The Pirate Bay Trial

[a completely inoffensive name]

All 4 defendants in the Pirate Bay Trial have been found guilty. Each will pay $905,000 and serve a year in jail. They will probably appeal this however.

Links to article about verdict:
http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-trial-the-verdict-090417/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8003799.stm

Simple thread asking whether you agree with the verdict and/or punishment or not.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Don't agree with it in the slightest.

[HoreTore]

I would LOVE to see them suing google next. That'll be a show.

[Lemur]

Disagree with the verdict, and I'm not even sure what they hope to accomplish by jailing these guys. Didn't anybody learn from the demise of Napster? Crush one such site, and five others spring up. I don't know what the ultimate answer to copyright infringement will be, but it doesn't look like this.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

They will probably appeal this however.


Good

[Lemur]

The Law of Unintended Consequences takes immediate effect (http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-membership-surges-following-pirate-bay-verdict-090417/):


Support for the Swedish Pirate Party grew increasingly healthy after the government came up with more stringent copyright legislation. Its membership has surpassed that of the well established Green Party, and more than half of all Swedish men under 30 are considering pledging their vote to the Pirate Party in the upcoming 2009 European Parliament elections. [...]

“We’ve surpassed another party in parliament, making us the 5th largest in member count, and our youth section is about to take the number 1 position,” Swedish Pirate Party Leader Rick Falkvinge told TorrentFreak in a comment.

Christian Engström, vice-chairman of the Swedish Pirate Party said in a comment that the verdict is their ticket into the European Parliament. For the upcoming European election, the Pirate Party requires 100,000 Swedish votes to get a seat, a goal that is within reach after today.

[a completely inoffensive name]

To make sure this thread does not go off topic, I think I will make another thread asking whether or not you feel the RIAA or MPAA and similar companies should even still be around and/or have no purpose anymore. I want this thread to just be about the The Pirate Bay Trial and the verdict given along with predictions about where it is going to go from here.

[Husar]

In the topic about the other pirates, the ones using boats, I was told vermin like this should be shot, they're filthy thieves and not worth a damn, so I guess they got off easy. :thumbsdown:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ambivalent about the verdict.

I'm against the "pirate party" though, and their elementary understanding of patents.


Privatized monopolies are one of society’s worst enemies, as they lead to price-hikes
and large hidden costs for citizens. Patents are officially sanctioned monopolies on
ideas. Large corporations diligently race to hold patents they can use against smaller
competitors to prevent them from competing on equal terms. A monopolistic goal is
not to adjust prices and terms to what the market will bear, but rather use their ill-
gotten rights as a lever to raise prices and set lopsided terms on usage and licensing.
We want to limit the opportunities to create damaging and unnecessary monopoly
situations.

In reality, patents encourage innovation. Why should a person strive and struggle to invent when others, who had nothing to do with the invention, will make all the money?

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

File sharing should not be stopped. The solution to copyright issues is to laugh copyright off.

The jerks at pirate bay might as well have been wearing a siren helmet in no-man's land however. It isn't hard for a judge to rule against a money making venture whose very name celebrates criminality.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What about that restaurant, long john silver's? The name should be irrelevant--and I don't believe they made much money at it.

[Whacker]

IIRC, rapists in Sweden get less time for certain offenses than these guys did.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In reality, patents encourage innovation. Why should a person strive and struggle to invent when others, who had nothing to do with the invention, will make all the money?

CR

In reality they actually stifle innovation because these patents are extended by the RIAA and MPAA for 70+ years, long after the creator of such content is dead. So how is he profiting when he is dead, he is not, so the companies for the most part are not doing this out of the artists intentions but out of their own greed, which turns a lot of people off because they are right now the only way of easily reaching a large audience. Why bother making music, when they are just gonna take most of your money when you are alive, and all of your money when you are dead?

EDIT: This should really be in my other thread about the RIAA, MPAA and their practices etc...

[HoreTore]

IIRC, rapists in Sweden get less time for certain offenses than these guys did.

Not rapists, that's a 2-3 year minimum. But certain sex offenses, sure. You can also throw violence and narcotics in there.

[Strike For The South]

In reality they actually stifle innovation because these patents are extended by the RIAA and MPAA for 70+ years, long after the creator of such content is dead. So how is he profiting when he is dead, he is not, so the companies for the most part are not doing this out of the artists intentions but out of their own greed, which turns a lot of people off because they are right now the only way of easily reaching a large audience. Why bother making music, when they are just gonna take most of your money when you are alive, and all of your money when you are dead?

EDIT: This should really be in my other thread about the RIAA, MPAA and their practices etc...

That's not the definition in my microeconomics book. Or my roomates Eco and society book. Not even listed as a controversy.

[Fixiwee]

IIRC, rapists in Sweden get less time for certain offenses than these guys did.
There should be a law as goodwins that a discussion about piracy will end up having mentioning rapists getting less time sooner or later.
The argument is nonsense anyway.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's not the definition in my microeconomics book. Or my roomates Eco and society book. Not even listed as a controversy.

Probably because its relatively new, only in the past couple years has it become big enough to gain attention. TPB has only been around since late 2004, my US history book (latest edition) only goes up to the election of 2004.

Also, it would promote innovation if it would just end after the creator died. The fact that people on the Internet can not remix Elvis's work and show it to everyone else is ridiculous and that is just one example of how it stifles innovation.

[Strike For The South]

Probably because its relatively new, only in the past couple years has it become big enough to gain attention. TPB has only been around since late 2004, my US history book (latest edition) only goes up to the election of 2004.

Also, it would promote innovation if it would just end after the creator died. The fact that people on the Internet can not remix Elvis's work and show it to everyone else is ridiculous and that is just one example of how it stifles innovation.

2003 and 07

I fail to see how blatantly ripping off someone else's work and then downloading it for free is a bastion of creativity and innovation.

Every time someone dls something for free that is thievery. Petty theft and undeserving of this kind of punishment but theft none the less.

[a completely inoffensive name]

2003 and 07

I fail to see how blatantly ripping off someone else's work and then downloading it for free is a bastion of creativity and innovation.

Every time someone dls something for free that is thievery. Petty theft and undeserving of this kind of punishment but theft none the less.

The downloading is a symptom (some would call it a rebellion) of the unfair practices these companies put on the public. You want to see a new movie? Ok, 10-12 bucks, which is way to high, then they lie and say they are practically going bankrupt because of all the piracy going on. Then they try to push US law on people who live in entirely different continents.

You want some music? Ok a dollar for a 2-3 min song with lots of your favorite DRM. Oh no you lost all your music well you can spend another $100 to get your songs back as you purchase them all over again.

Not even mentioning the fact that most of the crap they push on us in the first place is crap anyway. Wheres the cool, original content? Nowhere, because all we are given is Hanna Montana the movie, Britney Spears and her comeback, Jonas Brothers, Soulja Boy, Fast and Furious 3,4,5....

If you make good content, people will pay to see it. The Dark Knight made over a billion dollars. Why? Because it was a good movie, so people were willing to pay to see it, many even payed multiple times to see it again and again. But no, continue to rake in the money from dead artists with high prices, and make crappy content, then whine about how some people would rather download then put up with that.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If you make good content, people will pay to see it. The Dark Knight made over a billion dollars. Why? Because it was a good movie, so people were willing to pay to see it, many even payed multiple times to see it again and again. But no, continue to rake in the money from dead artists with high prices, and make crappy content, then whine about how some people would rather download then put up with that.

Bolded for irony.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Bolded for irony.

Is that a reference to Heath Ledger? Because there were a lot more artists who worked on that then just him.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Is that a reference to Heath Ledger?

:yes:

[a completely inoffensive name]

:yes:

Well then the irony does not serve to undermine my point. Because last I heard, the other actors, the directors and the writers were all still alive.

[Lemur]

Look, I was a working journo in the early to mid nineties, and my beat was the music industry. Trust me, they knew they were in trouble. Remember the dot-com bubble? When anything on teh internets was suddenly worth 500x earnings? They lived through that too. And they weren't able to jump on the easiest bandwagon in history.

If the music labels had launched a unified, easy-to-use online store, with no DRM and low prices, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's astonishing that it took Apple (Apple!) to drag their fat, lazy bottoms into the internet age. And even then they insisted on low bitrates, DRM and high prices. Heck, they're still angry at Apple for not raising prices for them.

Anyway, with luck the movie industry will learn from the mistakes of the recording industry. Make it cheap, make it convenient, don't try to charge the same price for a virtual good as a physical one, and get on it now, before a generation gets used to the idea that films are free.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Look, I was a working journo in the early to mid nineties, and my beat was the music industry. Trust me, they knew they were in trouble. Remember the dot-com bubble? When anything on teh internets was suddenly worth 500x earnings? They lived through that too. And they weren't able to jump on the easiest bandwagon in history.

If the music labels had launched a unified, easy-to-use online store, with no DRM and low prices, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's astonishing that it took Apple (Apple!) to drag their fat, lazy bottoms into the internet age. And even then they insisted on low bitrates, DRM and high prices. Heck, they're still angry at Apple for not raising prices for them.

Anyway, with luck the movie industry will learn from the mistakes of the recording industry. Make it cheap, make it convenient, don't try to charge the same price for a virtual good as a physical one, and get on it now, before a generation gets used to the idea that films are free.

Exactly, adapt or die. And what these companies are doing right now is trying to prevent progress by suing and dismantling the Internet and the threats its presents to them, which is impossible to begin with.

If we were really trying to uphold the capitalistic way, we would be making laws that state that companies can't be suing people for using or maintaining technology that presents a risk to their business model. They should be changing their business model to reflect and take advantage of the new changes in technology.

[Lemur]

I wrote a column about this in the early nineties, and I summarized my take this way (pardon the no-longer-timely metaphor): You can download the Starr Report for free online, but some thoughtful publisher put together a paper version, which is far easier to hold in one hand while you pleasure yourself. And guess what? The Starr Report has been a bestseller. The music industry thinks it's in a scarcity business, when in reality it's in a convenience business.

[Spino]

Look, I was a working journo in the early to mid nineties, and my beat was the music industry. Trust me, they knew they were in trouble. Remember the dot-com bubble? When anything on teh internets was suddenly worth 500x earnings? They lived through that too. And they weren't able to jump on the easiest bandwagon in history.

If the music labels had launched a unified, easy-to-use online store, with no DRM and low prices, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's astonishing that it took Apple (Apple!) to drag their fat, lazy bottoms into the internet age. And even then they insisted on low bitrates, DRM and high prices. Heck, they're still angry at Apple for not raising prices for them.

Anyway, with luck the movie industry will learn from the mistakes of the recording industry. Make it cheap, make it convenient, don't try to charge the same price for a virtual good as a physical one, and get on it now, before a generation gets used to the idea that films are free.

The print industry is also being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century as it comes to terms with the fact that most people don't want to pony up $.50-1.00/day for a newspaper when they can get all their news for free online. Magazine subscriptions are down dramatically as well with big publishers like Time, Inc. scrambling to keep as many readers as possible.

The problem is there are too many old guard or closed minded captains of these sinking industries who refuse to abandon the sparkling financial models that worked during those halcyon days before teh internets wuz invented and subsequently exploited by young people with high IQs.

[Crazed Rabbit]

In reality they actually stifle innovation because these patents are extended by the RIAA and MPAA for 70+ years, long after the creator of such content is dead. So how is he profiting when he is dead, he is not, so the companies for the most part are not doing this out of the artists intentions but out of their own greed, which turns a lot of people off because they are right now the only way of easily reaching a large audience. Why bother making music, when they are just gonna take most of your money when you are alive, and all of your money when you are dead?

EDIT: This should really be in my other thread about the RIAA, MPAA and their practices etc...

You must be speaking of copyrights on songs, which is different from patents on products (which tend not to last as long).

But anyway, you don't prove your point ("they stifle innovation") at all. You bring up a red herring about music companies charging lots of money, which is an excuse for piracy and does nothing to explain why copyrights stifle innovation. Your other point about music companies bilking artists has nothing to do with copyrights and everything to do with people actually taking to time to read contracts.

Indeed, if a song is copyrighted that means songwriters have to think of new, innovative, material, and not just copy what's been done.


Probably because its relatively new, only in the past couple years has it become big enough to gain attention.

No. It's because patents and copyrights ensure innovation and help the economy.

CR

[Beirut]

Trying to kill The Pirate Bay and other torrent sites is like squeezing a handful of jello. It ain't gonna work.

To be honest, though, when I see albums from the 60s and 70s that have already sold eight-billion copies being pimped on CD for $21.95, well, these guys are just begging for people to steal their stuff. Little Johnny can shell out the $21.95 for Jimi Hendrix's Greatest Hits, or he can point and click and have the album in 21.95 minutes for free.

Gee, what's he going to do?

[a completely inoffensive name]

You must be speaking of copyrights on songs, which is different from patents on products (which tend not to last as long).

But anyway, you don't prove your point ("they stifle innovation") at all. You bring up a red herring about music companies charging lots of money, which is an excuse for piracy and does nothing to explain why copyrights stifle innovation. Your other point about music companies bilking artists has nothing to do with copyrights and everything to do with people actually taking to time to read contracts.
I already said copyrights stifle competition in other posts by saying that artists who have already died or still living can not be taken and remixed into something else which is ridiculous. If someone took Elvis's works and remixed them all into new songs (made them technoish idk) he could be sued for copyright infringement.
And its not a red herring, the artist deserves a lot of the money their music gets, but a lot of it goes to the companies which is bull. There have been bands who have left the main companies for various reasons (Trent Reznor and Nine Inch Nails) among them because they treat artists unfairly.
With the Internet and various tools out there, anyone can be an artist and remix their favorite artist into something better. Absurd copyright laws stifle this.

Indeed, if a song is copyrighted that means songwriters have to think of new, innovative, material, and not just copy what's been done.
But its not about artists sampling off of other artists which they already do a lot, its about how the average consumer is subjected to absurd measures to make sure that the companies don't lose a bit of money. DRM, suing kids and teenagers, wanting to censor and filter the Internet for people downloading illegal things, all so that they don't have to change the way they do business and keep rediculous profits.



No. It's because patents and copyrights ensure innovation and help the economy.
If there is no controversy (which is the statement of Strike's I was replying to) then why is ther a Piracy Party in Sweden, why is there an article on Wikipedia on the anti-copyright movement, why are even talking about it at all?
CR

-ACIN

[Husar]

IIRC, rapists in Sweden get less time for certain offenses than these guys did.

You mean when a rapist speeds over a red traffic light he gets less time?
These guys actually destroy jobs and ruin families, I don't see why they should get off easy.
Just because part of their "crusade" is semi-noble doesn't mean what they do is right.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well then the irony does not serve to undermine my point. Because last I heard, the other actors, the directors and the writers were all still alive.

I wasn't trying to - it just happened to be an unfortunate example.

https://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8633/jokerrickrolled.jpg

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh dang, I just got... Batroll'd?

[Lord Winter]

You mean when a rapist speeds over a red traffic light he gets less time?
These guys actually destroy jobs and ruin families, I don't see why they should get off easy.
Just because part of their "crusade" is semi-noble doesn't mean what they do is right.

Oh come on, competition can destroy jobs but that doesn't mean we should ban it. That's massive hyperbole, most pop stars have more then enough money.

I also think the music industry is exaggerating the risk posed by torrents. Personally, I think I buy more albums with torrenting then I would without. Most people don't have a problem with supporting the musicians its just when limited income and cooperate politics get in the way that we have a problem.

[Subotan]

Hmm, American Corporate interests influencing the law in a foreign, soveriegn nation. Sweet, although not unheard of.

[Husar]

Oh come on, competition can destroy jobs but that doesn't mean we should ban it. That's massive hyperbole, most pop stars have more then enough money.

When you produce something you have the right to demand money in exchange for giving it to people, the people have the right to choose whether they want to buy it or not, but that does not mean they can just take it for free against your will. It's a matter of principle, those pop stars only have enough money because they are so popular and they are only popular because people buy their music and/or listen to it, they had a good idea and turned it into money. One man's robin hood is another man's pirate and itn the same way I could say oh come on, we westerners are really rich, those Somali pirates can really use the money and we get our oil anyway. The record companies just want to show their power by crushing software pirates in the same way most here want to show the somali pirates western power and "don't bow to anyone"-attitude by crushing them. In both cases it's theft and in both cases I think jail is appropriate. I fyou don't like DRM, don't buy DRM, using illegal means to circumvent it just means you're a weakling who cannot resist the candy and I mean you in general. Oh and you're being a criminal, oh wonder, oh wonder, I'm so shocked! :drama2:

[Subotan]

But why is it illegal? Just because X is illegal does not automatically mean that X is bad.

[HoreTore]

Trying to kill The Pirate Bay and other torrent sites is like squeezing a handful of jello. It ain't gonna work.

To be honest, though, when I see albums from the 60s and 70s that have already sold eight-billion copies being pimped on CD for $21.95, well, these guys are just begging for people to steal their stuff. Little Johnny can shell out the $21.95 for Jimi Hendrix's Greatest Hits, or he can point and click and have the album in 21.95 minutes for free.

Gee, what's he going to do?

Well put, sir.

Also, on the argument that "we're losing a lot of money because noone buys our music"... Has anyone heard any of the new music these days? I mean... I think I'd rather have my testicles sawn off than spend money to hear "Pokerface", "Halo" or any of that crap. I would, however, consider paying money to have the artists beaten.

[Husar]

But why is it illegal? Just because X is illegal does not automatically mean that X is bad.
For example because someone invested money and time into making it and wants some money in return?
Is that principle so alien to you? Do you also ask why taking a deodorant from a supermarket is illegal? I mean they're massproduced in China and they stand around there anyway, so why would taking them without paying be illegal?


Well put, sir.

Also, on the argument that "we're losing a lot of money because noone buys our music"... Has anyone heard any of the new music these days? I mean... I think I'd rather have my testicles sawn off than spend money to hear "Pokerface", "Halo" or any of that crap. I would, however, consider paying money to have the artists beaten.

Well, yes, of course, I could pay you 12000 EUR for your old overpriced car or throw a rock at your head, take it and escape the police for 12000 minutes so guess what I'm gonna do?

Man, if the music is that bad, then why are people pirating it? And if they are not pirating the bad music then your argument about music being so bad is completely invalid anyway.
If you don't like it there is an easy solution, don't freakin buy it, how the hell does that excuse stealing it? There are bad cars and noone buys them but noone steals them either. :dizzy2:

When you get a massage, all you really get is someone's time and you pay for it in a massage salon, same for a brothel, just because you get nothing physical does not mean you can demand the service for free against the person's will, in the latter case it would be called rape.

Again, if it's not worth the money, stay away from it completely, if everybody agrees the company will go bankrupt, if you want it anyway then it can't be that bad and you should pay for it. It's quite simple.

[HoreTore]

Well, yes, of course, I could pay you 12000 EUR for your old overpriced car or throw a rock at your head, take it and escape the police for 12000 minutes so guess what I'm gonna do?

Man, if the music is that bad, then why are people pirating it? And if they are not pirating the bad music then your argument about music being so bad is completely invalid anyway.
If you don't like it there is an easy solution, don't freakin buy it, how the hell does that excuse stealing it? There are bad cars and noone buys them but noone steals them either. :dizzy2:

When you get a massage, all you really get is someone's time and you pay for it in a massage salon, same for a brothel, just because you get nothing physical does not mean you can demand the service for free against the person's will, in the latter case it would be called rape.

Again, if it's not worth the money, stay away from it completely, if everybody agrees the company will go bankrupt, if you want it anyway then it can't be that bad and you should pay for it. It's quite simple.

I do stay away from 99% of the music made these days...

[Samurai Waki]

I wonder what they're going to do when countries like Russia start hosting torrent sites en-mass? Its not like they really give a damn about INTERPOL, or angry American Consumer Companies. Its all about teh monies.

[Lemur]

Thousands demonstrate (http://torrentfreak.com/swedes-demonstrate-against-pirate-bay-verdict-090418/) against the Pirate Bay verdict. Sadly, no tea was on hand.


Many Swedes were outraged by the harsh sentence that was given and today the Swedish Pirate Party organized a demonstration to support the defendants. The demonstration took place in in Stockholm, and there were similar protests in other Swedish cities.

“Politicians have declared war on our entire generation,” Pirate Party Leader Rick Falkvinge told the crowd, adding. “Our politicians are digital illiterates. We need politicians who can’t be hen-pecked by a foreign power.”

“The Pirate Bay is a completely legitimate service that transmits information between people. After this ruling, no one can feel secure when linking to a YouTube clip on its website,” Daniel Nyström from the Pirate Party said in his speech while the crowd yelled “Free TPB, free TPB!”

The verdict has brought many new members for the Pirate Party, and they hope to get a seat at the European Parliament later this year. Over the past day over 6000 members applied, raising the member count from less than 15,000 up to more than 20,000 making them one of the largest political parties in Sweden.

[Jolt]

Thousands demonstrate (http://torrentfreak.com/swedes-demonstrate-against-pirate-bay-verdict-090418/) against the Pirate Bay verdict. Sadly, no tea was on hand.


Many Swedes were outraged by the harsh sentence that was given and today the Swedish Pirate Party organized a demonstration to support the defendants. The demonstration took place in in Stockholm, and there were similar protests in other Swedish cities.

“Politicians have declared war on our entire generation,” Pirate Party Leader Rick Falkvinge told the crowd, adding. “Our politicians are digital illiterates. We need politicians who can’t be hen-pecked by a foreign power.”

“The Pirate Bay is a completely legitimate service that transmits information between people. After this ruling, no one can feel secure when linking to a YouTube clip on its website,” Daniel Nyström from the Pirate Party said in his speech while the crowd yelled “Free TPB, free TPB!”

The verdict has brought many new members for the Pirate Party, and they hope to get a seat at the European Parliament later this year. Over the past day over 6000 members applied, raising the member count from less than 15,000 up to more than 20,000 making them one of the largest political parties in Sweden.

This is the cue for me to put the video of the anthem (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUe-Ebe8dWU) of the newly powerful party.

[Hooahguy]

i disagree with the verdict, though i dont use TPB myself.

[Lemur]

A very well-balanced column on the trial from PC World (http://www.pcworld.com/article/163366/hollywoods_victory_over_the_pirate_bay_will_be_short_lived.html):


Of course, The Pirate Bay's case is nothing new. Eight years ago Napster was shut down after getting sued. It tried a few legal business models, but never managed to even get close to the popularity it had when it was operating illegally. The shutdown of Napster turned its creator, Shawn Fanning, and Napster into a into heroes and martyrs, inspiring others to develop new ways to pirate music.The Pirate Bay site itself is still up and running while the case is appealed.

What Hollywood needs to remember is that sites like The Pirate Bay are like weeds. When you try to kill one, they grow back even stronger. In this case, The Pirate Bay already moved most of its servers to the Netherlands, a change 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 (which I do not endorse) such as Mininova, Demonoid and Torrentbox to name a few, will continue to thrive. That is, of course, until they get sued into oblivion as well. And then there are 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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Unless those who have developed an intellectual property can make a profit from it, they are hardly likely to continue doing so.

Property matters.

[Lemur]

True dat, Seamus, and nobody in their right mind argues that everything should be free for the taking. That said, IP creators need to come to grips with what they're up against, and they need to find a constructive course. Sheesh, just imagine how much easier Napster would have been to deal with than today's torrents. Single, centralized server, known owners, massive popularity. The guys who founded Napster pretty much begged the music labels to make them an offer. Instead they got sued into oblivion, and the geeks and technology adapted.

Now the music labels couldn't make a deal if they tried. Bad bit of business, that.

There is no litigious solution to a technological problem. Not unless you have a single, unified world government with ubiquitous policing, and that ain't gonna happen until Barack Hussein Obama reveals that he is the Antichrist and the Final Days begin.

I've outlined some of the steps that IP creators ought to take elsewhere in this thread.

-edit-

A further thought: Your premise is false. Theater is a money-losing concern for all involved, but it keeps going. Nobody turns a profit on ballet or opera, but they keep going. People sing in the shower without being paid, and craft shockingly weird videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UsTF0WUsYg) for YouTube, usually without recompense. The urge to create is a strong one. If worst comes to worst, and the music and film industries are unable to adapt, they may simply mutate into a smaller creature, much like theater and ballet. That's my worst-case scenario.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A further thought: Your premise is false. Theater is a money-losing concern for all involved, but it keeps going. Nobody turns a profit on ballet or opera, but they keep going. People sing in the shower without being paid, and craft shockingly weird videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UsTF0WUsYg) for YouTube, usually without recompense. The urge to create is a strong one. If worst comes to worst, and the music and film industries are unable to adapt, they may simply mutate into a smaller creature, much like theater and ballet. That's my worst-case scenario.

Um, that video says Adult Swim on the bottom...

Course, I've seen better (much, much better) things on youtube that were actually made for free.

Yea, the entertainment business needs to adopt. But file sharing (of copyrighted files) is still illegal.

Not sure I agree with this verdict, though.

CR

[naut]

"There has been a perception that piracy is OK and that the music industry should just have to accept it. This verdict will change that,"
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

If anything it'll just entrench it further.

[Samurai Waki]

reminds me of my first year in law

Professor: There are only two types of lawyers, those who actually believe that the law is on their side, and those who like to pretend the law is on their side.

[Lord Winter]

When you produce something you have the right to demand money in exchange for giving it to people, the people have the right to choose whether they want to buy it or not, but that does not mean they can just take it for free against your will. It's a matter of principle, those pop stars only have enough money because they are so popular and they are only popular because people buy their music and/or listen to it, they had a good idea and turned it into money. One man's robin hood is another man's pirate and itn the same way I could say oh come on, we westerners are really rich, those Somali pirates can really use the money and we get our oil anyway. The record companies just want to show their power by crushing software pirates in the same way most here want to show the somali pirates western power and "don't bow to anyone"-attitude by crushing them. In both cases it's theft and in both cases I think jail is appropriate. I fyou don't like DRM, don't buy DRM, using illegal means to circumvent it just means you're a weakling who cannot resist the candy and I mean you in general. Oh and you're being a criminal, oh wonder, oh wonder, I'm so shocked! :drama2:

I was merely pointing out that torrenting could be a good marketing tool if used correctly. The danger to the music industry is exaggerated.

Does the morality of torrenting change if it's impossible to buy a certain album? If you can't buy it then what harm does it do?

[Husar]

Does the morality of torrenting change if it's impossible to buy a certain album? If you can't buy it then what harm does it do?

Now that's a different can of worms, for example when people can buy it in one country but not in another I find that very discriminatory unless it's the laws of the country that prevent it from being sold there. It's not that I have a problem with acquiring something and compensating the producer for it and there is indeed something as too high prices but what I have a problem with is just getting it all for free just to save more money for booze, designer clothes etc. which is what a helluvalot of people do, maybe not here on the org but in the whole wide world.
I've had my share of problems with certain things as well, for example I'm not very fond of "owning" a movie for 20-30EUR on a DVD or Blu-Ray and then having to pay an additional 13EUR or more just to watch it on my iPhone in a far lower resolution. I should be able to convert and copy it from the medium I bought it on, after all I bought the right to watch it, not the right to watch it only on one medium. and if I only buy it on iTunes I can't watch it in HD because that's only for appleTV etc. blabla. it's not like I like these kind of ripoff marketing schemes but that does not mean I go and get all my movies for free, just that I watch a lot less movies than I would otherwise. For example I haven't seen Quantum of solace yet, might buy it on Blu-Ray but only for 20EUR or less, otherwise they can keep it. I do however not give them something else to blame by going to pirate bay and getting it illegally from there.

[Lemur]

I'm not very fond of "owning" a movie for 20-30EUR on a DVD or Blu-Ray and then having to pay an additional 13EUR or more just to watch it on my iPhone in a far lower resolution. I should be able to convert and copy it from the medium I bought it on, after all I bought the right to watch it, not the right to watch it only on one medium.
Yeah, the ability to convert media you purchased for your own use should be a given. I can't believe it's illegal in the U.S.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA)

[HoreTore]

Yeah, the ability to convert media you purchased for your own use should be a given. I can't believe it's illegal in the U.S.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA)

How they've managed to slip these things through the anti-monopoly laws is beyond me.

[drone]

Since this case is just the US government sticking it's nose in another country's business, let's use Congress' responsibility regarding patents and copyrights:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The Sonny Bono Copyright Act (the latest US law on copyright expiration) now has copyright extension to life of the author plus 70 years, or the lesser of 120 years from creation or 95 after publication for works of corporate authorship. I believe the EU has similar timeframes.

There are two parts to Clause 8 regarding art, the need to promote the progress of art, and giving authors a limited time to reap the rewards of their work. The time is limited so authors cannot just rest on their laurels, hence promoting them to get off their lazy artist butts and keep progressing their work. One hit wonders get their chance in the spotlight, but they must continue to produce if they want to make a living at it, just like normal people. Extending copyright past the death of the artist promotes nothing, and is technically an overreach of Congressional power, hence unconstitutional. But the Supremes won't even hear a case on this, probably useless anyway due to corporate pressure by the RIAA/MPAA mafiaa. Copyright needs to get back to 14 years, regardless of personal or corporate ownership (corporations are just people too, right? ~:rolleyes:)

Not surprised about the results of the case, even if the ruling was completely bogus. It would be sweet if they try to take on Google, they offer the same services as TPB, and the lawyers financed by $1.21 Googolplex would chew up the RIAA and spit them out. Hopefully these guys get off on appeal. They aren't complete innocents here, they had full knowledge of what they were promoting, but the precedent should not be set this way.

[Samurai Waki]

Yeah, the ability to convert media you purchased for your own use should be a given. I can't believe it's illegal in the U.S.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA)

It's a bs law that nobody enforces, I knew a couple of cops who were rather fond of copying every dvd they got from netflix after they watched them, and then they'd share the dvds with each other, and thats quite a lot more serious an offense than file sharing. So what are you going to do, fine and jail every cop that does it? fat chance the da is even going to look at something like that.

[Fixiwee]

I'm not quoting anyone on purpose, but what I want to say actually connects to a lot of posts that have been said.

While I agree with a lot of more "liberal" views on the issue, the best argument against file sharing connected with the music bussiness was on a alt-rock board. The guy said that he worked for the biz and that he buys every single rock album that he thinks is good. Why? Because every album he buys is a vote against bands like Nickleback and for good and small bands with creativity.
So he said that people who like Nickleback, GnR and such have less ideas about filesharing then people who listen to Tool and The mars volta (just examples). So more people download Tool albums, so the industry doesn't notice bands like them. So it is only logical that they support cash cows like Nickelback instead of supporting young creative bands, because it is exactly those bands that get mostly downloaded.

Now I am just playing the advocate off the devil and this is not my opinion. But I have to say that this was a good argument that let make me rethink quite a lot.

I always did buy the albums of my fav bands, btw.

[KarlXII]

I don't really give a damn about The Pirate Bay or what they "stand" for. When I buy good music, I know these artists put their time and effort into writing and performing these songs. This is their living. I never, and will never, pirate anything that someone put their time and effort into creating. It's a giant double standard, if a man is charged with assisting in the theft of a car, why is it a big deal when a man is charged for providing the ability to steal music? Why can't I steal a car? These car companies make enough money anyway.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't really give a damn about The Pirate Bay or what they "stand" for. When I buy good music, I know these artists put their time and effort into writing and performing these songs. This is their living. I never, and will never, pirate anything that someone put their time and effort into creating. It's a giant double standard, if a man is charged with assisting in the theft of a car, why is it a big deal when a man is charged for providing the ability to steal music? Why can't I steal a car? These car companies make enough money anyway.

How can you justify spending money on music when people are starving in africa?

[KarlXII]

How can you justify spending money on music when people are starving in africa?

How is this relevant?

[Samurai Waki]

Sasaki Should have said "How can you justify spending an obscene amount of money on music when people are starving in africa?"

The Record/Movie Industries are big bloated animals, that have such a fat wad of cash that they can afford to give their contracted agents a lifestyle way beyond whats necessary, and healthy for them, which in turn makes the artist's music stagnate.

Which is exactly why a lot of really successful bands go independent. I don't advocate piracy, but I also don't advocate buying the :flower: music that they so often produce.

[Husar]

How can you justify spending money on music when people are starving in africa?

People need music to make them happy, if noone bought any music then we would have a lot more suicides, our economies would shrink and we would starve as well, do you really want EVERYONE to die instead of just people in Africa? :inquisitive:

[Jolt]

The real big driving force behind European colonialism and world surpremacy was...Mozart.

[Boohugh]

It's a giant double standard, if a man is charged with assisting in the theft of a car, why is it a big deal when a man is charged for providing the ability to steal music? Why can't I steal a car? These car companies make enough money anyway.

Does that mean we should go around locking up everyone who makes crowbars? They help people break in and steal things afterall, so they give the ability to carry out theft.
There is a huge difference between providing the ability to do something (when it has legal uses too) and actually doing it yourself.

On a purely technical point, The Pirate Bay didn't host anything illegal themselves, they just gave people the ability to share things so technically it isn't their fault people chose to use it for illegal purposes. I know I'm simplifying the matter as there are questions of whether they encouraged illegal use and whether they could stop it but the basic point still stands, giving someone the ability to do something illegal shouldn't be a crime in itself.

Personally I find parts of the verdict very humerous:



"The court first tried whether there was any question of breach of copyright by the file-sharing application and that has been proved, that the offence was committed."

So by this conclusion, they surely need to now go around and find every photocopier, every CD/DVD burner, etc that has ever been used to copy anything that breaks copyright? They are saying the fact the tool has allowed copyright to be breached is against the law, why are they not actively pursuing all these other tools that allow copyright to be breached?

If you want double standards, there they are.


"The court then moved on to look at those who acted as a team to operate the Pirate Bay file-sharing service, and the court found that they knew that material which was protected by copyright but continued to operate the service,"

This is really the important part. The Pirate Bay knew its tool was being used to break copyright and it is really a question of to what extent they could stop it. Going back to my first example, it isn't really possible for a crowbar manufacturer to stop their tools being used for illegal purposes, however it may have been easier to stop people sharing downloads against copyright law. I honestly don't know much about the technology so I don't know how easy it would have been to stop people, but if they were going as far as actively encouraging people to use their tools to download copyrighted material and made no attempt to stop it, then they do deserve a guilt verdict on this particular charge (whether the trial as a whole should be going ahead in the wider context of music companies/piracy is a different question of course).

Just my :2cents: anyway.

Edit: link to the BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8003799.stm

[Husar]

Does that mean we should go around locking up everyone who makes crowbars? They help people break in and steal things afterall, so they give the ability to carry out theft.


That's the whole point of this trial, intent.

Crowbars are not made especially for stealing, if you sold a crowbar under the name break-in-bar and advertised it to thieves, then that would be a different story.

the site is called pirate bay because it's meant for piracy which is illegal and that's one of the reasons they lost the trial AFAIK. Google can also find you links but Google isn't called poirate search and it's primary purpose is certainly not to support piracy and that is why they didn't drag google before a court. so in a way it was the in-your-face attitude which backfired and I must say it invokes some Schadenfreude in me as well. :mellow:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How is this relevant?

Well, you were talking about morals...


People need music to make them happy, if noone bought any music then we would have a lot more suicides, our economies would shrink and we would starve as well, do you really want EVERYONE to die instead of just people in Africa? :inquisitive:

:bounce:

[HoreTore]

That's the whole point of this trial, intent.

Crowbars are not made especially for stealing, if you sold a crowbar under the name break-in-bar and advertised it to thieves, then that would be a different story.

the site is called pirate bay because it's meant for piracy which is illegal and that's one of the reasons they lost the trial AFAIK. Google can also find you links but Google isn't called poirate search and it's primary purpose is certainly not to support piracy and that is why they didn't drag google before a court. so in a way it was the in-your-face attitude which backfired and I must say it invokes some Schadenfreude in me as well. :mellow:

They won't be suing Google because google doesn't help piracy, they're not suing google because they will lose. Google has an army of lawyers, it's much easier to sue some random people.

[Ironside]

I'm not quoting anyone on purpose, but what I want to say actually connects to a lot of posts that have been said.

While I agree with a lot of more "liberal" views on the issue, the best argument against file sharing connected with the music bussiness was on a alt-rock board. The guy said that he worked for the biz and that he buys every single rock album that he thinks is good. Why? Because every album he buys is a vote against bands like Nickleback and for good and small bands with creativity.
So he said that people who like Nickleback, GnR and such have less ideas about filesharing then people who listen to Tool and The mars volta (just examples). So more people download Tool albums, so the industry doesn't notice bands like them. So it is only logical that they support cash cows like Nickelback instead of supporting young creative bands, because it is exactly those bands that get mostly downloaded.

Now I am just playing the advocate off the devil and this is not my opinion. But I have to say that this was a good argument that let make me rethink quite a lot.

I always did buy the albums of my fav bands, btw.

The problem with this is that the big bands is almost never becoming big without the help of the music industry in the first place, as exposure is needed to reach out. I mean, not many would buy a CD from an artist they heard nothing about.

Downloading or stuff like myspace helps then a lot, as smaller artist gets a lot more exposure, thus expanding their fan-base. So even if the records sales become less, smaller artist are probably gaining more on concerts for a larger audience for example.
Then if you combine it with proper legal means you can cut out that big leech that takes about 90% of the profits (Itunes gives 9% to the artist) and still give the artists money and much cheaper music for the rest of us.
Using Itunes as an example, they can cut the prices by 66%, double the artist fee per album and still run with about 50% profit per album. As mentioned above they might still have uses, but their era of being almost essential is over and the sooner they realize it, the faster we can go back to a society where we don't have laws that almost everyone breaks, due to them being archaic.

[Husar]

They won't be suing Google because google doesn't help piracy, they're not suing google because they will lose. Google has an army of lawyers, it's much easier to sue some random people.

You can take off those red commie glasses.

[drone]

You can take off those red commie glasses.

He's right. :yes:

Same reason why the RIAA's filesharing campaign against colleges somehow avoids the Harvard campus. It's harder to extort someone who is able to fight back.

Without Google's backing, YouTube would have been sued into oblivion by now. As it stands now, things are civil between the *AAs and YouTube and takedown notices are issued and complied with. Without the gaggle of high-priced lawyers, the *AAs would have gone with the standard bullying approach and we wouldn't have a place to see footage of people doing stupid stuff.

[KarlXII]

So I'm going to steal a car. The Car Industry is a fat animal anyway, what's one car to them? It's not like someone worked to make it or anything :juggle2:.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Just email me a porsche then.

[Lemur]

So I'm going to steal a car. The Car Industry is a fat animal anyway, what's one car to them? It's not like someone worked to make it or anything :juggle2:.
Heh, this is a common error. Copyright violation is not exactly like property theft. If I steal your Porsche, you no longer have a Porsche. In the case of file sharers, it's more like you make your Porsche available to me and I make an exact copy. So you are not deprived of your Porsche, but the value of your Porsche is diminished by dilution, and the manufacturer gets stiffed.

So yes, it's theft, but comparisons to property crime are ... inexact.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Making a copy of a file and saying it is stealing is like saying I am stealing if I were to look at my neighbors car, get enough scrap and build a completely identical car. "Officer, he built an exact copy of my car! Arrest him!"

[Lemur]

Actually, ACIN, that ain't right either. You're not reverse-engineering something and making it anew. You're cloning it, making an exact copy. It's a new kind of thing, and I'm not sure we have the right words for it. It's clearly a form of theft, but in which no good is diminished and no property is taken. It's ... new.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Actually, ACIN, that ain't right either. You're not reverse-engineering something and making it anew. You're cloning it, making an exact copy. It's a new kind of thing, and I'm not sure we have the right words for it. It's clearly a form of theft, but in which no good is diminished and no property is taken. It's ... new.

It's the same, is it? The computer looks at the 1's and 0's make its own 1's and 0's in the exact order and puts them together somewhere else. I look at the car parts, I make my own car parts in the exact order and put them together somewhere else.

[||Lz3||]

And then you share it with the others... so the company that makes the car wont sell as man cars as they planned to, or even worse, it wont sell a single other car, since everyone has a free copy of the car already.

Piracy does damage the game industry, but the fact that recent games are just not worth 70dls... doesnt help to care about them either....

[Lemur]

Indeed, Lz3, high pricing only spurs piracy. But have some sympathy for the game makers: How do you effectively compete with free? This is an open question, and one which I haven't seen answered comprehensively by anyone.

Suing your customers is bad for business and doesn't really solve the problem. You can make the paid product more convenient and attractive, but you still have to charge money if you want to make a going concern out of it. Some people are always going to opt for "free," no matter how much work and good faith you put into it.

I don't have the answers, and I don't think anybody else does either.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Here is how you compete with free.

You make a great product that is not just **** pushed out for quick money.
You make it cheap, almost as cheap as possible without losing a profit.
Most importantly, you include goodies that can not be transfered by a computer.

Example: I can download a movie for free on my computer. It is extremely great, but I am watching it on my crappy 17 inch monitor with my little speakers. If the movie tickets were actually below 10 dollars, I would absolutely go into the movie theater and pay for the movie I have already seen. Why? Because the movie theater has a screen at least 20x larger then any monitor I can buy and the sound system of the theater just can not be beat. You are getting the theater experience which is something you can not download from a torrent (I await for sarcastic remarks mentioning screaming babies, loud people on cell phones etc).

In terms of games, you need to give them goodies found in the box. Awesome posters, signed picture from the development team thanking you for buying their product, I don't care, something tangible that makes them feel that they are getting a "full product" that otherwise would not be complete if they just downloaded the game illegally. Make it good, make it cheap and make the customer experience a total package that makes the illegal download feel...incomplete (might not be the best word to describe it).

If you treat the customer right you:

A. Remove the "high prices/extortion" argument.
and
B. Remove the morality argument since the companies are now giving into the demands of the consumer and are not out for the fastest and easiest money possible.

Without those two arguments, the only two reasons for pirating is being a cheap ******* and criminal activity.

[||Lz3||]

If the movie tickets were actually below 10 dollars.

Over here they cost 4 dollars. :grin:

(On Wednesday they cost 3 dollars, and if you have coupons you might as well get them for 2 dollars)

[Fragony]

lol, sometimes I almost respect the Swedes, they set up a political party, now the 4th biggest party.

Eat that :laugh4:

[Husar]

Without Google's backing, YouTube would have been sued into oblivion by now. As it stands now, things are civil between the *AAs and YouTube and takedown notices are issued and complied with. Without the gaggle of high-priced lawyers, the *AAs would have gone with the standard bullying approach and we wouldn't have a place to see footage of people doing stupid stuff.

Well, that might be true to an extent but you also say that takedown notices are complied with, I've seen quite a lot of videos being taken down but I have also seen music videos posted by the record companies themselves, usually smaller companies but I guess the record companies have less of a problem with youtube, where quality is rather bad anyway, than with a site that helps you download high quality files and does not comply at all, in fact even indirectly spits into their face.

[Jolt]

How do you effectively compete with free? This is an open question, and one which I haven't seen answered comprehensively by anyone.

Considering the gigantic scale of piracy, I'd think a right approach would be to reach agreements with piracy sites with something like this.


The deal:

- The IP (Intelectual Property) producing company endorses the site and puts his products there to be downloaded (For free), therefore entitling the users downloading the content from the site to use the IP content legally and legitimatly.
- The site pays a fee to the IP Producing Company for each download completed (Something like 5/10 cents per download, possibly depending on the product).

Taking into account that if piracy became legal and legitimate, the number of downloads of games/musics/films would be gigantically increased. The site would be funded by ads. Since legal downloading sites would attract a gigantic amount of people, the ads would itself pay for the payment of the downloads due to the vast userbase using the site. People would use the legal sites since that way they couldn't be sued for doing something illegal. That way you could compete with free. People nowadays have "Legal but expensive product" vs "Illegal but free product", if we could change the difference to "Legal and free product" vs "Illegal but free product", we could see the drastic hit on piracy and its collapse. Any such site/consortium of sites would obviously have to have the wide support and endorsement of all major companies (Gaming, Musical, Movie and Miscellaneous), as well as a vast amount of fast servers to allow relatively speedy download times. With people flocking to legal sites, the illegal ones could be persued much more easily. The change to free internet download would mean that the companies no longer had to spend capital on production of the games in CDs and DVDs and the logistics behind distributing them across the world. The vast ammount of downloads would give revenues which would complement those of the CD/DVD game selling (After all, to some people, even if they had free games, they'd still pay to own them and not having to wait for download times, possible bugs in the downloading, etc.) I suppose from a theoretical point of view, it could be achieved.

[Prussian to the Iron]

it depends. what kind of stuff do they pirate? if it is just old movies i see nothing wrong, but if it is games and anything made/released in the last 3-4 years, then they should be convicted.

[Fragony]

Surprise surprise, turns out the judge has some, well, other activities, which involve affiliations with numerous copyright-organisations :beam:

[drone]

Surprise surprise, turns out the judge has some, well, other activities, which involve affiliations with numerous copyright-organisations :beam:
for the google-impaired...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/23/pirate_bay_judge_accused_of_bias/

The judge in The Pirate Bay trial has been accused of bias, after Sweden's national radio station revealed that Thomas Norström was a member of the same pro-copyright groups as several of the main entertainment industry reps in the case.

Sveriges Radio's P3 news programme claimed Norström is signed up to the Swedish Copyright Association (Svenska föreningen för upphovsrätt), which also counts Henrik Pontén, Peter Danowsky and Monique Wadsted as members. All three represented the entertainment industry in the case against BitTorrent tracker site The Pirate Bay.

Additionally, the judge sits on the board of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (Svenska föreningen för industriellt rättsskydd), which is lobbying for tougher copyright laws.

However, Norström insisted to the radio station that his membership of the various copyright protection groups did not “constitute a conflict of interest”.

Unsurprisingly, one of the defendants’ lawyers in the case has disagreed with that standpoint and this morning called for a retrial.
Supposedly, cries of conspiracy are being heard throughout Sweden.

[Husar]

Well, let's say the pirates win and the publishers, at least of games, adapt to the internet as you guys say they should, the result might be that games are only and exclusively released for this (http://news.cnet.com/onlive-could-threaten-xbox-ps3-and-wii/).

Oh what a great future. :inquisitive:

[Fragony]

Well, let's say the pirates win and the publishers, at least of games, adapt to the internet as you guys say they should, the result might be that games are only and exclusively released for this (http://news.cnet.com/onlive-could-threaten-xbox-ps3-and-wii/).

Oh what a great future. :inquisitive:

What is wrong with that? Music industry has burned their butts because they fought against their greatest oppertunity ever, let them sit on it and feel it. Maybe some people learn from their mistakes.

[Lemur]

Well, let's say the pirates win and the publishers, at least of games, adapt to the internet as you guys say they should [...]
What's your alternative? Waving the magic law-enforcement wand and making piracy disappear? Ain't gonna happen. It's not a question of us thinking they should do something; rather, it's a matter of dealing with technological and social reality, and adapting as a business.

Filesharing ain't going away. Businesses need to adapt if they want to thrive. This is a forum of people who love the gaming industry.

[Prussian to the Iron]

i doubt that onlive will threaten the game business. the reason those companies are third-party is simple: they are less appealing to the overall public.
perhaps, yes they will get some people to jion who have a very refined view of the games they like, but for the most part im sure that the gaming community as a whole will stick to xbox/ps3 and wii.
xbox has halo, gears, and the largest online gaming community ever.
ps3 has warhawk, resistance:fall of man, and others. plus the best graphics on any system.
wii has easy playability, is family friendly, and is overall cheaper than the other 2 gaming systems. plus metroid and super smash bros.

now, from what i just read, onlive is relying solely on internet downloads of games. and(im assuming that we all have empire total war) we all know how well that works out......i mean, you cant leave your gamers purchases to the strength of their internet connection. i mean, up until only last year i was perfectly content playing all my games without online. and what about people without online period? you just wiped out millions of customers.

sorry that took so long, i am just letting out the fumes i now have for this onlive crap....

/spam

[Fragony]

now, from what i just read, onlive is relying solely on internet downloads of games.

No it streams them, the central computer does all the hard work, so any computer that is fast enough to send the data of a keyboard/mouse or controller can run the most demanding games, a 386 should be sufficient for Crysis.

[Ironside]

for the google-impaired...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/23/pirate_bay_judge_accused_of_bias/

Supposedly, cries of conspiracy are being heard throughout Sweden.

Well the official responce that the judge should've known better and not taking the case in the first place. For you anglos, the judge together with 3 lay assessors are the ones deciding crime and punishment, not a jury.

[Husar]

What is wrong with that? Music industry has burned their butts because they fought against their greatest oppertunity ever, let them sit on it and feel it. Maybe some people learn from their mistakes.

What's your alternative? Waving the magic law-enforcement wand and making piracy disappear? Ain't gonna happen. It's not a question of us thinking they should do something; rather, it's a matter of dealing with technological and social reality, and adapting as a business.

Filesharing ain't going away. Businesses need to adapt if they want to thrive. This is a forum of people who love the gaming industry.
Uhm, they can go down if they have to, my point is just that two wrongs don't make a right and if people don't like their music, why do they steal it? Let them go down the proper way by not buying it but when theft is not prosecuted anymore something is wrong IMO.


i doubt that onlive will threaten the game business.
I never said it did, I said the exact opposite, it will save the business because when you just get a video stream you have no way to copy the game except if you can hack their servers and even then they may find ways to prevent that from being easy if they really want to. That way the industry has adapted to filesharing and the customers get their video games as a badly compressed stream with no way to mod games and complete dependancy on the online service, no wonder EA and other big publishers have already said they'll participate. If they'd release their games exclusively on OnLive then they use some of the best copy protection possible while the customers get absolutely no control at all anymore, you can't really copy the game if all you ever get is a video stream.
Well, it IS however an adaption to the modern internet era but one I absolutely don't like and would rather do without, but seems the pirate supporters disagree. :shrug:

[Kadagar_AV]

This trial is a joke...

First of all, even the police officers who conducted the raid of TPB questioned if it was really lawful.

Secondly, the trial as a whole wasn't a joke, it was a bad joke. Most swedes followed this trial. Swedens BIGGEST newspaper had a poll: "was this a good evict". 90% of the pollers said the court had judged wrong.

Third, media now discovered that the judge (again: in sweden we dont have a jury, the judge is the one who decides basicly) is bought by foreign powers.

Ok, to be honest, it isnt proven he is bought, maybe he just choose to spend his free time fighting online "piracy".

I'm ashamed of being :sweden: on a day like this.

[Fragony]

Uhm, they can go down if they have to, my point is just that two wrongs don't make a right and if people don't like their music, why do they steal it? Let them go down the proper way by not buying it but when theft is not prosecuted anymore something is wrong IMO.


I don't know about Germany but it's perfectly legal here. It's perfectly legal in Sweden as well, that judge's corruption is going to fly in his face pretty hard.

[Sheogorath]

The copyright fellows may have made a biiiiig mistake here. Besides the corruption issue, it seems that they got caught, and if there's one thing you don't do when attempting to force a legal issue via questionable means, it's getting caught. Not only do you get bad publicity, but everybody associated with you gets stuck in the mess too. I think Mr. Norström may soon find himself on the defense.

I only hope the good people of Sweden have longer memories than my fellow US citizens.

Who was that fellow with the scam? Can't think of his name now. Oh well, there's a guy who wants to sell me some stock contacting me via AIM. :tongueg:

EDIT:
Does Sweden have double jeopardy?

[Husar]

I don't know about Germany but it's perfectly legal here. It's perfectly legal in Sweden as well, that judge's corruption is going to fly in his face pretty hard.

It may be legal but that doesn't make it right.

[TB666]

Can point out that Google has now been charged with copyright infrigement.
http://www.existenz.se/out.php?id=13397
Yes 2 swedish lads has brought up charges against Google, I will do my best to translate.


This thuesday the boys from Härnösand, Alex and Rickard walked into the police station to report Google for a crime.
The police read it and thought about it before stamping the report for copyright infringement.
Now the world's largest search engine on the internet been reported and this could turn out to be a thriller.

How did you come up with reporting this giant ??
-Because of the verdict against Pirate Bay, Googles activities has been brought up for discussion, if they also commit crimes against copyright. By reporting them, they will get their activities investigated.
The 2 boys that see the matter as a matter of justice understand that this is a sensitive subject. Already before lunch the comments have poured in on allehanda.se. Even in other locations the debate is in full swing.

What do you wanna achieve by this ??
- Because of the verdict against TPB, we wanna see where the limit goes. We also want a debate on the regulation of the internet. It would be best if IPRED would get removed all together

Isn't Google better then TPB ??
- Both deliver a service used by many. We can't claim one is better then the other, we leave that to the individual

Do you think you will succeed ??
- If Google commits illegal activities or not remains to be seen. But we think it will be good for the debate.

Why do you care(or why are you commited to this) ??
-We feel that this is the wrong path to come to terms with the music and movie industries loss in revenue.
The question involves all that uses the internet, no matter if you pirate, email or just chat.
-The point isn't to bring Google down, it's to bring IPRED down.

[Kadagar_AV]

I called in and reported www.google.se aswell as blocket.se... However, the police refused to accept my report.

I then reported myself, as i had copied a casett back in the 80's aswell as a VHS in the 90'2 and given to a friend...

Again they refused to accept my report.

Idiots.

[Husar]

We feel that this is the wrong path to come to terms with the music and movie industries loss in revenue.
The question involves all that uses the internet, no matter if you pirate, email or just chat.

I wonder what exactly would be the correct way to come to rterms with it? Close the industry down and look for other jobs? Invest money and give the products away for free? Or maybe the model for public TV and radio here in Germany where a government agency collects money from everyone with a TV or radio?

[Lemur]

I blame Canada:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/music-pirates-in-canada.png

[Beirut]

I blame Canada:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/music-pirates-in-canada.png

We are the root of all evil.

[Louis VI the Fat]

France to crack down on internet piracy
By Esther Bintliff in Paris

Published: May 12 2009 20:04 | Last updated: May 12 2009 20:04

France is set to introduce the world’s most draconian laws against internet piracy, after parliamentarians voted on Tuesday to give the government powers to cut off offenders’ internet access.

The controversial draft law would create an agency to police illegal downloading of copyright material. Next to the Indian Ocean, the interwebs will see a massive French hunt on pirates. (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2830123c-3f26-11de-ae4f-00144feabdc0.html)

~:mecry:

[FactionHeir]

Sarko just wants all the hi speed downloads for himself :grin: