The pirate bay trial/verdict

[jarmo]

I remember a few years ago they lowered cd prices in the USA.

I don't think that ever happened over here in Europe.


Nowadays, people are used to getting music for free. Yet the record companies are still charging the same as they've been for years...

It's obvious that a bunch of people are prepared to pay more for a cup of coffee than an album of music (not that I agree).

How do you combat that? By shutting down and suing web sites? Is it gonna stop it? Is that gonna change people's attitudes?

It just seems like people feel like music itself isn't worth paying for. But they might pay for some nice package... Maybe this will actually make nice packaging and artwork do a comeback?


Music has lost its value to a bunch of people. So how can get them to pay for it?

That's why you see so many "deluxe editions" for $50-100 or whatever... The hardcore fans will buy it. The casual listener might get the $10 cd. And the rest just get it for free.


It's also worth noting that when artists lose income from somewhere, maybe they'll recoup it somewhere else. Ticket prices, merchandise etc.

Maybe they'll start giving away albums with concert tickets or start subscriptions where you sign up and get new music from an artist.






/jarmo

[norway]

But they might pay for some nice package... Maybe this will actually make nice packaging and artwork do a comeback?


Music has lost its value to a bunch of people. So how can get them to pay for it?

I think the same, the CD is not enough obviously.

A package with merch for buying the CD? Pre-order bonuses?
Selling hard packages with the CD also compliment many artists with their expressions.

They get the chance to take the art further, making it richer. A BM cd with a matchbox and map over churces for example.

I always liked when musicians want's more than doing the music.

This verdict has left a very bad taste, it's not for the benefit to the buisness, tho they also got to react.

Songwriters gets shafted badly-
-the performer and artist are quite often not the same person, what about them?

[Naltav]

This article and comic drawing sums it up nicely....   

http://eirikso.com/2005/06/06/how-bob-the-millionaire-became-a-pirate/

Even though it's about the movie/TV-industry, the same thing applies to the musicindustry. If you're a music-fan, you've prolly been in the situation where your local recordstore is not stocking the album you request and won't be until months later. In the world of fast moving information and consumption it's simply not good enough.


The ones "suffering" are the big multi-million-selling artists/bands and their recordcompanies. Instead of making $80 million a year, they just have to make due with about $20 million (wich still is alot more money than most of us will make in a lifetime).

They (the big ones) have to get creative and I'm not talking about special-edition-albums creative (that was 2002). Look what Prince did some years ago. He gave the album away for "free" if you bought a specific newspaper in the UK. He then organized a dozen gigs in London where the first couple of hundreds attendees got the album for free when entering the venue. He also sold advertisement-slots (banners and such) inside the venue. He came out of that stunt with millions in profit and a whole bunch of happy fans!   

[mrlee]

If i could afford every album i like i would buy them.

I love having the real deal with the books n shit. But it just aint possible. N i hate it when you buy a CD, n the booklet doesnt have any lyrics or photos in it. Whats the point in that.

[Sin Cut]

If i could afford every album i like i would buy them.

I love having the real deal with the books n shit. But it just aint possible. N i hate it when you buy a CD, n the booklet doesnt have any lyrics or photos in it. Whats the point in that.

If I'd have all the money I wanted, I would give some for charity.

[meanmachine73]

Someone earlier in the thread suggested that Pirate Bay was guilty by association of copyright theft.

Let's break it down, Pirate Bay does not host any files. It is simply a source to advise where particular files are hosted. On that basis, surely ALL search engines are guilty of the same offence. if you Google and search for example: best torrent sites, you will find list and lists and once connected to those sites can download anything from E-books, movies, Music etc.....

Actually by association, I could also be guilty of the same offence as Pirate Bay by telling you (what you already know).

Crazy situation... If the music industry was so concerned about copyright theft they would have invested in similar technology to Macrovision. Why havent they? Simple, they know that CD's and to a degree DVD's only have a short lifespan as new digital technology is more widely available and consider it not financially viable.

[C0ma]

Someone earlier in the thread suggested that Pirate Bay was guilty by association of copyright theft.

Let's break it down, Pirate Bay does not host any files. It is simply a source to advise where particular files are hosted. On that basis, surely ALL search engines are guilty of the same offence. if you Google and search for example: best torrent sites, you will find list and lists and once connected to those sites can download anything from E-books, movies, Music etc.....

Actually by association, I could also be guilty of the same offence as Pirate Bay by telling you (what you already know).

Crazy situation... If the music industry was so concerned about copyright theft they would have invested in similar technology to Macrovision. Why havent they? Simple, they know that CD's and to a degree DVD's only have a short lifespan as new digital technology is more widely available and consider it not financially viable.

So if The Pirate Bay was an ebay style marketplace for stolen cars or illegal drugs, but kept no inventory and wasn't directly responsible for the transfer of money there would be no legal wrong doing on their part?

They have created a hub (for lack of a better term) for distribution of stolen material (music, videos, software, and literature), while they don't store it, they have made it easier to get. It may be different in other countries, in the US that is text book accessory...

[meanmachine73]

Someone earlier in the thread suggested that Pirate Bay was guilty by association of copyright theft.

Let's break it down, Pirate Bay does not host any files. It is simply a source to advise where particular files are hosted. On that basis, surely ALL search engines are guilty of the same offence. if you Google and search for example: best torrent sites, you will find list and lists and once connected to those sites can download anything from E-books, movies, Music etc.....

Actually by association, I could also be guilty of the same offence as Pirate Bay by telling you (what you already know).

Crazy situation... If the music industry was so concerned about copyright theft they would have invested in similar technology to Macrovision. Why havent they? Simple, they know that CD's and to a degree DVD's only have a short lifespan as new digital technology is more widely available and consider it not financially viable.

So if The Pirate Bay was an ebay style marketplace for stolen cars or illegal drugs, but kept no inventory and wasn't directly responsible for the transfer of money there would be no legal wrong doing on their part?

They have created a hub (for lack of a better term) for distribution of stolen material (music, videos, software, and literature), while they don't store it, they have made it easier to get. It may be different in other countries, in the US that is text book accessory...

So, are ISP and search engines not guilty of the same offence as an accessory? Afterall you need an ISP or search engine to find pirate bay.  I am not looking at making an big deal here, just fail to see the transparancy is all.

[C0ma]

Someone earlier in the thread suggested that Pirate Bay was guilty by association of copyright theft.

Let's break it down, Pirate Bay does not host any files. It is simply a source to advise where particular files are hosted. On that basis, surely ALL search engines are guilty of the same offence. if you Google and search for example: best torrent sites, you will find list and lists and once connected to those sites can download anything from E-books, movies, Music etc.....

Actually by association, I could also be guilty of the same offence as Pirate Bay by telling you (what you already know).

Crazy situation... If the music industry was so concerned about copyright theft they would have invested in similar technology to Macrovision. Why havent they? Simple, they know that CD's and to a degree DVD's only have a short lifespan as new digital technology is more widely available and consider it not financially viable.

So if The Pirate Bay was an ebay style marketplace for stolen cars or illegal drugs, but kept no inventory and wasn't directly responsible for the transfer of money there would be no legal wrong doing on their part?

They have created a hub (for lack of a better term) for distribution of stolen material (music, videos, software, and literature), while they don't store it, they have made it easier to get. It may be different in other countries, in the US that is text book accessory...

So, are ISP and search engines not guilty of the same offence as an accessory? Afterall you need an ISP or search engine to find pirate bay.  I am not looking at making an big deal here, just fail to see the transparancy is all.

Are you actually serious? They created a website thats sole purpose is the location, rating, tracking, and direct download link to stolen material. Comcast (for example) didn't create (and name) their service with the intent of sharing pirated software, music, video, and literature.
While yes, you need an ISP to get to The Pirate Bay, there is no intent involved on the ISP's part. It would be very tough to argue against the intent of "The Pirate Bay".

Also your "Guilt by Association" argument is a little weak. You telling a freind about the possible location of a torrent, and a website being created for the sole purpose of pirating intelectual property are two totally different things. Also they aren't guilty by association, they are accessories to theft (piracy).

That is the difference between you knowing someone who robbed a bank, and you driving a getaway car for the thief.

[Sin Cut]

Someone earlier in the thread suggested that Pirate Bay was guilty by association of copyright theft.

Let's break it down, Pirate Bay does not host any files. It is simply a source to advise where particular files are hosted. On that basis, surely ALL search engines are guilty of the same offence. if you Google and search for example: best torrent sites, you will find list and lists and once connected to those sites can download anything from E-books, movies, Music etc.....

Actually by association, I could also be guilty of the same offence as Pirate Bay by telling you (what you already know).

Crazy situation... If the music industry was so concerned about copyright theft they would have invested in similar technology to Macrovision. Why havent they? Simple, they know that CD's and to a degree DVD's only have a short lifespan as new digital technology is more widely available and consider it not financially viable.

So if The Pirate Bay was an ebay style marketplace for stolen cars or illegal drugs, but kept no inventory and wasn't directly responsible for the transfer of money there would be no legal wrong doing on their part?

They have created a hub (for lack of a better term) for distribution of stolen material (music, videos, software, and literature), while they don't store it, they have made it easier to get. It may be different in other countries, in the US that is text book accessory...

So, are ISP and search engines not guilty of the same offence as an accessory? Afterall you need an ISP or search engine to find pirate bay.  I am not looking at making an big deal here, just fail to see the transparancy is all.

Are you actually serious? They created a website thats sole purpose is the location, rating, tracking, and direct download link to stolen material. Comcast (for example) didn't create (and name) their service with the intent of sharing pirated software, music, video, and literature.
While yes, you need an ISP to get to The Pirate Bay, there is no intent involved on the ISP's part. It would be very tough to argue against the intent of "The Pirate Bay".

Also your "Guilt by Association" argument is a little weak. You telling a freind about the possible location of a torrent, and a website being created for the sole purpose of pirating intelectual property are two totally different things. Also they aren't guilty by association, they are accessories to theft (piracy).

That is the difference between you knowing someone who robbed a bank, and you driving a getaway car for the thief.

ain't I comitting a crime in either case? unless the robber has  done his time?

[C0ma]

That is the difference between you knowing someone who robbed a bank, and you driving a getaway car for the thief.

ain't I comitting a crime in either case? unless the robber has  done his time?

No... I'm not saying you knew he was going to rob the bank, you just know who he is... Guilt by Association is typically a social thing not a legal thing. Just because you are friendly with someone who commited a crime that doesn't mean you had information that could have stopped the crime (which would make you an accessory).

It's like my issue with Barrack Obama durring the Campaign. Did he commit domestic acts of terrorism with William Ayers? No. Did he know William Ayers was going to commit those crimes 40 years ago? No. But should he have known better politically than to associate with William Ayers in anyway? Yes... Guilt (or Stupid) by Association.

[meanmachine73]

Is it possible for an ISP to block a URL against any undesirable website?

If it is possible and they havent taken preventative measures, does that not open another can of worms?

[norway]

Yep, it opens a can of worms. Think about China.

[C0ma]

Is it possible for an ISP to block a URL against any undesirable website?

If it is possible and they havent taken preventative measures, does that not open another can of worms?

http://wayofthegeek.org/2007/08/comcast-blocks-torrent-seeding/

Comcast Blocks Torrent Seeding


Posted by Devin de Gruyl on Aug 19th, 2007
Comcast, one of the US?s largest providers of high-speed Internet, has decided to crack down on the use of BitTorrent on their networks.

Now, ISPs throttling back the connection of users who engage in heavy BT traffic is, of course, nothing new; it?s been going on for a few years in any case. But Comcast is taking it a few steps further. According to this report, Comcast is actually preventing its users from seeding BT files at all. (It still appears to work while the torrent is stil actively downloading from the server, but once the DL is finished and your client switches into seeding mode, that?s when it?ll be blocked.) Standard workarounds will avail you naught; it?s being blocked at the source, and frankly there?s very little you can do about it (legally, at any rate).

[mrlee]

cunts. hopefully they will make adapters to put on routers to get around it or something

[Axl4Prez2004]

cunts. hopefully they will make adapters to put on routers to get around it or something

I like cunts, so I say yay! 

It seems every time I witness one of these back and forths, certain points are always made by those defending flat-out theft. 

The old, "The record companies have been ripping us off for years so it's time for us to rip them off!"
answer:  bullshit.  2 wrongs don't make a right.  If I'm not mistaken, the record companies were sued and the matter was dealt with.  If you still don't like it, sue them again.  If you try to steal their product, you deserve to be fined up the ass big-time.

Then, I just loved the person's argument earlier that said the ISPs are just as bad, so why is it only Pirate Bay being sued?  Who gives a fuck?  Someone needs to be made an example of, and in this case it's the most blatant offender. 
I'd be even more content with a massive campaign to prosecute the millions of people (yes, millions) who are stealing copyrighted material every day in their own homes.

 

2:   

[Sin Cut]

cunts. hopefully they will make adapters to put on routers to get around it or something

I like cunts, so I say yay! 

It seems every time I witness one of these back and forths, certain points are always made by those defending flat-out theft. 

The old, "The record companies have been ripping us off for years so it's time for us to rip them off!"
answer:  bullshit.  2 wrongs don't make a right.  If I'm not mistaken, the record companies were sued and the matter was dealt with.  If you still don't like it, sue them again.  If you try to steal their product, you deserve to be fined up the ass big-time.

Then, I just loved the person's argument earlier that said the ISPs are just as bad, so why is it only Pirate Bay being sued?  Who gives a fuck?  Someone needs to be made an example of, and in this case it's the most blatant offender. 
I'd be even more content with a massive campaign to prosecute the millions of people (yes, millions) who are stealing copyrighted material every day in their own homes.

 

2:   

well, the US shot some pirates earlier AND frankly Pirate Bay just sounds cool. Arrr!

[Alan]

http://www.blogpirate.org/2009/05/10/pirate-bay-founder-crafts-distributed-denial-of-dollars-attack/

[Jim]

It's obvious that a bunch of people are prepared to pay more for a cup of coffee than an album of music (not that I agree).

I believe that is more indicative of absurd coffee prices than anything else. 

... Ahem. Of course, in all seriousness, I believe that about a fiver (that would be five of your English pounds) is (oh, and that would a five for an album of music, not the cup of coffee) fair. That's what I look to pay for most albums that I buy. I'll only go above that if it's a new release, a special edition or I just want to that badly...

[Sober_times]

Is it possible for an ISP to block a URL against any undesirable website?

If it is possible and they havent taken preventative measures, does that not open another can of worms?

http://wayofthegeek.org/2007/08/comcast-blocks-torrent-seeding/

Comcast Blocks Torrent Seeding


Posted by Devin de Gruyl on Aug 19th, 2007
Comcast, one of the US?s largest providers of high-speed Internet, has decided to crack down on the use of BitTorrent on their networks.

Now, ISPs throttling back the connection of users who engage in heavy BT traffic is, of course, nothing new; it?s been going on for a few years in any case. But Comcast is taking it a few steps further. According to this report, Comcast is actually preventing its users from seeding BT files at all. (It still appears to work while the torrent is stil actively downloading from the server, but once the DL is finished and your client switches into seeding mode, that?s when it?ll be blocked.) Standard workarounds will avail you naught; it?s being blocked at the source, and frankly there?s very little you can do about it (legally, at any rate).

Thats kind of old news. Comcast was actually told by the FCC after a hearing, after being sued that they had to stop throttling bit-torrent traffic. And they said they did but really didn't.  But nothing has really changed, still being throttled well as of last year which is the last time i read anything on it. I have time warner so i worry about other stuff...
 
Its all going to lead to one of two things.

One being that we will have pay for use internet in the U.S. Pay per use as in you get so much bandwidth for so much cash per month. If you go over you pay overages. Time Warner Cable was or still could be testing this strategy in some markets. Which really sucks for people who like legal streaming as well.

The second being that the isps will institute a system to block bit-torrent from being able to be accessed. Bit-torrent is a great technology that could be and is actually used for stuff other than copy-right infringement. The movie/music/tv industry and others need to utilize this technology not damn it. By the way people are saying isps will pay for this "block" by imposing a surcharge on everyones bill.

And fuck the 3 strikes rules that have been trying to pop up or are popping up in some countries. It makes ISP'S disconnect users when they get 3 notices from RIAA or other similar organizations that a user is violating copyright. Which is complete bull-shit because the RIAA or other private organizations should not be in charge of deeming what is and what is not copyright infringment. They are not law-enforcement agencies. And their tactics are barely legal if legal at all in many cases. And are far from being error free. Notices claiming copyright infringement have been sent out incorrectly thousands of times.

As for the Pirate Bay, I do find it hilarious that the Judge prosiding over the trial has affiliations with several shall we say anti-copyright infringement groups and has served on boards over-seeing anti-copyright measures with the 3 main lawyers for the "prosecution" in the case. According to Sveriges Radio's P3 news, don't know if their reputable or not. I'm not familar with swedish law but they are hoping for a re-trial claiming the judge was biast. Apparently 3 judges were on a panel overseeing parts of the case before trial and one judge stepped down after admitting similar affiliations. But the trial judge, who also happended to be on the same panel didn't admit to having these affliations and doesn't feel that this caused any bias in his judgement. But one judge on the panel thought it did and stepped down. Makes you wonder.

Now i'm not saying that copyright infringement should be legal in any way. I'm just 100% against the tactics used by the industry to stop it from happening. And the total lack of adaptation to a great technology. This is why I am for the "pirates." My hope is eventually these idiots will adapt to the environment that has been created. And they will, it will just take a long time to do so.