Yep, it seems the court ruled that their intent was to help illegally distribute copyrighted works and sentenced each of the four to 1 year in prison and a $905k fine.
Source: http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-trial-the-verdict-090417/
Quite interesting, I think.
Why is irrelevant. Demands made by the pirate party are irrelevant. Legality is irrelevant. When something is unavoidable and necessary to accomplish a goal, providing excuses to avoid it will not accomplish the goal. Emerging tech markets are built, at little to no cost to the providers, by piracy. The goal of a business in that sector isn't to prevent piracy, it's to expand their market. Self delusion dosn't change reality.
Yet again you completely ignore relevant context, although I guess I should be grateful you didn't misquote me this time.
good point, see i can agree when you are correct.
Things aren't "irrelevant" just because you say they are. I don't even know what point you're trying to make. That people can profit by pirating other people's software? That's obvious.
That doesn't make piracy a good thing to the people who are being stolen from, and it's certainly not something that can be legalized. As I said, the only way this new tech sector can make money is if people DON'T pirate their software. If piracy were legal or widely approved of, then everyone would steal THEIR software as well. Everyone would steal all software all the time, so all software businesses suffer.
When arguing with someone, you have to actually argue something, not just make shit up to disagree with and pretend to refute their point.
Thats not entirely Accurate. Though its very rare we have examples of releases which follow a "pay what you want" approach. Radioheads "in Rainbow" album for example.
While the -Majority- of people paid nothing, the average price paid was £4. And its pre-release sales (thanks to the volumn of sales and the cheaper online approach) meant it eclipsed the -entire- profit of their previous album.
That was legal piracy in action...allowing people to copy something for free, and yet people paid up and it made them more money.
UPDATE
STOCKHOLM -- A defense lawyer in the Pirate Bay file-sharing case said Thursday he will demand a retrial after the judge admitted he was a member of copyright-protection organizations.
(...)
Judge Norstrom acknowledged to Swedish Radio that he was a member of The Swedish Association for Copyright, as well as a board member of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property. He also said he has worked alongside Monica Wadsted -- who represented the American movie industry in the trial -- to solve disputes related to Internet domain names. However, he rejected that there was any conflict of interests."I don't think there are any circumstances that have made me biased in this case," Judge Norstom said.Mr. Sunde -- the Pirate Bay spokesman -- called the judge's links to the copyright groups "quite remarkable," and said the case had turned into a "farce."
(emphasis mine)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124048661845147573.html
http://www.thelocal.se/19028.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/23/pirate_bay_judge_accused_of_bias/
Wow, stacked comitee Microsoft-style !
Well, it does explain how the Pirate Bay got found guilty with the prosecution's total lack of competance(and solid evidence from what I have read).
I don't think any honest person, even the most anti-pirate ones, can deny that this is a conflict of interest and that there needs to a retrial with a neutral judge.
Edit: Just did a little checking and WOW
Swedish Association of Copyright (SFU) - The judge Tomas Norström is a member of this discussion forum that holds seminars, debates and releases the Nordic Intellectual Property Law Review. Other members of this outfit? Henrik Pontén (Swedish Anti-Piracy Bureau), Monique Wadsted (movie industry lawyer) and Peter Danowsky (IFPI) - the latter is also a member of the board of the association.
Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (SFIR) - The judge Tomas Norström sits on the board of this association that works for stronger copyright laws. Last year they held the Nordic Championships in Intellectual Property Rights Process Strategies.
.SE (The Internet Infrastructure Foundation) - Tomas Norström works for the foundation that oversees the .se name domain and advises on domain name disputes. His colleague at the foundation? Monique Wadsted. Wadsted says she’s never met Norström although they have worked together.
Holy crap. Indeed a complete farce.
Actually, that's still piracy. It sucks that you can't find the book that you want, but that doesn't make stealing it ok. Maybe you should take up this issue with your government, and get them to ease their import taxes or whatever it is that's making games and books cost 300 dollars. Stealing the stuff isn't helping the creators or whatever economic problem your country has that they need to limit imports.
It is not always a local gov or taxes problem... sometime, it is simply the distributor who steal us directly... by example, i know numerous site who will announce a product at 50$ and when i made the buy, i am charged 50 euro ( who is around 65$ today )... when i complain, they explain that it was write on the site that 1$=1euro... after hours seeking, i find it, write in microscopic letter, font color light grey on a background who is almost the same gray...
Now, if some distributor was not trying to steal our money, sell us product where the promo video is thousand time better that the actual product, sell us product who install unwanted software on your computer without you knowing it, sell us product who have so much bug that it is almost non playable, etc... maybe the number of pirate will lower... many distributor have piss off the customer, in some case, steal the customer... who seed the wind collect a storm !!!
Yes, you have always a little number of hardcore pirate but the main stream of people using pirated version are usual guys who are tired to be ripped by the media, game producent/distributor, etc... they are people who have loose their trust in business because of malpratice of these business !
Things like that might work for bands (especially ones that are already famous due to former time spent on major labels and marketing), but I don't think they would work for games. Bands can make money by playing concerts, plus the price of recording a great song is much lower than the price of creating a top-tier video game.
In general, I can see some pros to pirating music, especially for indie bands. But that logic doesn't carry through to games very easily. Game development is an expensive and risky venture that requires a corporation with several employees, and startup capital from an investor or publisher. It also leaves you with very little but a product - becoming "famous" isn't going to get you much, because you can't play concerts or do much of anything to ride the popularity of your game, except make another game.
Yeah that's true; I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about at this point. Let me try to be a little more clear.
I'm not really arguing about whether or not the current legal loopholes in Swedish law might make the Pirate Bay technically innocent. Whether it's currently legal or not isn't really the point to me (though I do agree it's important that they receive a fair trial, it's not really the thing I'm interested in in this conversation); it's whether or not piracy, in general, SHOULD be legal. I see this trial as part of that process: many people feel that coordinating massive piracy is probably a bad thing and should be illegal, and they're trying to figure out a system that works fairly for the people who are creating the products. Some people, innocent or not, are going to get burned in this process, until we, producers and consumers both, figure out how to deal with this situation.
People come up with certain excuses where they think piracy seems ok: they're poor, they pirate the game and then pay for it later, etc. I'm not sure what the point of these arguments are. Are you saying that because sometimes piracy seems helpful, that it should be legalized? Are you saying that because sometimes some people take advantage of copyright, that all copyright needs to be abolished? Are you saying that because some major labels are "greedy", that no one should be allowed to protect the rights to their music or movies?
Or are you just saying that you know piracy is illegal, and that you think it should be illegal for most people, but not for you and your friends, because you're on the good guy team? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here; I'm honestly wondering what you think "should" be happening with piracy. Don't just say it's inevitable, and that some people will always pirate. I know that. People will always murder; that doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up and allow people to murder all they want.
Do you think there should be laws against piracy, or not? Do you think copyright holders have a right to try to enforce their copyright, or not? Is piracy always ok, or only sometimes ok? And who gets to decide whether or not it's ok?
No conflict there - NOPE NOTHING AT ALL. Not even the appearence of one - WTF?
Just like the DOJ in the US under "W" or "George II".
I hope the man gets booted of the bench.
Moreover why is this info coming to light now? With all the media coverage one would think the background of all the players would have been vetted prior to the trial. Maybe they do things differently in the EU than the US.
Man is this topic big....
I'm a Swede from Sweden and I say it's right that they got punished. They have clearly helped things that should be illegal, possible.
If they have really made all that money then it's time to pay back.
All such torrent trackers in where there are illegal torrents must be shut down and the operators brought to justice.
I should mention that my entire class supports the piratebay. I equaled them to a guy with a sign that says where you can buy drugs but they didn't like that analogy. Nevertheless, it's about the principle and for me atleast it's a clear case.
And if you can change the law so that these highly immoral activities gets legal then that's another reason to abolish democrazy.
Conflict of Interest?
I knew this was going to come up in the usual "for_against" argumentative somewhere for a simple reason;
-- If you dig deep enough you may yet find that there are CIA agents hunting down ghosts in Oslo, that the KGB is still actively infiltrating every last European Capitals, that the Queen of England is chatting online from Westminster palace daily with The Who's lead guitar talkin' pedophelia - and - so - on.
Proof, once again, that the collective mindset of any social groups can be tied straight with paranoia and that the truth is never rational enough when it is wrongfully perceived or interpreted by ANYONE suffering from lack of intelligence.
Best of all, as I understand it, this is the same judge that ordered the search of the offices of the ISP and TPB and the removal of ALL the servers from the ISP without just cause. Additionally he removed a jury member for being a part of one the groups he is a member of - Money it is truly the root of all evil in the world apparently...
Now Sweden looks just as corrupt as the US when it comes to this issue. I bet the jokes there about the US legal system will stop now.
I thing that the judge and the three lawer who represented the entertainment industry need some jail time too...
Together, they have corrupt the justice system, make these story become a big farce...
Final result will be more people "loving" the pirate... And after, the entertainment industry will ask why they have a bad reputation... you don't fight something maybe illegal ( hosting tracker ) but a complot between a judge and the accusation lawer ( who is illegal )... here, it will not have a retrial, simply the "cassation" court who will break the verdict for major fault in the procedure... and the guys will be free...
All these story give me the impression of a thief ( entertainment industry ) accussing someone ( pirate bay ) to have steal them... a little like the story of Robin Hood... never forget that for a lot of people, Robin Hood is a hero, not a thief !!!!!!!!
Misconstrued and irrelevant.
Justice is either enforced or outwitted for good or bad reasons. As a result, somebody here has to look up the word THIEF in a dictionary; person who steals.
Agreed?
Acctually, this prosecution was not against the site itself, only the people behind it. And yes, anyone could take over if they go to jail yes. As for the server it's located in Sweden and has been raided a couple of years ago by the police but got online pretty quickly again since.. well.. the police had no good argument for doing that. Hope this shed some light on the issue.
and Campaigner, I thought of that analogy about drug users too since it's quite similar, that both drug dealers and users would be illegal. But honestly.. to continue on that path is like asking ourselves this question: Is the drug they are sharing illegal? Does it harm you?
Think what you want, but arresting a nation is ludicrous. People want some drugs (like coffee) to be legal and aviable. Besides swedish law is so nice and soft it kinda temps you to use it and play pillow fights
Doesn't take a lot of digging to find out the judge is a member of Swedish Association for Copyright. It's not that far a stretch to say there's a conflict of interest there. At the very least, he should have stepped aside in favor of another judge.
The applicable definition for steal: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully. For the sake of argument, we can ignore that nothing is actually taken by copyright infringement and just pretend it's theft.
If I were to download a song off the internet that I already own, the RIAA would sue me for 750 dollars per song in response, assuming I were a bleeding moron and actually got caught. If I were to download a song I don't own to listen to it, then delete it immediately after, same thing happens. Both of them were legal activities until the entertainment industry lobbied Congress to make them illegal. They also gave them the right to subpoena private records without showing cause.
Does the Robin Hood analogy apply to TPB? I doubt it. The sherrif of Nottingham on the other hand is a really good fit for the RIAA. Buy up the legal powers, rewrite the laws to suit your own goals, then railroad your own customers over what were at the time legal activities.
Worse, from the same article I linked above:
“Three lay judges were appointed,” said Judge Norström one week before the trial. “On a question from me to the lay judges on whether they had any involvement in copyright associations or similar, or if they are or have been artists one of them answered Yes.”
That lay judge was removed. It’s anyone’s guess why the judge didn’t think the same should apply to him.
ohh.. and almost forgot an important view people seem to forget here
Someone said about understanding poor people doing piracy (where noone get's physically hurt ofc)..
One MAJOR thing to remember people.. if a student with a very little to none income downloads a mainstream film for free and sees it does not mean he or she would have bought it.. even if it was avaible in a store 20 meters away.. and why not? Because she or he don't or can't put money on entertainment even.
Not saying it's right but that's why they are doing it.. they don't think really bad thoughts before they do it either. so get this.. They are doing it cause they don't got the money to spare on entertainment, and it's wrong ofc.. but people are going to share the entertainment they bought for their friends and they are getting it for free and it's real, it's a black market with free goods.
Now, how can you stop that kind of thing? I mean people won't stop because people think it's wrong.. way not enought
In that particular situation, who's to define what is right or wrong?
Sweden justice system? The dream police?
It's the qualitative measures i question in this whole mess of online freedoms... there are the abusers and the abused. The opportunists squeeze in their traps cunningly, grab a bunch of cash from the weak minded and vulnerable to phishing scams and what else.
TPB is no less of a "pathway" to exploit anyone to GAIN money ----indirectly---- and hiding behind false identities. Revealing the process in courts or sentencing to jail terms doesn't resolve the fundamental issue of THEFT, it simply bags the activity in a symbolic decision while trying to deter anyone from using similar means.
TPB would move to India and Japan, the local institutions would still chase them to their last hideouts, cuz it's immoral to steal property. And don't give me the virtual realm argument, it doesn't stand the test of zapping bandwidths to poison the web with viruses.
Tracking all downloaders from these new sites wouldn't *then* work either, since who'd be stupid enough to keep an illegal copy of *anything* even if for an hour of childish curiosity only.
In the meantime, software corporations LOSE, LOST and will keep on LOSING sales until honesty sets in the silly minds of everyone clicking on the pirated install executables. Fine, stare at yourselves in a mirror and try to find some personal pride. You didn't and never will unless you purchase__D what you're using. Regrets won't help.
You get a real job, struggle enough to justify a raise in your pitty salary... then go to that store and buy what you earned. And do whatever you please with the rest of that bunch of extra cash cuz you deserved it.
Students?
Make a choice... get an education worth HIGHER salaries or waste your life away playing. Eventually, time will catch up to you -- it's called adulthood.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
