Pirate Bay founders found guilty

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

In actuality, the verdict is not an indictment of file-sharing... only a conviction of TPB operators as accessories to copyright infringement, which is against the law.

This is because the operators made it quite clear that they had nothing but contempt for copyright law, essentially encouraged other copyright scofflaws to post links to illegal material, and made no attempt to police (or ask users to police) the legality of the links. Therefore, they set themselves up as willing accessories to crime.

The message that the courts (and the entertainment industry) should be publicizing is that openly encouraging and willingly assisting criminal activities will not be tolerated. Hopefully they won't overplay their hand and try to issue a blanket condemnation of file-sharing... that would be incredibly stupid on their part.

But we all know they've been that stupid before...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sporadic

The topic needs to be fixed.

They haven't been jailed, they are planning to appeal until they can't appeal anymore and brokep said in a live streaming press conference that it will probably take four to five years before a final verdict is given.

A better thread title would be "Pirate Bay founders found guilty" or something of that nature.

Good point. Title changed, as suggested.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Please would you be kind enough to point out the factual inaccuracies, Nate? You claim that these articles are "biased", but you provide no details as to where their bias lies. Do you dispute the stated facts?

The Wikipedia article has exactly one source, "the anti-racist magazine Expo". It does not quote any articles written by Lundstrom, any speeches he's made, or interviews he's given.

And as for the Register, they have provided no evidence that he is funding anyone, only accusations. And they throw around the term "right wing" in much the same way you are throwing around "neo nazi". Hell, Harry, they're even more biased than Fox News.

[HarryT]

I believe that Mr. Lundström's membership of, and funding of, extremist political parties is a matter of public record, Nate, not of conjecture.

Please do a little research on the man; I don't think you'll like what you find. I think that most people are perfectly capable of telling the difference between legitimate right-ring political parties and extremist groups..

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I believe that Mr. Lundström's membership of, and funding of, extremist political parties is a matter of public record, Nate, not of conjecture.

Please do a little research on the man; I don't think you'll like what you find. I think that most people are perfectly capable of telling the difference between legitimate right-ring political parties and extremist groups..

No, Harry, You said he is funding neo-nazis. You need to prove your statement; I do not.

And now that I understand how you are using the term neo-nazi, I can treat your statements the same way I would when an American uses the word socialist.

Use of the word is a strong indication that you cannot present an argument to support your position. It is an ad hominem attack. If you had a good argument you would have presented it instead of using this attack.

That being said, I'm going to go research.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Use of the word is a strong indication that you cannot present an argument to support your position. It is an ad hominem attack. If you had a good argument you would have presented it instead of using this attack.

It's not an "attack", Nate; it's a simple statement of fact. If you disagree, please take up your argument with the authors of the articles I provided links to, not with me. They are the ones who labelled Mr. Lundström a "neo Nazi". I certainly don't need to "prove" anything.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I believe that Mr. Lundström's membership of, and funding of, extremist political parties is a matter of public record, Nate, not of conjecture.

To the best of my knowledge - and again: I do not want to judge the discussion or the matter per se, only this part of it - he was member of a legal democratic party ... This is NOT the same as being a Neo-Nazi. It might be unpleasant and you most assuredly have the right to 'withdraw support' (or usage of his products or whatever) because of this, but accusing s/o of being a Neo-Nazi is a bit harsh w/o (hard) evidence.

@Nate: Looking forward to your results! I was never interested in this case, but know I want to now the truth.

[HarryT]

Unfortunately, tirsales, unlike in Germany, political parties espousing openly neo-Nazi beliefs are not illegal in many part of Europe, including both the UK and Sweden. We have in the UK the misfortune of having a "political party" called the "British National Party" which openly promotes such viewpoints. Believe me - if you had ever seen one of their rallies, you would have no doubt whatsoever of that (any British member of this board can confirm that). I understand that the parties that Mr. Lundström has funded candidates for in Sweden are of the same nature. The fact that the parties are legal does not make them any the less unpleasant.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's not an "attack", Nate; it's a simple statement of fact. If you disagree, please take up your argument with the authors of the articles I provided links to, not with me. They are the ones who labelled Mr. Lundström a "neo Nazi". I certainly don't need to "prove" anything.

Not when it comes from a European mouth.

And yes you have to back up your source. Otherwise don't quote it and link to it.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Unfortunately, tirsales, unlike in Germany, political parties espousing openly neo-Nazi beliefs are not illegal in many part of Europe, including both the UK and Sweden. We have in the UK the misfortune of having a "political party" called the "British National Party" which openly promotes such viewpoints. Believe me - if you had ever seen one of their rallies, you would have no doubt whatsoever of that (any British member of this board can confirm that). I understand that the parties that Mr. Lundström has funded candidates for in Sweden are of the same nature. The fact that the parties are legal does not make them any the less unpleasant.

Please name the candidates.

[Jovvi]

Well I think this is a sad day for Sweden because it kind of shows that the courts are totally inkompetent in the use of Internet. I´m not surprised bu I´m sad. I have never used Pirate Bay or any other torrent tracker but I just can´t accept that our use of Internet should be decided by multinational corporations.

The TPB-guys are no saints, and very likely they go to far but what they really wants seems to be total information freedom.

I have just read a new swedish book called "Piraterna : de svenska fildelarna som plundrade Hollywood" (free translation: The Pirates: the swedish filesharers that plundered hollywood) by Anders Rydell. Its a really interesting because it explains, the roots of the swedish pirates and also the copyrightholders position. Lundstrom for example agreed to help fund TPB because of personal resentment, and in the beginning the TPB-guys accepted because groving popularity made them dependent of faster lines.

Political wiews by Lundstrom were the fartest thing of their minds at that point. Of cause later Lundstroms past came back to hunt them when it was used by others to try to discredit TPB.

Clara

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We have in the UK the misfortune of having a "political party" called the "British National Party" which openly promotes such viewpoints. Believe me - if you had ever seen one of their rallies, you would have no doubt whatsoever of that (any British member of this board can confirm that).

No, that's a tabloid caricature.
Many present-day BNP supporters aren't violent, or even inherently extremist - they just feel forced (albeit misguidedly imho) into supporting a party that addresses their concerns more directly than the discredited mainstream political parties.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

And yes you have to back up your source. Otherwise don't quote it and link to it.

Nate: "The Register", whose article I linked to, are a British Newspaper. They are not allowed, under UK law, to knowingly post false articles. If they did, anyone could complain to the "Press Complaints Commission" (the "watchdog" of the British press), and they could be fined as a result, or sued for libel. I therefore trust the veracity of their articles without having to independently personally verify the truth of what they are saying.

[tirsales]

I do not know the newspaper in question - but I wouldnt trust any newspaper. Every newspaper I know has some "tendency" (in whichever direction). We have similar laws against the propagation of knowingly false statements - it does not protect against "unknowingly false" or (quite simple) quoting what whoever else might have posted, without checking whether it is true.


<-- unimportant and potentially misleading -->

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

No, that's a tabloid caricature.
Many present-day BNP supporters aren't violent, or even inherently extremist - they just feel forced (albeit misguidedly imho) into supporting a party that addresses their concerns more directly than the discredited mainstream political parties.

Good God, Sparrow, I do hope that you're joking. Having the extreme misfortune to live in a part of the country where the BNP are "active", I have had the "pleasure" of personally seeing a number of their "rallies" in the city centre where I work, complete with skinheads, Nazi salutes, "Blacks Out" banners, and all their other unpleasant racist paraphenalia. Please tell me that you don't really feel that they have a "legitimate" agenda?