Piratebay Trial

[DJ FC]

Dent.

You guys should know how ridiculous this claim is.

If craigslist were called "MurderList" and they refused to take down ads for contract killings I'd say you have a point...

[Dent]

.

[DJ FC]

You emailed a BNP member?

I would never associate with them.

[Pliedes]

Why Everybody Lost The Pirate Bay Trial
Written by Matt Mason on April 23, 2009

The victory for the entertainment business was Pyrrhic, although this initial success is dampened by a possible mistrial. Nevertheless, four Swedes have been martyred. Yet content creators and consumers are no closer to new business models that solve the problem.

Piracy is not usually honorable. But it is often a symptom of some kind of failure or injustice. The 17th Century pirates of the high seas were rebelling against tyrannical maritime labor practices. The pirates in Somalia are a direct result of government failure, and the pirates put on trial in Sweden were the result of a market failure, which is sadly now a decade old.

That the market has not come up with alternatives to file-sharing good enough to make piracy moot is the real problem, and the companies and individuals that have stood in the way of this are the ones who owe content creators an explanation. Extremists on both sides are hailing this as a win, but it’s the majority of us in the middle who continue to lose out.

This was a show trial about money and politics, but most of all it was a sideshow. This argument is over and the entertainment industries should be focusing on the licensing schemes, royalty agreements and the new business models content creators desperately need. Thankfully many more of them are. But this verdict will encourage the ones who are not to continue pretending there is some other way around this problem that involves suing people.

No one should have to accept people “stealing” their work, just as no one should have to accept a company demanding that its business model works when it doesn’t. But we all have to adapt to new market realities. The way we communicate and distribute all kinds of information will continue to change at an alarming pace. Taking hard-line measures against file-sharing in the interests of a handful of large organizations sets a dangerous precedent for the future of privacy, net neutrality and freedom of speech. Intellectual property laws are about striking a balance between the interests of individual IP creators and society as a whole. If the law tips too far in either direction, the whole system will fall. Bad legal decisions on piracy may actually end up doing more damage than the piracy itself.

The Pirate Bay verdict gives lawyers everywhere a mandate to continue chasing shadows. It won’t stop the Pirate Bay, let alone online piracy. The enormous surge in the Pirate Party’s membership that was reported after the trial is just the beginning. Most of the commentary that followed rightly talked of cutting heads off hydras and hitting hornet’s nests, etc. What that really means is anonymity features and non-accountability measures being baked into BitTorrent software, probably in the next six months to a year.

Pirate Bay spokesman Peter Sunde said after the trial that “there’s no difference between us and Google.” The judge thought there was a difference – intent. The Pirate Bay was all about file-sharing and Google is not. But thanks to this trial the next generation of file-sharing sites will be much more secretive. The next mutation of The Pirate Bay will have no subversive rhetoric and won’t mock the labels and studios chasing it. It will be silent. It won’t respond. It wont be nearly as fun as TPB, but there will be no real differences between it and Google. No one will be able to prove intent, making it even more of a threat. Doesn’t exactly sound like a win for anybody in the business of creating content.

The real winners won’t be the ones that come out on top of this long, bitter trial process, appeals and all, which could take five years. It will be the side that develops the new technologies that will render that court decision meaningless before it is even issued. They may be Scandinavian pirates or Hollywood privateers, or some combination of thereof. The file-sharing community is working ten times harder because of this trial. The entertainment industries would be wise to do the same, and wiser to find ways to work with the pirates they continue to fight. The fact that they didn’t do so ten years ago cost a generation of artists billions.

No-one is ever going to trial for that.

–
Matt Mason
Author, The Pirate’s Dilemma
e: [email protected]
w: thepiratesdilemma.com

[Mr. Blonde]

Swedish Software Firm Acquires The Pirate Bay For $7.7 Million

[Pliedes]

The Pirate Bay - blog entry on the sale

Summary- Site is sold to a swedish firm, who in turn will allow members to buy shares of the company. TPB guys keep saying "don't worry they'll keep it real", while the users are saying "oh fuck" and "sellouts".

imo, this is the natural evolution of the internet. Napster, Kazaa, Limewire, now Bittorrent....the technology has reached critical mass and is absorbed into the mainstream. I don't like it, but this is what happens.

I have no fear- the denizens of the internet will always be two steps ahead of wall street.

[Pliedes]

Software company Global Gaming Factory X (GGF) says it is in the process of acquiring The Pirate Bay and file-sharing technology company Peerialism. GGF claims to have the biggest network of internet cafés and gaming centers in the world.

The changeover of ownership is scheduled for August 2009, whereby GGF will take over the operation of the site.

The company says that after it has completed the acquisition it will “launch new business models that allow compensation to the content providers and copyright owners,” which is clearly a huge diversion from TPB’s previous modus operandi.

“We would like to introduce models which entail that content providers and copyright owners get paid for content that is downloaded via the site,” said Hans Pandeya, CEO GGF.

“The Pirate Bay is a site that is among the top 100 most visited Internet sites in the world. However, in order to live on, The Pirate Bay requires a new business model, which satisfies the requirements and needs of all parties, content providers, broadband operators, end users, and the judiciary,” said Pandeya.

“Content creators and providers need to control their content and get paid for it. File sharers’ need faster downloads and better quality,” he added.

If they seriously think people are gonna start paying to use bittorrent, then they clearly do not understand its purpose.

[Mr. Blonde]

dunno man. depending on how hardcore they start getting with prosecutions...i'll probably end up paying eventually in the next 5-10 years once there is actually a decent deal with unlimited album downloads without DRM bullshit and actual ownership. i'd be interested in buying shares of TPB.

[Pliedes]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

i'll probably end up paying eventually in the next 5-10 years

I think we all will, eventually, but those options are already there. Not every album download is equal to a sale. Just like when I hear a song on the radio or played by a friend that doesn't mean I run out and buy it to "make the sure the artist is compensated".

Let me make an example of myself- I have a giant collection of vinyl records. I buy at least one record a week, yet I haven't bought a cd in years. A couple weeks back I downloaded an album by a band called Slowdive (shoegaze from the 90's) that I ended up really liking. This week I had my man at the local record shop find me a vinyl version of the album. I actually paid way more than a simple cd would have cost, but I get a product that I value that much more.

Britney Spear and Metallica already offer legit/pay downloads of their music that I could pay for, but I hate they music and will never download, let alone buy their albums.

My point is this. People who only steal music will continue to steal music, people who only buy music will continue to buy music, and people who do both will continue to do both. This issue isn't about technology, its about marketing.

[Dent]

.

[Dent]

.

[Mr. Blonde]

Dent posted a similar link in Sexbox, here is one with more info.

Mininova Deletes All Infringing Torrents and Goes ‘Legal’ | TorrentFreak

[Dent]

.

[Beebs]

To be honest with all the great internet radio sites, and having iTunes and others totally DRM free, I have next to no sympathy for large scale pirating sites.

People don't really use torrent sites to get a few songs like with, say, the original Napster; now people download things like an entire artists life work.

I'm sure some of you are preparing all the typical "oh the music industry is so outdated, I can't get my music the way I want, they need to do a better job" excuses and the "fuck those millionaires, blah, blah blah" rationalizations; in reality you can listen to authorized free music with almost no work, and you can buy a totally DRM free song/album much more easily than you can steal it.

The fact remains that you are violating somebody's property rights, the things that have made our society advance beyond primitive tribes.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

You have a good point Beebs.

But I do find it easier just to hop on to isohunt type in the artist name and download an entire discography in an hour, doesn't make it right though.

[Dent]

.

[Beebs]

That really isn't true; you do pay for art because it belongs to somebody, not because you want more art. The whole piece is based around a premise that he simply assumes to be true without actually making any attempts to prove it. You don't get to decide how to pay somebody without their input.

I paint a painting, you give me money, I give you the painting.

That is just a long winded excuse for stealing; to call downloading music "civil disobedience" as if it is done for any reason other than feeling as if it is somehow your right to own a product for free is really just absurd.

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by Beebs

I paint a painting, you give me money, I give you the painting.

But sometimes I just want to see a particular painting, I don't need to "possess" it, then I just type the name into google images, it pops up, I look at it and then go on with my life. I might even set it as my desktop. Whats your desktop image beebs? Did you pay its creator?

[Beebs]

You aren't looking at a picture of the song though, you are taking full possession of the real thing.

I'm sorry, but there just is no inalienable right for people to get to have full access to every piece of media ever created instantly available for free without permission.

If an artist wants to sell the rights to their work to a record label, that is their right, there is no convincing argument that anybody has a right to that work through means that the owner does not agree to; mutual consent is the backbone of free exchange, and there is no mutual consent when you illegally download something.

My desktop is from someones personal album, but I'm sure I have used illegal copies of somebody's work, I certainly have illegally downloaded songs. I'm not arguing against it on some holier than though platform, I'm just calling it what it is, a breach of the idea of mutual consent, or theft for lack of a better word.

So when somebody who gets busted for creating a huge network that is set up to facilitate large scale theft, I may feel they are being treated too harshly, but I simply don't feel all this moral outrage at people not wanting their shit stolen.

Things like suing or fining downloaders for huge amounts of money per song is retarded in the same way cutting off a shoplifters hand is, but what is just as retarded is people trying to explain how the shoplifter didn't steal and that the store is to blame for not giving every product in the world away for free and living on donations.

[Dent]

.

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by Beebs

So when somebody who gets busted for creating a huge network that is set up to facilitate large scale theft, I may feel they are being treated too harshly, but I simply don't feel all this moral outrage at people not wanting their shit stolen.

Google facilitated in me stealing my desktop artwork, but Google is not being held responsible. What gives?

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by DDTempest

Google facilitated in me stealing my desktop artwork, but Google is not being held responsible. What gives?

Google has been involved in some pretty big disputes about copyright infringement when they tried to do their google books thing.

Google, unlike file sharing and torrent sites, usually take down material that is copyrighted, like fights on google video; they also aren't designed solely for the purpose of distributing copyrighted material

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Dent

I still don't understand how making a duplicate of something is 'taking'
Pretty sure i've never physically stole any poor artists media.

Part of the buying of music is the agreement not to make illegal copies, if you don't like it you are free not to agree to buy it.

People want these sites to be up and running because they are convenient and free way to get whatever they want, and are apparently willing to go to great lengths to rationalize this by telling themselves they aren't actually violating the idea of mutual consent in trade.

I understand the first part, I don't understand why it's so hard for people to admit the second.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Beebs, why do you want to hurt 'merica?

[f3lix]

I put in about 200 man hours into each CD made for UNLV's prestigious series of our Wind Orchestra. Oddly enough, I'm the first one to put it out there for anybody because I view the music as more important than the financial gain. I'm in it for the exposure of new music and the high quality of performance of our group for recruiting purposes.