Pirate Bay founders found guilty

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by tompe

I thought it was wrong. What does "deserve" mean in this context. This seem to be an entitlement argument again. Or a circular argument.

I guess I was focussing on "what the market will bear." Which in many instances is $0. Thus, some may deserve nothing.

[Ervserver]

Exactly, people are making comments here that have nothing to do with how or why the judgment was reached. Some are just so happy with the judgment and now are piling on. It may be a short lived pile

Originally Posted by Jellby

Whether Mr. Lundström is a neo-nazi or not is irrelevant to the legality or not of The Pirate Bay.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by tompe

I thought it was wrong. What does "deserve" mean in this context. This seem to be an entitlement argument again. Or a circular argument.

It's not circular. (or well, not viciously so.)
I don't know if you got the memo, but for a long time it was customary for people to die, and their ideas to die with them.
The only way people transfer knowledge from gen1 to gen2 is through learning. (this distinguishes us from most but not all other creatures)
Some time ago we invented writing. This made it possible to transfer knowledge between clever people, cutting out the telephone effect. This was a marvellous invention, that allowed us to greatly accelerate the speed at which we were improving ourselves and our culture.
Then, the printing press came along, and bookmaking became rather less arduous. So, after a while limited time copyright was invented, to offset the author's efforts.
Regardless of that, people still died. And the knowledge passed into the PD.
Skipping ahead a bit, the only reason we are the way we are now because of that body of accumulated culture (a specific form of knowledge transmission and encoding). As such, we are constituted through that knowledge, or, to turn that idea on its head, the only way for us to become human is by integrating that knowledge into ourselves in some way or other. To be human is to internalize some (if not all) of that inheritance.
i.e., our mode of being is entirely dependent on it (and v.v.)
Authors write stuff because of other things they encounter, and then other people read that again, and become fodder for someone else to write about.
This is where "entitlement" comes from, and it is not circular, it's spirally.
(And yes, this is an "entitlement argument", although I'm not really sure why that is bad.)

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Duh :-)

Again, and again: It's the Price, ....!!!

If you charge too much for your product, you'll capture a small percent of paying users, and a larger percent will resort to piracy. Charge a competitive rate, and you'll capture a larger percent paying users, while fewer will resort to piracy to obtain your product.

I know some don't like this, but it's a fact of life, and a fact of the market. If it's not PirateBay, it will be someone else. Kind of like the drug war.

Only to an extremely limited extent. The drug war continues ONLY because opulently wealthy western societies provide addicts with guaranteed medical care. Without that, periods of heavy societal drug use are peremptorily ended by mas death due to outright overdose and weakened immune systems - such as seen in the US several times in the 19th century.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Only to an extremely limited extent. The drug war continues ONLY because opulently wealthy western societies provide addicts with guaranteed medical care. Without that, periods of heavy societal drug use are peremptorily ended by mas death due to outright overdose and weakened immune systems - such as seen in the US several times in the 19th century.

Huh?!! Where did you get this? Not to turn this into a drug policy thread, but do you really expect, that the 50% of the American population, who have used marijuana, would be six feet under by now, if it wasn't for Medicare?

Until the prohibition-prone 20th century, the drug cartels in the Americas didn't shoot or behead their competition, but advertised and paid taxes. For some examples, see this:

http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/preprohibition.htm

BTW, if you want to see an example of the health benefits of opium smoking, the Heidelberg student with the pipe, on the right, is me....

[tompe]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

ITo be human is to internalize some (if not all) of that inheritance.
i.e., our mode of being is entirely dependent on it (and v.v.)
Authors write stuff because of other things they encounter, and then other people read that again, and become fodder for someone else to write about.
This is where "entitlement" comes from, and it is not circular, it's spirally.
(And yes, this is an "entitlement argument", although I'm not really sure why that is bad.)

I do not agree about your resoning about being human. Why is it just that variant of existence that should exist?

But regarding "deserve". Why do they deserve what the market can bear? Why do they not deserve half of what the market can bear for example?

And I really do not get why somebody deserve something. People live in interaction with others and when we talk about "deserve" it is always a shorthand for a more complicated process.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Huh?!! Where did you get this? Not to turn this into a drug policy thread, but do you really expect, that the 50% of the American population, who have used marijuana, would be six feet under by now, if it wasn't for Medicare?

Until the prohibition-prone 20th century, the drug cartels in the Americas didn't shoot or behead their competition, but advertised and paid taxes. For some examples, see this:

http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/preprohibition.htm

BTW, if you want to see an example of the health benefits of opium smoking, the Heidelberg student with the pipe, on the right, is me....

Pot, not so much. Meth and crack - absolutely.
And no I was not in any way referring to Medicare or Medicaid alone.

Perhaps if you have never lived in poor parts of the world you are unaware that in many places you get no medical care without cash in advance period. Once the west lacked the wealth to be any different. In the US, if you go to an emergency room they generally treat you.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by timezone

I believe someone offering a program to break DRM maybe breaking the law but the consumer using it to obtain fair use of the product may not be breaking the law. I wish there was a copyright lawyer here that could comment.

If what you are talking about is US law, you don't need a copyright lawyer. A plain vanilla lawyer, like me, will do.

You are right about the consumer, under US law. In order to violate copyright law by removing DRM, the person doing the removing has to be operating outside the boundary of "fair use." The reason is that the law, both civil and criminal, requires economic damage of some sort to the copyright holder in order for a violation to occur. Any consumer using a DRM breaking program to achieve fair use of copyrighted material has not in any way damaged the copyright holder economically. Therefore, that consumer is not breaking the law. Note, however, that the consumer had better be right about what constitutes "fair use." Otherwise, he could wind up paying civil damages.

The case of the person offering the program is a bit dicier, because it all depends on the facts of the situation. On the criminal side, you have to be able to show that the person offering the program is trying to make money. If you can't, then there's no criminal violation, but there might be a civil violation. Again, it all depends on whether the copyright holder can show that he's been damaged, economically, by the distribution of the program.

The other issue is the Pirate Bay case. If they provided servers where the copyrighted material ended up on its way between where the file was held and the person requesting the material then I believe that is enough to find them guilty. At the same time an AOL type of model or Internet provider operates like a bulletin board. They are not responsible for what people say or do. Just like the phone company is not liable for people discussing criminal activity on the phone. If Pirate Bay was just a peer to peer network without their own servers then I think they have a stronger case. The people sharing the illegal material would be the ones breaking the law.

If the defendants were being prosecuted under US law, it would not be enough to show that the defendants provided the servers where the copyrighted material ended up. The government would have to prove that the defendants willfully intended for that to happen. It probably would not even be enough for them to know that it happened and just not bother to do anything about it. It's the same for a peer to peer network - the question is not how the technology operates, it's what the operators intended to be happening.

But who knows what the law is in Sweden? Just having the files on the server might be enough for Swedish law, and it might even be enough to operate a peer-to-peer network.

Of course I really do not know the law and I am only offering these thoughts as items to consider as the debate rages on. Copyright infringement is a crime but I believe there are times when it gets tricky.

Copyright infringement is NOT a crime, unless you do it deliberately, knowing that it is an infringement, and furthermore, with the intention of making money from it. The criminal law (US Code, TITLE 17, CHAPTER 5, § 506) specifically provides that "evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright."

I have to say, for a guy who is only "offering thoughts," you are doing a pretty good job, and could be in danger of becoming a lawyer if you get too close to a law school.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by DuneSoldier

I don't follow the point you are trying to make here. You're saying that DRM-Free music is only acceptable due to the fact that we standardized on the MP3 container?

Not exactly. I'm saying that DRM-free music is available in music stores because consumer interest in MP3 players, and the associated software, reached a point where it was relatively easy to buy a song or album and download it seemlessly to your player. MP3 tagging had something to do with that, of course.

My point is, the ebook market doesn't have the same kind of sophistication at this point, and it doesn't enjoy anything near the saturation that MP3 players enjoy.

Think back to before the iPod made it big. MP3 players existed before then, but they didn't represent a big market, and the idea of putting music into MP3 format for consumers would've been a non-starter. If people wanted to carry around their music, they could do so with CD players or even cassette Walkmen. Computers had CD-ROM drives that could play audio CDs, so there wasn't really the need (from a vender point of view) to produce digital music files. The MP3 player changed that, and the impetus to the MP3 player was obviously the MP3 format.

Originally Posted by DuneSoldier

One of the problems with DRM is the fact that there isn't some universal standard. If I want to buy a book from Fictionwise but it is only available in a secure format I'm SOL since I have a Sony Reader. I'm not a criminal, I don't violate copyright, I just want to buy an ebook and read it on my reader. If not for the DRM I could just use Calibre to convert it to ePub or LRF. But since it does have DRM, I can't use it without violating the DMCA and becoming a criminal.

All DRM is doing is having me renew my library card since I can't legally use the book on my Reader, and therefor won't buy the book.

DRM isn't really your problem, though. Your problem is platform-dependency. If a secure format worked on any reader, that would solve your problem. Secure doesn't have to mean a file can't be cross-platform.

Think about the other kinds of DRM there are in the computer world. A product key (as many software packages include now) doesn't prevent you from using the product on any coputer with a compatible OS. There are also watermarks, that don't prevent you from copying the file anywhere, but discourage you from distributing it.

[DuneSoldier]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

Not exactly. I'm saying that DRM-free music is available in music stores because consumer interest in MP3 players, and the associated software, reached a point where it was relatively easy to buy a song or album and download it seemlessly to your player. MP3 tagging had something to do with that, of course.

My point is, the ebook market doesn't have the same kind of sophistication at this point, and it doesn't enjoy anything near the saturation that MP3 players enjoy.

Think back to before the iPod made it big. MP3 players existed before then, but they didn't represent a big market, and the idea of putting music into MP3 format for consumers would've been a non-starter. If people wanted to carry around their music, they could do so with CD players or even cassette Walkmen. Computers had CD-ROM drives that could play audio CDs, so there wasn't really the need (from a vender point of view) to produce digital music files. The MP3 player changed that, and the impetus to the MP3 player was obviously the MP3 format.

Alright, I don't quite follow your logic as originally iTunes sold music with DRM (was it the AAC format?). You claim the iPod made MP3's popular, but the iPod handled both DRM-Free and DRM'ed music.

If you are saying that the iPod led to a greater demand for generic MP3 players then I understand your point. If that's the case then we might see something like that for eBooks fairly soon.

Originally Posted by bhartman36

DRM isn't really your problem, though. Your problem is platform-dependency. If a secure format worked on any reader, that would solve your problem. Secure doesn't have to mean a file can't be cross-platform.

Think about the other kinds of DRM there are in the computer world. A product key (as many software packages include now) doesn't prevent you from using the product on any coputer with a compatible OS. There are also watermarks, that don't prevent you from copying the file anywhere, but discourage you from distributing it.

I don't see how you can get away from platform dependency and still have DRM. DRM is different than regular encryption as there is only really one trusted party. There will never be an actual DRM standard. As soon as you publish a DRM standard anyone who duplicates it has violated the DMCA.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

1) .... (I think the price was $1, if I remember right.) He stopped because he wasn't even getting that from people.

I love Stephen Kings books.
I wanted to pay for The Plant. I was even going to get a credit card to be able to pay.(*)
Then I did the math. The first chapter was some 10 pages. A typical book by Stephen King has at least 400 pages.
I found the price unacceptable, so I did not download ...
End of story.

(*) I STILL do not have a credit card ;-)

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by kacir

I love Stephen Kings books.
I wanted to pay for The Plant. I was even going to get a credit card to be able to pay.(*)
Then I did the math. The first chapter was some 10 pages. A typical book by Stephen King has at least 400 pages.
I found the price unacceptable, so I did not download ...
End of story.

(*) I STILL do not have a credit card ;-)

And you haven't missed anything by not being able to read this interchangeable S.K. novel either. win-win

[b0rsuk]

Those of you who support copyright may want to rethink what this ruling actually means in practice. From Groklaw.net newspicks:

# In this case, The Pirate Bay already moved most of its servers to the Netherlands, a move that could keep the site running even if The Pirate Bay loses its appeal....

The bad news for copyright holders is there is obviously a market demand for this type of content distribution model. And while the entertainment industry seeks compensation via lawsuits, other similar services... will continue to thrive.... And then there is always new technologies on the horizon. Hollywood might want to start looking at a budding new peer-to-peer tool called OneSwarm that aims to let file swappers preserve their privacy by cloaking their IP address.

(PJ: What I hope they think about is this: if they push P2P into the hands of criminals only, then what happens? There is a market for P2P and by refusing to satisfy that market, they are driving it underground, where no accommodation will be possible for them. Unless, of course, that's the actual goal.) - PC World

http://www.pcworld.com/article/16336...ort_lived.html

"Due to outrage over the verdict in The Pirate Bay trial, the Swedish Pirate Party has gained 3000 members in less than 7 hours. It is now bigger than 3 of the 7 parties represented in the Swedish parliament. 'Ruling means that our political work must now be stepped up. We want to ensure that the Pirate Bay activities — to link people and information — is clearly lawful. And we want to do it for all people in Sweden, Europe and the world, continues Rick Falk Vinge. We want it to be open for ordinary people to disseminate and receive information without fear of imprisonment or astronomical damages.'"

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?.../04/17/2041208

Emphasis mine.

[sirbruce]

I don't think accomodation is possible. I mean, what are the choices?

1. Copyright holders insist on being paid for every transaction (DRM). In this case P2P folks lose, but piracy goes on, just at increased risk.
2. Copyright holders make books so cheap and readily available that piracy's impact is minimized. It is arguable that this is already largely the case, but I see ebook piracy growing while the total book market continues to shrink. In this case P2P folks effectively win, since they can continue to get content for free.

Music went with #2, but only because they were able to find a price point whereby publishers and artists could continue to make money. I'm not convinced that price point exists for ebooks. Most authors certainly can't live off the $1.00 ebook even if they get half the revenue. And authors don't have performances to fall back on for additional revenue.

Longer-term, if socities could make it as "cool" to read as it is to listen to pop songs or watch streaming video, then you could grow additional revenue streams for ebooks. But I don't see that happening.

What's the other choice? Advertising-supported ebooks and readers? It would be a worthy experiment, but we have something very similar already called magazines, and most of those you're still expected to pay for, not copy and share for free.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by b0rsuk

Those of you who support copyright may want to rethink what this ruling actually means in practice. From Groklaw.net newspicks:



http://www.pcworld.com/article/16336...ort_lived.html



http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?.../04/17/2041208

Emphasis mine.

Thanks for that. I didn't know about OneSwarm before, but it's a very exciting technology.