Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Pirate Bay founders sent to jail

Pirate Bay founders sent to jail
Thread Tools
Andy8
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 08:10 AM
 
Pirate Bay founders sent to jail

A court in Sweden has jailed four men behind The Pirate Bay (TPB), the world's most high-profile file-sharing website, in a landmark case.

Frederik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Carl Lundstrom and Peter Sunde were found guilty of breaking copyright law and were sentenced to a year in jail.

They were also ordered to pay 30m kronor (£2.4m) in damages.

In a Twitter posting, Sunde said: "Nothing will happen to TPB, this is just theatre for the media."

Sunde went on to say that he "got the news last night that we lost".

"It used to be only movies, now even verdicts are out before the official release."

“ It is almost certain that The Pirate Bay will keep on sailing, long after today's court judgement ”
The damages were awarded to a number of entertainment companies, including Warner Bros, Sony Music Entertainment, EMI, and Columbia Pictures.

However, the total awarded fell short of the 117m kronor (£9m) in damages and interest the firms were seeking.

Speaking to the BBC, the chairman of industry body the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) John Kennedy said the verdict sent out a clear message.

"These guys weren't making a principled stand, they were out to line their own pockets. There was nothing meritorious about their behaviour, it was reprehensible.

"The Pirate Bay did immense harm and the damages awarded doesn't even get close to compensation, but we never claimed it did.

"There has been a perception that piracy is OK and that the music industry should just have to accept it. This verdict will change that," he said.

The four men denied the charges throughout the trial, saying that because they did not actually host any files, they were not doing anything wrong.

Speaking to the BBC earlier this week, Sunde said that there was no difference between us and Google."

"The Pirate Bay will continue. Nothing is going to happen if we lose, for a multitude for reasons, not least because we will immediately appeal," he said.

A lawyer for Carl Lundstrom, Per Samuelson told journalists he was shocked by the guilty verdict and the severity of the sentence.

"That's outrageous, in my point of view. Of course we will appeal," he was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency. "This is the first word, not the last. The last word will be ours."

Political issue

Rickard Falkvinge, leader of The Pirate Party - which is trying to reform laws around copyright and patents in the digital age - told the BBC that the verdict was "a gross injustice".

"This wasn't a criminal trial, it was a political trial. It is just gross beyond description that you can jail four people for providing infrastructure.

"There is a lot of anger in Sweden right now. File-sharing is an institution here and while I can't encourage people to break copyright law, I'm not following it and I don't agree with it.

"Today's events make file-sharing a hot political issue and we're going to take this to the European Parliament."

The Pirate Bay is the world's most high profile file-sharing website and was set up in 2003 by anti-copyright organisation Piratbyran, but for the last five years it has been run by individuals.

Millions of files are exchanged using the service every day.

No copyright content is hosted on The Pirate Bay's web servers; instead the site hosts "torrent" links to TV, film and music files held on its users' computers.

Story from BBC NEWS
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 08:21 AM
 
30 million Kroner is a lot of dough. How much money did TPB make?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 08:29 AM
 
Good. If they're facilitating stealing someone's work, they should go to jail.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 08:48 AM
 
<picks self up off floor>

I agree with OMM.

Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
lexapro
Baninated
Join Date: Mar 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 09:17 AM
 
I thought the issue had been settled with Sweden's high court ruling on this years ago?
     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 11:24 AM
 
This just makes me want to buy movies produced by those companies even less.

I've bought more music/movies since I started downloading them than ever before.

Ah well, their loss in the end, really.
     
torsoboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 12:03 PM
 
I agree with TPB... they are nothing different than google. They provide links to anything that is submitted. They are a search engine that can be used for good or for not-so-good.

It's good to see someone take a stand to the big industries.

Luckily they are in Sweden... here in America they probably would have gotten 20 life sentences (instead of 1 year) if they were found guilty of the same crimes.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by torsoboy View Post
I agree with TPB... they are nothing different than google.
Except that Google complies with take-down notices (see Perfect 10 pics, for example) and TPB simply laughs at the requester. There's the difference.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Except that Google complies with take-down notices (see Perfect 10 pics, for example) and TPB simply laughs at the requester. There's the difference.
There's nothing for TPB to take down. They don't host any files.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 12:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
There's nothing for TPB to take down. They don't host any files.
So TPB doesn't host .torrent files then?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 01:09 PM
 
.torrent files contain hash numbers, not copyrighted content. The copyrighted content (if the file is copyrighted) would be on the user computers.
     
SSharon
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Except that Google complies with take-down notices (see Perfect 10 pics, for example) and TPB simply laughs at the requester. There's the difference.
I would note that Google won the Perfect 10 case on appeal.

Hosting .torrent files isn't (or shouldn't be) illegal as the files themselves aren't copyrighted nor do they contain copyrighted content (you can't copyright the tile of a work).

In this case TPB is no more guilty than Google or any other site and ISP that provides links and makes content available.
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by torsoboy View Post
I agree with TPB... they are nothing different than google. They provide links to anything that is submitted. They are a search engine that can be used for good or for not-so-good.

It's good to see someone take a stand to the big industries.

Luckily they are in Sweden... here in America they probably would have gotten 20 life sentences (instead of 1 year) if they were found guilty of the same crimes.
Except that they have the word Pirate right in their name. They sell t-shirts with skull and crossbones replaced by a cassette tape and crossbones... they sell pirate ship shirts. They know what they are doing and the flaunt it. It's a little different.

That said, I have mixed feeling on this verdict.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 01:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Except that they have the word Pirate right in their name. They sell t-shirts with skull and crossbones replaced by a cassette tape and crossbones... they sell pirate ship shirts. They know what they are doing and the flaunt it. It's a little different.

That said, I have mixed feeling on this verdict.

So? Does a gun shop selling targets with an image of a human body condone murder? (drastic analogy I know) Last I checked, free speech allows them to sell T-shirts with a cassette tape and crossbones on them or to have the word "Pirate" in their name. Nothing illegal about that.

Hell, there is nothing illegal about them flat out saying that they condone software piracy. The fundamental question is whether hosting .torrent files that may or may not contain copyrighted material is illegal or should be illegal. I think not.

Go after the people using those .torrent files to download copyrighted material - they are the ones breaking the law.
     
lexapro
Baninated
Join Date: Mar 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 01:48 PM
 
They should also sue google for allowing tbp to come up on a search. Same goes for Yahoo, Excite, etc
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 02:02 PM
 
That's why I said I have mixed feelings.

I do think places like TPB do more harm then good and I also believe that they know exactly what they are doing and why. That said, yeah, they really aren't breaking the law and it starts us down a real slippery slope.

Plus, the RIAA sucks, so there is that as well.

It's complicated.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Dakar V
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
That's why I said I have mixed feelings.

I do think places like TPB do more harm then good and I also believe that they know exactly what they are doing and why. That said, yeah, they really aren't breaking the law and it starts us down a real slippery slope.

Plus, the RIAA sucks, so there is that as well.

It's complicated.
That's pretty much where I stand on it all as well.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
.torrent files contain hash numbers, not copyrighted content. The copyrighted content (if the file is copyrighted) would be on the user computers.
Originally Posted by SSharon View Post
I would note that Google won the Perfect 10 case on appeal.

Hosting .torrent files isn't (or shouldn't be) illegal as the files themselves aren't copyrighted nor do they contain copyrighted content (you can't copyright the tile of a work).

In this case TPB is no more guilty than Google or any other site and ISP that provides links and makes content available.
You guys are missing the point.
TPB doesn't host copyright files - they host pointers to copyright files.
Google doesn't hold copyright files - they host pointers to copyright files.

Google responds to takedown requests by removing the offending pointers.
TPB responds to takedown requests by laughing at the requester.
That's the difference between TBP and Google.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
That said, yeah, they really aren't breaking the law and it starts us down a real slippery slope.
They aren't really breaking whose law? The US ends well before you get to Sweden.

For the record, there's long been "aiding and abetting" laws on the books here. Sweden may be the same. I'm sure the judge who just convicted them didn't make up the law he used to do it with while he was in his bathroom last week.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Google responds to takedown requests by removing the offending pointers.
TPB responds to takedown requests by laughing at the requester.
That's the difference between TBP and Google.
And that's why the guy is going to jail. It's one thing to break the law, and another to break it whilst laughing at the internet cop peering over your shoulder. It's like smoking a j in front of a police station.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
torsoboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Google responds to takedown requests by removing the offending pointers.
TPB responds to takedown requests by laughing at the requester.
That's the difference between TBP and Google.
This trial was not about getting them to remove links when people ask them to. And Google does it because that is the law in the US... TPB is not in the US.

Anyhow, I am interested in the appeals case.
     
torsoboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 03:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by osiris View Post
And that's why the guy is going to jail.
It also could have been political pressure. He gave the guys minimal jail time, and a fine that they will never pay... thus somewhat appeasing the big industry folk, while at the same time saying that it's not that big of a deal.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by torsoboy View Post
This trial was not about getting them to remove links when people ask them to. And Google does it because that is the law in the US... TPB is not in the US.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 03:33 PM
 
Futile, the internet nerds will always win.

TBP can be dismantled today and something else will fill it's void by weeks end. Masturbation.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 03:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
TBP can be dismantled today and something else will fill it's void by weeks end. Masturbation.
Especially if it involves that.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 03:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
I'm sure the judge who just convicted them didn't make up the law he used to do it with while he was in his bathroom last week.
I did *what* with that law in the bathroom last week!?

     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 04:07 PM
 
This is a really non-sensical judgement and is completely stupid.
The courts are still caught up in 1998, because -- if you'd follow their argumentation to the logical conclusion -- you'd be in legal nightmare.

I'm not contending that TPB enabled piracy and that a punishment would be just (whether hard jail time plus a rather symbolic fine is a fitting punishment is another matter). However, the justification is highly problematic: torrents are essentially like links and can lead to (on TPB with very high probability) illegal content. And the comparison to google is technically very accurate: they're not hosting the data, but only linking to it. It doesn't matter whether links are taken down or not. What matters is that having links to someone else's illegal content is supposedly in itself illegal. If you link to, say, a file in Nigeria where (for the sake of argument) it is legal to offer that file for download, how can one legally (and consistently) make an argument that the person linking to the content (but not hosting it) has responsibility.

TPB has been closed and the people running it punished, because the original sinners have not (and probably cannot) be caught. Their content cannot be taken down effectively, because they're in China or whatnot and nobody there is interested in enforcing local copyright laws. The punishment pretends that the people running TPB are the people who are hosting the files as well. This is certainly not right, you should not be punished for things somebody else is responsible for.

Of course I understand the reaction that these people should be punished -- and I agree. But they should be punished in accordance with coherent laws that takes into account what the 21st century looks like. The law should not be arbitrary like a pornography law (`you know it when you see it') and it should not make legal acts illegal if the law were taken seriously. Laws should not be mushy (e. g. in Germany it is only illegal to crack `effective copy protection' -- what is `effective'?).

Google actually is a very good test, because the search engine doesn't distinguish between `good' and `bad' content. Yes, there are filters in place, but I can still find thepiratebay.org when I type in `the pirate bay' (I've just tried it). Is Google also guilty, because it links to a webpage with illegal content? If your reaction is `no,' how would you formulate a law that properly distinguishes between Google and The Pirate Bay (which both make a living of providing links to content)?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 04:22 PM
 
Well, I'm no lawyer, but I think that the intent would have to have something to do with it. Google is just a general-purpose search engine - it isn't designed to be used for illegal activity (and of course, if something illegal does show up on Google and you ask them to remove it, they will). The Pirate Bay, on the other hand, certainly is intended to be used for illegal activity, and doesn't really have any other purpose.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 04:31 PM
 
I respect intellectual property more than many online. I don't think people should take the work of others and call it their own fraudulently. I don't think people should take the work of others and profit off of it without the owner's permission. I think people should be compensated for their work. And yet, since copying digital material doesn't deprive the lawful owner of the original, it doesn't make sense in my view to liken simple copying of it by private parties for private use to theft or to punish simple copying with huge fines or jail time.

Technology changes the equation. I'm sure scribes must have been bothered by the printing press, but Gutenberg wasn't tossed in prison by the scribal guild lobby. If a person makes a good product and brings it to market effectively, there will be paying customers waiting to buy it. There will be a percentage that will choose not to pay for it if a copy is available for free, but many of those people would probably not pay for the product at all if that were the only option so it's not as if a sale is lost from such people. And as far as I know, of all the companies that have been going out of business in this downturn, MPAA and RIAA companies all seem to be doing quite well. I haven't heard of a movie studio or record label folding despite these lean times.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Apr 17, 2009 at 04:39 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I did *what* with that law in the bathroom last week!?

You are the judge in TPB case?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 04:42 PM
 
It's tiring how the same weak arguments always get trotted out every time something like this happens.

"Stealing from them theoretically increases their revenue, so it's right for me to steal!"

"Their content is not worth paying for because it's rubbish, but I want it anyways so I will steal it!"

"The torrent downloading process is too complex and diffuse to be subject to the law!"

As history shows, these arguments do not stand up in court.

The fact is that if you record, produce, advertise and distribute a song (or movie, etc) you, by law, are entitled to sell it for however much you like. And if someone tries to take it from you without paying, you can sue them for damages. I know this is anathema to us kids who grew up with Napster, but you just have to get used to it.

If you think Hollywood is rubbish, then find other forms of entertainment to purchase.

If you think 99 cents or 1.29 or whatever is too expensive (because you can't afford it) then stick to the radio.

If you think torrents are perfectly legal, then you are an idiot.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 04:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
However, the justification is highly problematic: torrents are essentially like links and can lead to (on TPB with very high probability) illegal content. And the comparison to google is technically very accurate: they're not hosting the data, but only linking to it. It doesn't matter whether links are taken down or not.
Here's another comparison:

If a big bunch of folks come along here and start posting illegal material (let's say kiddie porn, for example) there's one of two things going to happen, depending on your actions:

1) If you do everything in your power to take said material down, prevent it from being reposted and inform plod as to who's posting it, you're free and clear.

2) If you do nothing to take said material down, don't try and prevent it from being posted again and don't shop the perps to plod, then it's "bye bye Oreo, hope you enjoy prison food".

This is essentially what's happening with this case. Google doesn't get stung because it tries to remove the offending content. TPB gets stung because they don't try to remove the content and simply laugh at those requesting that they do.

This is not problematic at all. This is how the law works in many countries and in many areas of life. If you know (or have a suspicion) that your friend A is going to stab friend B and you don't try and prevent him from picking up your kitchen knife, you're going to prison.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 05:41 PM
 
The comparison does not hold here, because it's not the real issue. It's minutiae. If you just want to focus on the legal points, skip to the second point.

The bigger picture is that all companies/creators of IP, government and people are struggling with the digital age.

There's the business side: Most of these industries are fighting to the tooth to prevent a change in their business model. We can thank Apple for being the benevolent dictator it is and create the iTunes Music Store. It wasn't the music industry that wanted to do this on its own a tech company had to `convince them' of this. Now, people can get music online, listen to previews, etc. The movie industry hasn't done this. Up until this week, I couldn't really buy movies online. Ditto for publishers. In my line of work, there is a big struggle between scientific journals that live off subscriptions (that got more and more expensive) and growing alternatives. I won't go into detail, it's a topic in its own right.

Suffice it to say, in my opinion, the balance has tilted way too far to the business side, especially considering that they're resisting to offer legal alternatives for distribution of media. They're hanging onto a dying system. The artists are benefitting too much from all of this either.

There's the government: the old laws regarding copyrights and intellectual property are woefully inadequate, because they were written for the era of analog media. There are no consistent laws regarding many aspects of the digital age. One of them is the question of links, for instance: who do you have to respond to if notified? Is a court order necessary? What is the scope of that court order (if, say, Time Warner asks you to take down links, then the court order should only be valid for all IP of Time Warner, right)? If not, what is the proper procedure? What should be dealt with in a criminal court and what is a case for civil court? All of these questions are usually skipped. I find it rather alarming that the judiciary is excluded from many of these deliberations.

And the media industry has the strong tendency of going after the weakest link of the chain. Individuals that have downloaded a few songs or some movies for download (non-commercially). That's because they can't catch the big fish. And thus, people forget about their rights. In my country, it's perfectly legal to share songs among friends. Of course, that's a left-over from the analog age where people made mix tapes for their cars or girlfriends, copied songs from friends and whatnot.

Lastly, it's society: I think there will always be people who pay for stuff and those who prefer to get it for free. The VCR hasn't killed the movie industry nor has the mp3 killed the music industry. The entertainment industry belittles important aspects of why people download stuff: sheer convenience. I remember when you still downloaded stuff with Napster back in 2000: I've never gotten to know so much new music ever before in my life. I could try it all. I didn't care about the legal implications, it was fun to discover new music. In some cases I bought the CD, in other cases, I deleted the song again from my harddrive. I don't want to make an argument whether downloading increases or decreases revenue, I'm merely saying that new technological possibilities will make people want to do things differently.

It's all a matter of business models: parts of the old system are superfluous. Big labels aren't as needed as much as they once were. People don't have to make CDs (which is costly), they can just put their music online and distribute it digitally (which is really great, because I was finally able to legally get my hands on music that was simply out of print with no hope whatsoever to be reprinted). That eats away a share of the cake previously reserved for the labels. So what? The digital levels the playing field to a certain degree. I don't think these changes make the world better or worse, I think honesty and smartness (put positively, you can also insert dishonesty and stupidity if you like) are constants in the universe.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
torsoboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 05:52 PM
 
That last post was way too long.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 06:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Here's another comparison:

If a big bunch of folks come along here and start posting illegal material (let's say kiddie porn, for example) there's one of two things going to happen, depending on your actions:

1) If you do everything in your power to take said material down, prevent it from being reposted and inform plod as to who's posting it, you're free and clear.

2) If you do nothing to take said material down, don't try and prevent it from being posted again and don't shop the perps to plod, then it's "bye bye Oreo, hope you enjoy prison food".

This is essentially what's happening with this case. Google doesn't get stung because it tries to remove the offending content. TPB gets stung because they don't try to remove the content and simply laugh at those requesting that they do.

This is not problematic at all. This is how the law works in many countries and in many areas of life. If you know (or have a suspicion) that your friend A is going to stab friend B and you don't try and prevent him from picking up your kitchen knife, you're going to prison.
If brassplayersrock (to use a random poster) comes along and tells us that your post I'm quoting here violates his rights, am I obliged to take it down? Or would I be right in laughing at the request?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
If brassplayersrock (to use a random poster) comes along and tells us that your post I'm quoting here violates his rights, am I obliged to take it down? Or would I be right in laughing at the request?
If it violates his copyright, then you're obliged to take it down. This is not an exact parallel with anything TPB does, since as soon as I hit the "submit reply" button MacNN actually owns/claims the copyright on whatever it is I'm typing into this box.

Of course, bpr claiming a copyright violation here would actually have to prove that he owns the copyright on whatever it was which was posted. In the case of a movie or music file the copyright owner is usually very, very obvious and you couldn't get away with the "oblivious to who really owns it" excuse.

As an aside, is there a reason why we're not allowed to post warez and MP3s in this forum? C'mon, this is a Mac site so let's have a Mac warez tracker up and running - it's not like you'd be hosting any actual copyrighted content, it'd only be the torrent files...
...no, thought not.

Also, I think you're confusing "rights" with "copyright" a little here.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 08:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
If it violates his copyright, then you're obliged to take it down.
A 40-byte hash number in a file is not covered by the music industry's copyright any more than the contents of your post are owned by brassplayersrock.

Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Of course, bpr claiming a copyright violation here would actually have to prove that he owns the copyright on whatever it was which was posted. In the case of a movie or music file the copyright owner is usually very, very obvious and you couldn't get away with the "oblivious to who really owns it" excuse.
Nobody has proven that copyrighted material was ever posted to The Pirate Bay, and in fact almost all experts agree that none ever was.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 08:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
A 40-byte hash number in a file is not covered by the music industry's copyright any more than the contents of your post are owned by brassplayersrock.

Nobody has proven that copyrighted material was ever posted to The Pirate Bay, and in fact almost all experts agree that none ever was.
I'm too drunk for this. Please go re-read what I wrote up there ( ^ ) about aiding and abetting.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
I'm too drunk for this. Please go re-read what I wrote up there ( ^ ) about aiding and abetting.
I find that I argue better drunk. Or at least I feel like I do.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 10:17 PM
 
You don't.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 10:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Here's another comparison:

If a big bunch of folks come along here and start posting illegal material (let's say kiddie porn, for example) there's one of two things going to happen, depending on your actions:

1) If you do everything in your power to take said material down, prevent it from being reposted and inform plod as to who's posting it, you're free and clear.

2) If you do nothing to take said material down, don't try and prevent it from being posted again and don't shop the perps to plod, then it's "bye bye Oreo, hope you enjoy prison food".
It wouldn't help anyone's case if the site were also named "Kiddie Butt-Pirate Bay" and it sold merchandise with pictures of little boys on them. "B-but we're no different than Google!" Yeah right.

I'm in pretty much the same camp as ort888 on this one: any pretense that Pirate Bay doesn't know (and encourage) what the site is really being used for, is just silly. The name alone was bound to make them a target to be made an example of from the start. It's so obvious: if the powers that be can make headlines going after such a clearly-defined scapegoat -even if it doesn't mean crap to the reality of people continuing to download torrent files- then they're going to.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2009, 10:55 PM
 
Certainly they were asking for the attention they got. I don't think anybody would argue with that. The people behind The Pirate Bay like to tweak the copyright cartels.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2009, 07:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
A 40-byte hash number in a file is not covered by the music industry's copyright any more than the contents of your post are owned by brassplayersrock.

Nobody has proven that copyrighted material was ever posted to The Pirate Bay, and in fact almost all experts agree that none ever was.
OK, I'm sober now. And I still can't be arsed to argue with this. Sorry Chuck but it looks like a deliberate strawman and a lack of understanding of the difference between "rights" and "copyright".
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The deep backwoods of the PNW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2009, 09:54 AM
 
To summarize Oreo's tl;dr post up there, the jailing of the owners of TPB is just a band-aid for a much larger issue.

Current copyright laws are starting to falter in this era of digital media. The businesses that produce the media are trying to hang on to a business model that just doesn't work anymore.

The entertainment industry knows we don't need it. Sure, people have become more and more addicted to TV and movies and the Internet, but Pixar is not like Shell Oil - we need oil, whereas we can live without this year's CGI feature film. The entertainment industry as a whole knows this, and they're having a real hard time coming up with compelling reasons to continue buying their products and services.

Why should I buy a CD for $17.99 when I can get it for free? It doesn't really support the artists - there's plenty of evidence out there that RIAA-signed artists don't get sh!t from the RIAA for at least the first few years of their contracts. If I want to support the artists, I'd rather mail a check directly to them.

I don't really have a problem buying a CD from an independent music label. Their production expenses are higher, and your $17.99 isn't just going to line the pockets of music executives. It's actually going to support the people who created the music in the first place.

The entertainment industry is not, by any stretch of the imagination, hurting for money. It's a multi-billion dollar industry, and even with an increase in illegal downloads, they're doing damn well for themselves.

It costs a few dollars, if that, to manufacture a CD of an album. I doubt it costs millions of dollars to record that CD. Yet consumers are forced to continue to pay high prices for that CD, pretty much forever.

I'd much rather see the entertainment industry emulate the pharmaceutical industry. There, companies only retain a patent (copyright) on their product for a limited period of time. It's expected that, in that time, they will appropriately price their product to recoup the billions of dollars spent in R&D to create that product. Once the patent is out, it's a free-for-all, and anyone can manufacture that drug and charge whatever the hell they want for it. That's why my antidepressant is $60 a month, but my allergy medication is only $8 a month.

Wouldn't it be nice if the entertainment industry worked the same way? Instead of the Rolling Stones continuing to get royalties for the rest of their lives for an album made in 1975, the copyright is limited, so that they can recoup the costs of production (and make a profit), but not continue to buttrape their fans for decades to come.

It's not a perfect comparison, and I realize that. But I also realize that there is zero reason for a CD to be the same price it was ten years ago. It's nothing but pure profit. Sure, you have to account for inflation - but as technology gets cheaper, one could assume that the cost of production has gotten cheaper as well. Why aren't consumers benefiting from that?

Another angle that the RIAA has missed entirely is providing "value-added content" to the albums they sell. I still buy DVDs, even though the MPAA is almost as evil as the RIAA. Why? Because I love me some special features. Actor and director commentary, behind-the-scenes featurettes, interviews with cast members and costuming managers and special effects guys - that's what makes a DVD worth the money to me. Plus, actual DVDs look a hell of lot better than DivX-encoded files on my new TV.

CDs, on the other hand, offer absolutely nothing, save maybe some liner notes in the CD booklet. In fact, you're more likely to be forced to play your CD through some crappy included software than to find any valuable extra content on the disc.

I don't know what kind of content could be added to music CDs, but it sure would be nice if they were cheaper. If I could buy my favorite albums for $5 instead of $15, I'd be much more inclined to spend the money on them.
Sell or send me your vintage Mac things if you don't want them.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2009, 10:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
The entertainment industry is not, by any stretch of the imagination, hurting for money.
Yes, it is.

Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
I doubt it costs millions of dollars to record that CD.
Hundreds of thousands. That's if you ain't got to buy the gear to start with. Then it's millions.

Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
I'd much rather see the entertainment industry emulate the pharmaceutical industry. There, companies only retain a patent (copyright) on their product for a limited period of time. It's expected that, in that time, they will appropriately price their product to recoup the billions of dollars spent in R&D to create that product. Once the patent is out, it's a free-for-all, and anyone can manufacture that drug and charge whatever the hell they want for it.
No.

Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Wouldn't it be nice if the entertainment industry worked the same way? Instead of the Rolling Stones continuing to get royalties for the rest of their lives for an album made in 1975, the copyright is limited, so that they can recoup the costs of production (and make a profit), but not continue to buttrape their fans for decades to come.
For a conservative, you seem to have a pretty big problem with the concept of ownership.

Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
but as technology gets cheaper, one could assume that the cost of production has gotten cheaper as well.
No. Two months ago I bought about $30,000 worth of gear. That very same gear would cost me $43,500 today.
No matter how many Apple fanbois say otherwise, you cannot create production quality recordings (that's the ones you can earn a living off) on a copy of GarageBand.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2009, 12:31 PM
 
^ Everything he said.

On the GarageBand argument: There's music that's sensationally good that was recorded on a small, portable tape recorder. Michelle Shocked's "Texas Campfire Tapes", for example.

That works - for a woman and a guitar playing folk songs.

It does not work for a production that might really benefit from having strings on there, because that's the vision. Boom - suddenly you need a largish room, fully acoustics-treated, and a couple ten-thousand dollars' worth of microphones.

Sure, you can use a plug-in or a sampler (either of which needs to be paid for, too, of course) for strings. Have them arranged by the same guy ($$$) and played virtually either by him or somebody else ($$). Passable solution for many situations.

And completely unacceptable for others.

Just one example.


As for equipment costs: Acoustic treatment of rooms is *more* expensive today due to cost of labor. Great gear generally doesn't get cheaper because it's either *old* and hasn't been built in twenty, thirty, or forty years, or because the really good stuff simply can't be built to quality in cheap outsourced Chinese mass production.

The stuff in my studio is *easily* worth two to five times what I've paid for it over the past fifteen years.


People think making records is cheap because the entry level is so dirt cheap - yes, you CAN make pretty decent-sounding stuff with GarageBand on a $1000 machine. It won't hold up to even the less-discerning ear, but it's great for demos and sketches.

But you *quickly* discover that quality requires gear. Vocals? Oh yeah, you need a microphone. (You buy a cheap one.) Why does Ben Harper's voice sound so much clearer and crisper than mine? Oh right, he's using a $6000 Neumann U67 microphone run into a good pre-amp. Well, that Røde NT4 sounds fine to me, and it's only a couple hundred dollars. And thus it begins.

You need gear to make music. Certain gear is playable in certain ways, no device sounds *exactly* like another.

In fact, the low entry cost for low end studios over the past fifteen years has driven the price of older gear *sharply* up (as in, ten times or even more, depending on what), as certain pieces of gear became more and more sought-after because people were starting to record who could never have afforded to, before.


The other issue with your completely uninformed perspective: If you don't pay musicians and technicians (and service techs for the gear), music production is by definition relegated to amateurs - people who can afford a hobby.

Good luck with that: I certainly don't want to be around when it happens.
     
angelmb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2009, 01:14 PM
 
So, how is The Pirate Bay any worse than storage services like pando, rapidshare… which do host files?. How could anyone fight that?, are they going to shut the internet down?, yeah sure.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2009, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Hundreds of thousands. That's if you ain't got to buy the gear to start with. Then it's millions.
I don't know if you're honestly unsure as to whether the RIAA has access to quality recording equipment, but you'll be happy to know they're doing OK for tech.

By the way, as you probably know, you can get better-than-GarageBand but still not fully top-notch equipment that works pretty well for less than the numbers you're citing.

Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
For a conservative, you seem to have a pretty big problem with the concept of ownership.
Ownership is one thing. The idea that you (or even other people who decide to associate themselves with you after you're dead and buried) have complete control over a thought and all variations on that thought forever just because it came to you first is very odd and not at all the intent of copyright. It used to be that there was a very rich public domain that people used as fuel for creativity and learning. Copyright was created to help enrich culture by encouraging people to add to this public domain. It was meant to give people limited control over what other people did with their creation so they could profit.

But then corporations got greedy and Congress got bribed, and now we have ridiculous lingering copyrights on things like the Happy Birthday song and Steamboat Willie, and teachers feel nervous about using copyright material in their classroom — even though that's plainly fair use. And now the copyright cartel is trying to get even more nonsensical "rights," wherein you'll be forced to buy the same work many, many times.

As a supporter of the arts and a conservative, I think that's just wrong.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2009, 03:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
By the way, as you probably know, you can get better-than-GarageBand but still not fully top-notch equipment that works pretty well for less than the numbers you're citing.
As I said in my post above, that depends entirely on what you're doing.

You want to record a string section? You're stuck with a high-six-/low-seven-figure solution.


And "works pretty well" as compressed-to-hell over-excited and stereo-enhanced radio pop for the car, or as backdrop for TV commercials, is one area where cut corners really don't matter that much.

You don't need a great-sounding room for that - just a dry vocal chamber - since you'll be running all your guitars through a virtual amp, and all your keyboards and instruments will probably be software plug-ins.

But plug-ins tend to neither play, feel, nor sound right.

You want a real "woah" guitar on a rock production, you're going to need a cabinet and amp sitting in a room that sounds good, ideally setting up a good dozen microphones of various vintages and types at various positions throughout the room.

Run that through ProTools, or run it into a MotU 828 - the difference will be apparent, even (or especially) on the final product: every cut corner shows up.

Sometimes that's the charm. Mostly, it's not charm but simply a trade-off: "Indie". But there's a reason a number of "indie" bands eschew computers and go back to (more expensive) tape: The mid-range equipment used in "indie" studios often sucks (see above).

But for a studio to survive on clients, it needs to be more than a semi-mid-fi one-trick pony - and that costs real money.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2009, 03:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I don't know if you're honestly unsure as to whether the RIAA has access to quality recording equipment, but you'll be happy to know they're doing OK for tech.
Really? We're down to a handful of studios capable of doing a proper job here.

Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
By the way, as you probably know, you can get better-than-GarageBand but still not fully top-notch equipment that works pretty well for less than the numbers you're citing.
Yes, if you're just a hobbyist. If you're pro then you need to spend.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:53 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,