Websites like piratebay should be set up as hidden services on the Tor network so nobody knows who runs them and so they can't be taken down.
The four men behind BitTorrent tracker website The Pirate Bay were handed stiff sentences of one year each this morning and ordered to stump up $3.6m in damages to the entertainment industry. The judgment may come as a short, sharp shock for members of the sprawling file sharing community. But the site will almost certainly …
Websites like piratebay should be set up as hidden services on the Tor network so nobody knows who runs them and so they can't be taken down.
This thing's absolutely barmy, stark raving mad.
Quite aside from the philosophical question as to what degree of control discontent creators (YUCK!) should retain over their readers listeners and viewers, this just won't fly.
There are two workable ways to go:
(i) You keep a log of EVERYTHING downloaded by each internet connection and send a bill for everything which was copyright to the downloader; or
(ii) You make an "internet license" obligatory, much as a TV license is, and divide the money collected amongst the composers, performers, film makers etc.
The British government would clearly love (i). Everybody else would accept (ii). Really, how difficult can that be to implement when people start behaving like adults? People managed it when radio came in.
" Paris, because she's been screwed just as hard." ... By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 17th April 2009 23:52 GMT
And knows how to enjoy and driver it for her personal, model advantage? The first battle in a war is always of no consequence as anyone who has ever started a war has always lost ..... and Man is such a Dolt as never to have learned the lesson..... the Prime Idiot in the Amazon Virgin Forest .
Is that horrible advertising block right in the middle of the text going to stay here?
Because if it is... I'm not.
""Whereas The Pirate Bay was set up to make piracy easier, Google, which has many pros and many cons associated with it, will cooperate if we ask them."
Riiiiiiigghhht - so the world's biggest and richest search engine will cripple their results just because of a legal verdict that (a) hasn't had its final appeal and (b) has no power outside the EU."
Actually, if you read between the lines, what he is actually saying goes something like this:
"We haven't got the bottle or the money to sue the companies behind the search engines on our own soil even though our argument amounts to a censure on all forms of linkage to copyright material, but we can bully a few obscure folk in a country far away,"
More or less.
The thing is that we are caught between extremes; the big conglomerates who want to protect their perceived right to fleece every poor farty with no comeback and the various folk who want to open everything up in a kind of internet anarchy. Until the two sides actually get together and talk rather than butt heads, this is just an example of many similar actions to come.
Paris. Spot the boobs.
Microsoft are aiding and abetting illegal distribution of software.
I'm getting rather bored with everyone whining on about how torrents and stuff are a reaction to high music prices. We just want something for nothing, its the long and the short of it.
Of course these Swedes were guilty - we all know piracy is illegal and just trying to be clever about it was never going to stand up in court! Actually, they are smug g*ts and have annoyed me now and I hope they get a nice big friendly cell mate to look after them. Remember lads, he's not raping you, he's just making a protest about the price of internet pr0n.
As the prosecution lawyers in this case were employed by the copyright holders surely this is a civil case?, so how the funk can they get jail time?, surely there should have been a criminal case first, with the prosecution employed by the Swedish version of the crown. I know this for fucking sure, I'm never going back to Sweden for my hols no matter how fit their women are. Just goes to show you that you can't trust a country that didn't pick a side in WW2.
Pass the filthy Columbo mac
First they call the site "pirate bay" What did they mean by that, were they expecting there user group to be landlubber filesharers? Of course not, the site was named pirate bay for the torrents it contained. So thats the first mistake they made.
We were not at the trial, so we have no idea what arguments were made for or against pirate bay, other than they got a jail term imposed for piracy.
Holding a torrent for opensuse linux is legal, holding a torrent uploaded by a member of the public - irresponsible.
So apart from calling yourself pirate bay, holding links to copyright material, stupid yes, criminal, well the court said it was, because they "aided" the distribution of illegal files.
Basically they dont have the money to win against the copyright clowns, A highly paid lawyer(vulcher) would have argued they were immature irresonsible people who tried to control pirate bay but its popularity prevented them from doing so as MR JOE PUBLIC kept uploading links to there content, as quick as pirate bay would remove 1 link, 3 more users posted.
Pirate bay was a victim of its own success, as 99% of the content is used by bona fide companies to distribute open source software, the abuse by multiple home users was an unexpected problem, and in such high numbers it presented an unsolvable problem.
Then we get back to the name, pirate bay. Which means that defence is doomed.
paris, because her knickers wouldnt hold water either.
@Benny - you got it wrong mate... its "Guns dont kill people, RAPPERS do.."
And its not the labels that take the Majority of the sales, its the Distros and the Retailers. The retailer generally takes 50% of an MP3 sale, the the Distro takes around 20% then the usualy deal with indies is a 50/50 profit share. Its the retailers who are the criminals.
Regardless of the guilty verdict, has anyone stopped to consider the fine? 32m ......even at Zimbabwe's exchange rates that is nothing short of insane, if for no other reason that it will be impossible to pay.
Billy cos he could afford the fine
Wanted to watch my new DVD, but its tricked out so it won't play on a laptop that has a DVD writer. So what option do I have, the only way I can access the material I've paid for is to go get a torrent. Next time perhaps I could just skip the purchase part of the transaction and save myself the trouble. Whilst the media publishers are being so restrictive about how I can use their overpriced (defective?) goods, TPB are offering me a public service. So I'll not de buying any more media from ITV, not worth the hassle, a bit like Sony. Mmm whats on the Internet tonight dear ...
"The comparison with Google is amateurish"
Did John Kennedy just call you lot amateurs? I'd sue him for that...
The only people that will benefit in the short and long term with this legal action are the scum sucking lawyers that are making hundreds of dollars an hour. Anybody else notice how the laws are becoming more the richest entity that spends the most on the lawyers is right, truth be damned. Espeically true for copyright/patent/IP cases. Funny how that works, I guess, when in most countries it is the lawyers that make the laws (majority of politicians at least in USA have law degrees). Sigh.
Well re-worded ;)
If they've been convicted they should go to prison like every other convicted criminal.
"The Swedish judges obviously missed out on Computer Science 101."
Of course they did... they are Judges, not Computer Scientists.
Unfortunately, the judges were probably in training a while back now, and may not have had direction on how this kind of technology works. It will take time to catch up, and I hope it does, as the people who created TPB shouldn't be going to jail.
I agree with the idea that you can't blame the manufacturer for the actions of the user... like with Guns, Knives... or Roads even... (isn't it funny that kids get killed on roads everyday... yet no one takes the people who put the roads there in the first place to court???)
I think the Entertainment industry needs to look at the people doing the sharing in the first place. The people who actually break the law by sharing media. This all seems that it's too hard work to find the real criminals, so we'll go after someone else instead.
I agree that in many cases the media is overpriced, but that doesn't give you the right to steal it... Would you steal a car because you couldn't afford it? (I know at least one person will say 'yes' to that question... but my argument doesn't care about you :P)
If people want the industry to change, vote with your feet and buy media that you feel is worth it. Go see Shows or support independent artists, whatever, just don't buy music at all, listen to the radio... thats free!
The industry is, at the end of the day, only out to make money, so if you don't buy what they are selling, they will have to find new ways to sell to you. Maybe a decent Internet distribution model, or a clever licensing system... who knows, but they will only develop it if they stop making money, and they can't get your money an other way (i.e taking you to court for stealing it)
Firstly guns have sporting and hunting uses, secondly killing people isn't _always_ illegal.
For example measures to rid the world of stupid, ill thought out, vacuous arguments (Such as yours) would raise the average IQ level and so improve the quality of life for the rest of society.
I believe it was pressure from USA (Bastion of Freedom and Democracy) that caused the Swedes to act on behalf of USA media moguls .
Might is right still. ( Reference - Iraq )
Movie - The Core (2003) run time 129 min
Been up for months, page rank is excellent and most should find the link in the first page of results for the rubric "The Core". Casino Royale, Pulse and others are all easily found.
If merely providing links to copyrighted material is a crime then Google should be doubly slapped for supply "no questions asked" video hosting as well.
The TPB 3 have been sentenced more harshly than two youths who beat a gay guy to death.
If you don't wish to fund this kind of thing then don't buy from major labels.
Yet another stupid remark which thinks the narrow logical rules applying to IT technology somehow carry over into law. Read the editorial conclusion - the judgement wasn't against anybody pointing to a site contravening copyright law either innocently or to support an articles (as the BBC did). It was a judgement against a business model that was predicated on the exploitation of copyright breaches. The argument that the site was there as a general purpose directory for innocent use of file sharing was fatally undermined by two things. First the stupid arrogance of calling it "Pirate" Bay and, secondly, because if lacked any means of taking down links which breached copyright. Indeed the only reason the site was popular was that it was largely used for streams of copyrighted material. These four made money from this business model (not necessary for a conviction of course, but no doubt a contributory factor to the sentence).
So can people finally stop equating eBay, Google, BBC and so on links to this case. It just tends to confirm your own loose contact with reality...
'Dude, the site is called the PIRATE bay. It's going to be quite hard to *prove* that the site was *not* set up to aid so-called "pirates".'
You'd think that wouldn't you? But then expertsexchange were no help at all with my gender realignment surgery...
Just goes to prove, if you have enough money you can buy anything. It has been years since I have gone to the movies/bought a cd/bought a DvD for one simple reason: Everything being put out is utter garbage. Make something worth buying and I'll buy it. Until then, take your imaginary "profit loss" and shove it. I said GOOD DAY SIR.
Meanwhile in other News......
The Irish Broadcaster RTE station 2FM has been criticised for selling music downloads on its new 2FM website that cannot be used on iPods. Launched at a cost of €230,000 (presumably to the Irish taxpayer as RTE receives a significant portion of it's income from a licence fee). The site offers listeners tracks heard on the station for 99c. However the majority of downloads sold from the site include DRM that prevent the music being played on iPods and Macs.
RTE defended the system, saying it was "doing what record labels will allow us to"
No doubt the MAFIAA would like people to pay for the music a second time for their iPods.
Well done the MAFIAA, another self inflicted wound.
No wonder people continue to download DRM free music.
How long before the tide comes in fully and drowns the King Canute's in the MAFIAA.
"Dude, the site is called the PIRATE bay. It's going to be quite hard to *prove* that the site was *not* set up to aid so-called "pirates". The reason we have judges in this world is because they can quickly eliminate stupid arguments like yours by invoking common bloody sense."
and? by the name it could have more to do with peg legs or the ones of the coast of africa!
or do all sites that mention pirates also infringe copyright?
"It's going to be quite hard to *prove* that the site was *not* set up to aid so-called "pirates"."
Again, the site was set up to aid FILE SHARING, FILE SHARING != piracy , but you see it as such.
I'm tiring of the absolutist analogies. e.g. "(The BBC) too are aiding in infringment", "...can’t wait for when the directors of Colt and Smith n Weston get convicted of murder", "...what about Yahoo and MSN".
The convictions were on the basis that copyright infringement was core to the site's business model. (Colt don't directly locate specific victims for murderers and hand them a loaded gun.)
Same goes for "judge didn't understand the tech". eg "no understanding of the underlying tech", "Once the appeal is heard by a tech-savvy judge, they'll be found innocent" I recall getting equally bored a few years back with people claiming smugly that bmp/jpg format photographs of illegal subjects weren't photographs because "they're just noughts and ones". That little utopia for armchair lawyers didn't last long either.
@Yes Me: "Imagine the ramifications, especially if it's applied recursively" Yes. If. But it's not going to happen. Is it?
I don't mind the fun of discussing how legal frameworks are applied and adapted to rapid technological change etc., but (a) hasn't this been done to death? and (b) these people were running a business that relied on encouraging and directly aiding the mass theft of copyrighted material. No matter how many loopholes you think can be wriggled through, do you seriously think letting this behaviour carry on unhindered is any good for the world in general and artists in particular?
(And, yes, music industry own worst enemy. Boo hiss etc etc. Yes, annoying when some stuff you want is expensive (hey, here's an idea. Instead of just stealing it like a petulant toddler, do something else that you can afford - borrow a book from your local library, for example. And give it back again! It's fun!). Also I'm not an NRA stooge so please don't think I'm bigging up weapons manufacture.)
is that I would guess >50% (i.e. more than half) of people who do "torrent", do so, not because of price, primarily but for other reasons :
1) material otherwise not released (very old TV shows)
2) they are catching up on stuff they couldn't be bothered videoing in the 1st place
3) they are viewing US-releases in real-time (as opposed to the 6+ months lag before shows hit the UK)
4) (similar to 1) download foreign shows not shown on UK TV
and would happily *pay*, if there were a legal avenue to obtain such materials.
The situation is similar to the pot-noodle one, Ben Elton described in "Gasping" ... the big media cos are missing out on an opportunity to generate revenue where none existed.
There seems to be two general arguments here. Firstly is it right or wrong to steal other people’s material (software, music, or video). The use of the word steal probably tells you which side of the fence I sit on. The second is should it be legal to knowingly provide a list of places that would be thieves can find the material.
The justification for theft that frequently seems to be being put forward here is that the big music industry moguls are charging far too much for their product and not passing that on to the musicians. Well you may be right, I believe RBS has a lot of money too, should we all be allowed to help ourselves to a chunk? I suspect most right minded people would argue that bank robbery is not justified just because banks are wealthy.
The argument that just because music industry moguls are greedy we are going to deprive them AND the artists even more somehow does not wash. To add to this hypocrisy is the fact that a quick check on Pirate Bay shows that people are quite happy to list material from independent labels that are not rolling in money. I am now less convinced than ever that the average copyright thief is really doing this out of a burning desire to stick it to the man and more out of their own desire to have something for nothing.
Now the argument that the Pirate Bay are not hosting any copyright material so should not or could not be prosecuted. Well obviously they are indeed not actually taking part in the theft but they are making it far easier for the would be thief to track down the material. Suppose I ran a site listing people who are known to have gone on holiday and their addresses. I might argue that this is done so that the milkman can make sure the order is cancelled or that a public spirited neighbour can keep an eye on the property. However if I then call that site ‘theprowlersbag’ and boast on television about how if I want something I just take it, then perhaps people might suspect my motives are not pure.
Should Google etc. also be prosecuted? Well it depends. What are their motives and what are their reactions when told they are listing something illegal? You Tube are quite prepared to delist anything if they receive a complaint. Can we consider Google to be complicit in other crimes such as child pornography, terrorism, helping drug suppliers. I’m sure that a quick Google on any one of these topics would lead to results.
Something I do find a little strange is the copyright rule in the UK that says someone buying a CD cannot make a backup copy. In the Netherlands you are indeed allowed to make a backup. Solving this should not require a change in law it should simply require the individual musicians to state somewhere on the CD that they are happy for you to make a copy onto whatever medium you like as long as it is for your own use and so long as you destroy those copies when or if you pass that CD on.
..but wasn't it convenient that the pre-release of the Wolverine movie was leaked in a very high-profile way while this case was rattling on through the courts. The movie industry couldn't have had better luck if they'd planned it themselves. And of course since it was so unfinished, most people would still go and see it in the cinema anyway..
Yup. The wife and I are regular visitors to a torrent site set up specifically to provide access to TV shows, who's name leaves you in no doubt that it exists to provide TV torrents... All of the shows we download from this site are shows we could watch on terrestrial or satellite (and as payers of both the TV Licence and SkyHD subs, we are entitled to watch them on whichever channels they're shown), and many of them are shown here within a week or so of their US broadcast. So why do we bother torrenting them?
1. Even on a standard def torrent, the image quality is better than the over-compressed garbage we get on Sky (non HD) or Freeview, and the HD torrents are easily the equal of what Sky provides on its HD channels when it can be bothered to source HD material instead of just upscaling SD material and slapping a HD logo in the corner of the screen.
2. The time we have available to sit down and watch grown-up TV shows is limited - most days if we're lucky we might have a couple of hours at the end of the day after getting our 18 month-old son off to bed and before we then have trouble staying awake. So when we want to catch up on the latest events in the lives of Jack Bauer, the Petrelli Family, the Dharma Initiative etc., we'd really rather like it if we could just press play and have the show start straight away, AND then not have our viewing interrupted every 10 minutes or so by 5 minutes of ads, especially since the SkyHD boxes are notoriously bad at fast-forwarding (can anyone tell me what the point of 12x and 30x modes are, when they're slower than 6x mode?) and even worse at responding to remote commands once you're in fast-forward mode. So far, every single episode we've downloaded has been edited to perfection, with no extraneous material preceding the start of the episode (compare this to the couple of minutes we have to add onto the start of each Sky+ recording to guarantee the start of the show will be recorded even if the guide timings have deviated from reality once again), and has always been stripped of all ad breaks - in some cases so cleanly that you'd be hard pushed to point out where the breaks were in the first place.
3. The user interface provided by XP Media Centre makes the Sky+ interface look like something knocked together by Fisher-Price (and actually, now I think about it, that's being unkind to FP...). Considering how many shows you can fit onto an unmodified SkyHD box, it beggars belief that Sky still persist with the same tired recorded show listings which become increasingly unuseable as you get beyond a couple of screens-worth of shows. Can't sort it, can't move stuff up and down the list, can't tell which episode is which without pressing the i button...
4. We don't have to worry that, if anything happens to our media centre PC, we lose all our recordings - everything is backed up elsewhere on our local network, and if necessary we could simply re-download most if not all of it again. If the SkyHD box goes belly up, chances are we'd lose everything...
In short, the torrented versions of the shows are better quality and more user-friendly than the versions we could view via the respective broadcasters. So why would we want to go back to watching them over the air?
"The thing is that we are caught between extremes; the big conglomerates who want to protect their perceived right to fleece every poor farty with no comeback and the various folk who want to open everything up in a kind of internet anarchy. Until the two sides actually get together and talk rather than butt heads, this is just an example of many similar actions to come"
You're absolutely right; and the losers will ultimately be the big conglomerates. I won't mourn their passing, but it will make life much more difficult for the artists.
It will take a long time for the battle to be fought to a finish, and during that time more and more people will grow up with the easy availability of P2P and torrent networks. It will become increasingly socially acceptable to share files on a small scale, which will make it correspondingly more difficult to make people take any notice of the copyright laws. It doesn't help, at least in the UK, to have such manifestly unfair restrictions on copying for personal use. Not that I've ever met anyone who pays the slightest attention to that, but it does give another string to the anarchists' bows.
It's a pity, because if the conglomerates were run by people whose brains resided in their heads rather than their backsides then they might have been able to harness P2P and torrent networks as a good distribution medium. But that requires vision and ability, which aren't commonly found in business "leaders" these days.
"You make an "internet license" obligatory, much as a TV license is, and divide the money collected amongst the composers, performers, film makers etc."
You are not speaking for me. I DO NOT WANT this. Why should my money go to fund the coke habbit of the next Brittney Spears or X-factor publicity whore. I will pay for the music I like by paying for it, no be forced to pay for stuff that makes me regret the modern world.
"The argument that the site was there as a general purpose directory for innocent use of file sharing was fatally undermined by two things. First the stupid arrogance of calling it "Pirate" Bay and, secondly, because if lacked any means of taking down links which breached copyright. Indeed the only reason the site was popular was that it was largely used for streams of copyrighted material. These four made money from this business model (not necessary for a conviction of course, but no doubt a contributory factor to the sentence).
So can people finally stop equating eBay, Google, BBC and so on links to this case. It just tends to confirm your own loose contact with reality..."
OK.... lets look at this very simply, we'll look at google,
firstly, as you know google own you tube, as pointed out above, you can find movies on youtube, i.e google ae hosting copyrighted material, (as well as hosts of songs). as I've said before in the google vs. PRS threads, search for a song name or artist name, you'll see hundreds of boot leg recordings, videos, and covers, (and cover versions are covered under copyright law). so Google host illegal content AS WELL AS providing pointers to illegal content, and in some cases, as well as providing links to illegal content, certainly in the case of text and images, they'll even cache that content thus the store illegal content even when a user has not uploaded that content.
google put ads on the page, and boast that they index everything so you can search for anything you want, "windows" + "XP" + "torrent", yes, a very specific search term, but one that you can make. and google freely provide the search results and also display ads along side them, they are the worlds biggest ad broker, and they make their money by putting ads along side all searches illeagal or other wise, that's how they are like TPB...
HOWEVER! just to prove that I'm not stupid, I do realise that providing links to illegal material is not the core business model of google, it just happens to be one of many uses for the technology.
Anyway, back to you you tube argument,
we've already seen that they do host illegal content.
it's called youtube, tube being an old word for TV, so it's like the TV that you control, put whatever you like on there, we'll just stick some ads next to it and make whatever money we can.
youtube encourage people to upload all kind on content, including illegal and copyright infringing material.
you think that google really want to take down popular content that makes people come back again and again and again. they provide a link to take down copyrighted content because in the countries where they are based that provision is the LAW, they provide a means for take down to stop themselves being sued in a court.
TPB don't provide links to take down because they are in Sweeden, and the LAW in their country doesn't necessitate this.
Anyway, the Pirate bay, arrogant name yes,
yet no more arrogant that you tube, the TV all about you, for you to upload what you like.
take downs? a minor point that only comes about because the law of the relevant land specifies it. and doesn't come about where it's not required.
are you suggesting that if TPB provided a link to request take downs of their pointers that they'd have had more of a chance?
comparing TPB to google is amateurish if you say that they only do what TPB do, because google in fact are doing far more than TPB ever intended to do.
*** It was a judgement against a business model that was predicated on the exploitation of copyright breaches. The argument that the site was there as a general purpose directory for innocent use of file sharing was fatally undermined by two things. First the stupid arrogance of calling it "Pirate" Bay and, secondly, because if lacked any means of taking down links which breached copyright. Indeed the only reason the site was popular was that it was largely used for streams of copyrighted material. These four made money from this business model (not necessary for a conviction of course, but no doubt a contributory factor to the sentence).***
1. To make money from a business model which is predicated on the exploitation of copyright breaches: a) Cassette Recorder; b) VHS Recorder; c) CD Burner; d) DVD Burner
2. Stupid arrogance of giving something a name which suggest the exploitation of copyright breaches: a) Cassette *RECORDER*; b) VHS *RECORDER*; c) CD *BURNER*; d) DVD *BURNER*
3. Equipment manufacturers lacking means of deleting copyrighted material recorded by end users of: a) Cassette Recorder; b) VHS Recorder; c) CD Burner; d) DVD Burner
4. Indeed the (almost) only reason for why all of the main consumer recording technologies have historically proven to be popular was that they largely were used to record copyrighted material. Artists often use professional equipment which mainly is significantly different: a) When consumers use cassette recordings: artists use professional (reel) tape recorders; b) When consumers use VHS recorders: artists use either film or later professional Betamax; c) When consumers use CD burners: artists use HD; d) When consumers use DVD burners: artist use HD
5. Streams of copyrighted material available contributing to copyright infringement; a) Radio; b) TV; c) Cable