is exactly like murdering people, that's not overstated at all.

        1. Roo
          Windows

          Re: A completely reasonable comparison!

          "Yes, downloading a movie is exactly like murdering people, that's not overstated at all."

          The sarcasm is justified, its not hard to find cases where drivers have wilfully killed someone with their driving, yet receive lesser sentences than a website owner/admin who has been convicted of copyright infringement.

          Speaks volumes about who politicians are serving with respect to their law-making, the record execs are worth more to them than their constituents.

          1. Aitor 1 Silver badge

            Re: A completely reasonable comparison!

            If you want to kill somebody, just get into your car, and go to a straight road with bikes and choose.

            Stop, lament the accident and ask for pardon. You won't go to jail.

            Now, do that outside a car and go to jail... for a long time.

        2. Lionel Baden
          Happy

          Re: A completely reasonable comparison!

          @grifter

          Im guessing you wouldnt download a car either !!!

          http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/would-you-download-a-car-man-3d-prints-lifesize-aston-martin-db4-8744159.html

          :D

    2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: I'm lost...

      What if I were to set up a website tomorrow and allow my users to share files through it.

      What if I allow people to use the site for free, anonymously, without requiring user accounts, and let them choose to share content privately or publicly.

      I could call it "TheOpenPatchRepository.Com"

      Say I make a little money from advertising on the website.

      If my users post information related to information security threats, where do I stand? I respect the privacy of my users therefore I wouldn't dream of rooting through their files.

      Would I be an evil nasty cyber-terrorist that deserves to be locked up?

      ----------------

      What if I were to set up a website tomorrow and allow my users to share files through it.

      What if I allow people to use the site for free, anonymously, without requiring user accounts, and let them choose to share content privately or publicly.

      I could call it "Facebook.Com"

      Say I make a little money from advertising on the website.

      If my users post pictures of themselves and others, where do I stand? I respect the privacy of my users therefore I wouldn't dream of rooting through their files.

      Would I be an evil nasty privacy invading meta-stalker that deserves to be locked up?

      ----------

      What if I were to set up a website tomorrow and allow my users to share files through it.

      What if I allow people to use the site for free, anonymously, without requiring user accounts, and let them choose to share content privately or publicly.

      I could call it "WeTheGoverned.org"

      Say I make a little money from advertising on the website.

      If my users post proof of government corruption and malfeasance, where do I stand? I respect the privacy of my users therefore I wouldn't dream of rooting through their files.

      Would I be an evil nasty traitor that deserves to be locked up?

      ----------

      What if I were to set up a website tomorrow and allow my users to share files through it.

      What if I allow people to use the site for free, anonymously, without requiring user accounts, and let them choose to share content privately or publicly.

      I could call it "TheRegister.co.uk"

      Say I make a little money from advertising on the website.

      If my users post their opinions on the technology that makes the world's economies function, where do I stand? I respect the privacy of my users therefore I wouldn't dream of rooting through their files.

      Would I be an evil nasty economic dissident that deserves to be locked up?

      Where's the line? And why do you draw it where you do?

      1. Clive Galway

        Re: I'm lost...

        Although it had significant upvotes, I downvoted this comment, and this is my reasoning why:

        Whilst I agree with your sentiment, your examples suck.

        If "TheOpenPatchRepository.Com" was hosting copyrighted content (Let us say cracked EXEs or even patches for normal EXEs that cracked copyrighted software) then yes, they would be liable for facilitating copyright infringement.

        Facebook does require user accounts.

        Facebook does facilitate sharing of copyrighted content, but not without the owner's consent.

        I am pretty sure it complies with any DMCA requests etc, so I fail to see your point.

        TheRegister does not let you share files.

        If "WeTheGoverned.org" existed and facilitated sharing of files, then yes, it may be liable if it does not adhere to the laws on such things.

        Please, if you are going to fight in the corner of people who believe that copyright laws and enforcement methods need reform, at least try and present an argument that holds some water.

  3. Psmo

    "I respect the privacy of my users therefore I wouldn't dream of rooting through their files."

    Not even a virus scan? Now that's trust. Or naïve. And what if you find that you've been hosting a C&C server master list for $ransomware_du_mois? And once you're checking for that, how does that look any different to a file check to a court?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022