back to article Swedish police claim massive anti-piracy bust

Swedish police raided a location near Stockholm last month where computer equipment containing a huge bounty of alleged pirated material was seized by authorities. The raid was carried out on 9 February, but private copyright advocacy outfit Antpiratbyrån only revealed that the bust had taken place late on Friday. A server …


This topic is closed for new posts.


How to justify theft...

1) Gang up on anyone who says what you do is wrong

2) Ad homonym attacks

3) Claim that even though you bothered to download something, you were never going to pay for it so that makes it ok (how, exactly? Why did you download it if you didn't want it?)

4) Call the producers of the product that you steal a big bunch of bastards, because that makes it alright

5) Ignore the fact that the artists suffer

6) Suggest that the artists would be better off doing gigs (or if they are actors, maybe on the stage?) with no evidence of this whatsoever.

7) Make symantic arguments when people don't say exectly what they mean, even though you know exactly what they were getting at.

8) Suggest that because some actors or bands are very wealthy it is ok to take anything you want.

9) Ignore the fact that the place that hosts a whole shitload of your torrents is (or at least attempts to be) profit making

10) Ignore the fact that the place that hosts a whole shitload of your torrents is funded by a fascist.

Now I'm no big fan of the big recording/entertainment companies, but if you really want to bring down their distribution model, you need to stop consuming their product. If you illigally download movies/tv/music, the companies that make that product will see you as a consumer who doesn't want to pay, rather than someone who wants them to change their distribution model.

When you download a torrent, there is no 'check here to register your reasons for downloading' There is no feedback to the copyright owners other than a loss of income.



Freetards v those other people, never fails to deliver.Nothing like a good flame war to warm the blood on a cold morning.


leave tpb up, follow the seeders

"If society would rather steal a product than buy it then it's not priced correctly, either a new product is required or how that product is delivered needs to be changed."

Ok then, without any penalty for stealing, I'd rather steal everything. Therefore everything not free is not priced correctly. Or.............. we need to make stealing not equal to free, hence penalties and law enforcement busting people.

Busting major seeds should slow the network down therefore raising the barrier to free movies by adding time as a cost. Also it will spook some people. So now some will be motivated to buy the 99 cent MP3 instead of stealing it.

(P.S. Don't bother telling me what stealing is, the concept was around before copyright and includes stealing ideas. It may not be the correct legal term, but I'm mainly refering to those would would otherwise buy the MP3, which would have a similar effect.)

Silver badge


From scant reporting ...

> Pontén also claimed that the Sunnydale operation was the source of all pirated material found on The Pirate Bay.

it seems a lot of people have jumped to the conclusion that this in some way connected to TPB. There is NO mention of these 167 Tb being made available as torrent files, so in fact no link to TPB at all. Unless, of course, these were being offered as torrents, and the torrents were indexed by TPB. But that is not what the article says. IMO the important thing about this bust is timing. It smacks to me of an attempt to muddy the waters in "Spectrial". A high-profile bust with apparently industrial-scale copying (I'm not going to even use the word pirating, because (a) it's qualitatively different from what The "Pirate" Bay does, and (b) there's those weasel words "equivalent to" in describing what was actually seized).

Colour me sceptical, but the fact that the prosecution took a full month to announce its bust smacks of an orchestrated PR exercise to me. What's the betting that there'll be another similar announcement (with similarly dubious claims) as the 17th of April approaches?

Alien, cos that's what all these shenanigans are to me.


Me a Freetard?

Hmmmm, maybe.

But the films I "get" I would NEVER EVER bother to watch at the cinema.

No, not EVER!

So, who's missing out?


Let's face it

Everybodies right, er, wrong, er, oh whatever.

I just like the fact that Mark Willis, who posted under his actual name (maybe), got slated by a bunch of people who haven't got the tezzies to do the same. C'mon you cowards, put your money where your mouth is.

Piracy is wrong, the big record companies are wrong, the big software producers are, er, actually, they are probably mostly OK (I omit Microsoft, who probably are not).

I'm not going to talk about music/film - I stopped buying it years ago, and don't go to the cinema, just buy the occasional DVD (Pah, Children), but that stuff IS expensive to write (I know because I do it), and some of the bigger apps out there cost a huge amount of money to develop, and the company needs to make money. Even a mobile phone takes a year of software development by a big team, and they only make money because of the huge quantities sold. But what about the smaller software producers who stuff gets ripped, because 'its too expensive'? So don't use it, or write your own. Oh, you NEED it? And it would take 3 years to WRITE IT? Oh, that makes the price a bit more acceptable now does it???

What about OSS, that's FREE. there an OSS version of the software you need? No? Oh dear. See previous point.

The music business needs to change, but the software business - not sure what can be done there.


re poor baby fweetards

Pierre, Tom, AC, Yeah, I wuz trolling. Needed to let off a bit of steam after reading that hopelessly naïve Jemima Kiss piece. Have a look at the link in my post and you’ll see what I mean. (Though I’m disinclined to generate hits for The Guardian – sorry – Autotrader.)

Funny how these freetard arguments invariably end up talking about the music rather than film industries, and I’m going to compound that: yep, the music industry is screwed, in part because it attempted protectionism for too long in a very myopic, ostrich-like way. Threatened and actual lawsuits meanwhile must have had industry prs clutching their foreheads and sending their CVs off to a less troublesome sector – like pharmaceuticals. They had twenty+ years of overpriced CDs as a cash-cow, mark-ups that benefited retailers too – big factor in Woolies’ lost profits, that.

So yes, they hastened their own demise by taking the piss – a more fairly priced product might have slowed the exodus to digital. And of course, they should have monetized it from the start, instead of resisting, but no one in those days foresaw relatively secure internet payment systems, and consumer confidence in them. Anyway, since the ‘home taping is skill in music’ days, the industry has never seen the shop-window value of peer-to-peer sharing in the way that other industries where you can’t duplicate the product – like books – do. For book publishers, word of mouth is a holy grail. They don’t see it as a bad thing when people lend each other the product because they know that wider seeds are sown by this. The music industry has been very foolish to see a pirate copy as necessarily a lost sale. Yes, it should have given to get.

Meanwhile, I also hate the new-found inflexibility of the once-holy PRS of all people, and the way that they are hassling small and medium businesses these days over music played in workplaces, just to add a revenue stream.

So no, I’m not sticking up for the music business – every recording artist ultimately realised that it is they who are paying for the champagne and flowers – but it is ridiculous to eulogise file-sharing sites as in some way heroic. This is just business – and very sharp business. TPB in particular are opportunists, not public servants. A plague on all their houses.

AC, I’m not sure which tide I’m supposed to be holding back – digital delivery is not in question, but surely the future is one of logged isps and secure payments rather than an experience like the Napster days.

Steve, freetards are just doing the work of telecoms giants. If I’m a fuckmuppet then you’re a furvert.



I believe, for something to be considered theft there has to be some loss to someone (oddly enough, so does the legal system).

If someone downloads a film is there a loss?


If the person was never going to pay to see it (cinema or DVD etc.)


They would have otherwise paid for for the film (cinema or DVD etc.)


They distibute it to somebody else, if this film is distributed to anyone would would have spent money on watching it.

If you download a film via bittorrent and you seed any part of the film then you could be contributing to loss, therefore you are contributing to theft regardless of your intention to pay for it or not. If you watch a film illegally and then tell someone else not to watch it because you don't think it's very good, again you have caused a loss.

The only way you can justify "no theft" (to yourself) is to download the film without sharing any part of it, watch it and do not distribute or comment on it, it would be impossible to prove that you had no intention to go to the cinema or buy it on DVD as the mere fact that you downloaded it means that you wanted to watch it so loss [must be] implied regardless of your intention, if you wanted to use this defence in court, apart from having a snowballs chance in hell, you would have to prove your intention (either by having no money or a signed, witnessed statement of intention) there is a possibility of a test case, a child perhaps with no income but access to internet and computer equpment, but remember you must also never share a single byte of the film with anyone.



"If you watch a film illegally and then tell someone else not to watch it because you don't think it's very good, again you have caused a loss."

Similarly, if you watch a film in the cinema and convince a friend who was going to go not to because it is rubbish, you have caused a loss. And since you equate causing a loss with theft, this is theft too.

This is probably why people who know what they are talking about differentiate between copyright infringement, download=lostsale, and actual physical theft. If you start to equate them, you end up in ridiculous situations where a bad review of a film is theft on a grand scale as it convinces many people to not pay to see the film.

Similarly with uploading, we differentiate theft and unauthorized distribution, because otherwise we end up with possible situations such as you being a thief for uploading a copy of a film to your friend, even if your friend decides later on to buy the DVD due to enjoying the film, thus gaining the producers a sale.


I hope

I hope that Pirate Bay's legal team has a suitable teflon coat with asbestos based protection and are advising their clients with at least a modicum of common sense.

Pirate: as well ...



I could never understand what the theft of a ship or its cargo had to do with the unlicensed duplication of an intangible sequence of ones and zeros ...

Thumb Down


"However, who pays for the 10s of thousands of new bands launched in this country each year? Bearing in mind that less than 1% succeed. Someone has to pay for studio time. Someone has to pay for videos, the inevitable promotional website and other promotional stuff. Someone has to pay to have the album(s) duplicated. Someone has to pay for the Cd cover to be designed and printed.

So, bearing in mind that 99% of those bands are generating little income for the company, who pays for it? Well, the money comes from profits made from the 1% of bands who do make a profit. So, less profit from those bands = less money for other bands."

I understand this argument perfectly. This does not mean that I have an understanding for why the argument is relevant. Why exactly should companies pay for launching new bands? Sorry but I do not see the need to get all the nonsense subsidized! As far as I know most of the bands and artist whose records I have bought appear to have made a name for themself before they got a contract by a big name record company in the first place. Why record companies should subsidize non-artists efforts in "becoming" (?) artists on other peoples behalf is not to me justifiable. Sorry it is one thing to be rich and to promote some thing as a matter of cause or personal preference (yes I do sometimes buy things that I like even if other people do not share my taste) - it is however a completely different issue to complain that such a promotion strategy cost money and therefore must be justified as a business model... Having been a member of a band myself which released a record without asking for support from a big name record company I have no compassion what so ever for your argument. If you can create music which is worth while paying for you do not need subsidies from big labels. If you look many bands who have made it big - their relationship with record labels is more similar to an investment not a subsidy. If what you create is not of interest to people - perhaps it is not relevant to be marketed as part of a sustainable business model either? I do not believe that the defining of "what is art" or "what is good music" etc is up to self proclaimed "artists" - or their promoters! Certainly I would not support that kind of activity as a business model which needs to be protected expecially and differently from how other activities are dealt with in the world.


How to justify abusive corporate behaviour

How to justify theft...

1) Gang up on anyone who you think MIGHT be stealing your work - just in case.

2) Ad homonym attacks

3) Claim that even though you have no idea if or what they download that "something", it is most certainly theft of "your stuff" - the accusation (without any substantiation) makes it ok (how, exactly? Why do you accuse people of stealing from you if you have no idea what they do - just because they could have done something - they surely must have done it?

4) Call your target audience and customers thieves and parasites without due cause because that makes your abusive behaviour and unsubstantiated accusations look alright.

5) Ignore the fact that not all of your customers are thieves.

6) Suggest that your customers would be better off if they are not able to control how they play the music they legitimately payed for (or if they have bought the music on a CD, lobby against legalising customers right to upload their own CDs to their own music player) with no evidence of this practice harming the artists what so ever.

7) Make symantic arguments when people don't say exectly what they mean, even though you know exactly what they were getting at.

8) Suggest that because some thieves exist it is ok to take anything you want from all of your customers.

9) Attack the fact that a place that hosts a whole shitload of torrents (which you do not own) - is (or at least attempts to be) profit making

10) Ignore the fact that the whole foundation a significant part of the film making businesses (which you represent) was based in hollywood originally for the purpose to be able to continue to steal other peoples ideas (patents) and use them without licence or legal right (read up on the history of how the major hollywood film labels started and did not want to respect their legal obligations to people like Edison et al).

When you download a torrent, there is no 'check here to register your reasons for downloading' - there is no need for constant surveillance as there may or may not be any copyright owners of all and every piece of downloaded material. All and every download activity does not by definition represent a loss of income. To register your reasons is commonly not an accepted request in normal interactions or transactions. We do not expect to have to register our reason to call friends on our phones. We do not expect to have to register our reasons to send photographs or messages to our friends etc. We do not even expect to have to register our reasons for interactions with strangers (yet). There are exceptions in many countries, for example when buying guns and or medicine etc. However I see no reason for why buying the right to listen to music should be treated as a special case relationship between customer and business compared to others. I certainly see no reason for giving corporate agents a carte blanche by society to behave as they please and bypass common consumer right regulations and contractual obligations valid in most other business areas.



This topic is closed for new posts.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018