Pirate bay court case
- Thread starter Redgie
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 2,073
- Location
- Bishopsworth, Bristol
I've heard there's servers all around the world, and one server in a locked bank in Sweden IIRC.
Arghh how many times, it is NOT just like google. It is MUCH more focused on acting as a platform for illegal file transfer. I can download a torrent which allows me to download illegal content without even entering any search terms!
Greedy fat record companies? You do realise why the record companies are there, right?
Yes the record companies are there to make money - nothing more. They exploit artists and have many on retainers for several years (which they have to pay back) and then they own the records. The only artists this does not apply to are those who are already massively famous and got out of these contracts (Michael Jackson, etc). With the internet and my space, etc. more and more artists are opting to go this way but there are thousands of Simon Cowells out there.
Do you really believe that they are doing it out of the goodness of there hearts? You do realise that record sales are still absolutely massive?
If you read what I put - all TPB does is act as a focussed search engine. It doesn't host the files. It just points to them. Now anyone with an ounce of technical knowledge will realise this is exactly what google, yahoo, etc. does except they also show results that are not torrents. You can, very easily, find all the latest releases on google without ever having to go on a torrent site. Please tell me what the difference is at a technical level. Because there is none.
M.
Do you really believe that they are doing it out of the goodness of there hearts? You do realise that record sales are still absolutely massive?
If you read what I put - all TPB does is act as a focussed search engine. It doesn't host the files. It just points to them. Now anyone with an ounce of technical knowledge will realise this is exactly what google, yahoo, etc. does except they also show results that are not torrents. You can, very easily, find all the latest releases on google without ever having to go on a torrent site. Please tell me what the difference is at a technical level. Because there is none.
M.
Of course they are only there to make money, that was my point!
At a technical level there is little difference, but I'm not talking at a technical level.
The technical level is important. If you don't understand the technical level then it might as well be magic.
You seem to think that if you just click buttons to find torrents then it is illegal but if you need to type then it is not. What if you use character map?
You seem to think that if you just click buttons to find torrents then it is illegal but if you need to type then it is not. What if you use character map?
Well actually it can't. The reason why it can't is because it needs to verify the information is correct. So if you see a link to Game A they need to verify the link is, indeed, Game A and not some crap renamed to Game A. This then brings in it's own legalities. Also to remove the millions and millions of links that Google has would be a nightmare. You then have to get into someone complaining to Google to remove the links which, again, is very time consuming as you have to prove you have authority to do so.
I don't know if the above process has been streamlined but that's how it was when it was last discussed.
M.
Agree with this. If you don't understand the technical level then how can you understand the legalities. That's the entire fundamental flaw in the case was that the judge did not understand the technical issues (and the fact that he may as well have been employed by the record companies).
M.
The way that it promotes itself is more important and it is clearly encouraging piracy and acting as a facilitator to illegal downloading much more than Google is.
You're missing my point
Last edited:
from Fudzilla, and couldnt put it better myself:
It has just made matters worse
You would think that Hollywood would be celebrating its win over the file sharing outfit Pirate Bay. Getting the public face of P2P locked up and forcing them to pay mega fines should be a result for the music and film industry.
However there are a few things wrong with the win. Firstly it is not over yet. The pirates have the right of appeal against the sentence and even the conviction. Most pundits claim that appeals courts will take a different view of the case and might even over turn it.
But the biggest problem for the film and music industry is that Pirate Bay is still there. Its servers are not in the country and it is continuing to operate. The court case has been a godsend to those who support P2P. It not only proved that state legislators have been lent on by the music and film business, it indicated that no one actually understood the technology involved.
If anything, the high profile court case promoted file sharing in a positive way for the pirates. Instead of appearing like criminals, the 'pirates' where shown to be well meaning, if slightly arrogant geeks, who were not making a penny from their antics. It makes any penalty look like the last scene in Braveheart. The Bully won and the penalty was stupid and the so called bad guys looked like Robin Hood.
As a result Pirate Bay membership has swelled following the trial. The outcry against the sentence has been huge in Sweden. Indeed it is starting to look that instead of bring an end to P2P it could be the beginning of something big. Politicians don't like being seen as doing something unpopular and the sentencing of the Pirate Bay organisers is starting to appear just that.
What is strange is that the movie and film industry did not see this one coming. Its hope that prosecuting away piracy has failed for decades and if anything has strengthened resolve against them. Who has not had the urge to log onto Pirate Bay after spending a minute of your life watching one of those stupid anti-piracy adverts before you watch the main film?
It has just made matters worse
You would think that Hollywood would be celebrating its win over the file sharing outfit Pirate Bay. Getting the public face of P2P locked up and forcing them to pay mega fines should be a result for the music and film industry.
However there are a few things wrong with the win. Firstly it is not over yet. The pirates have the right of appeal against the sentence and even the conviction. Most pundits claim that appeals courts will take a different view of the case and might even over turn it.
But the biggest problem for the film and music industry is that Pirate Bay is still there. Its servers are not in the country and it is continuing to operate. The court case has been a godsend to those who support P2P. It not only proved that state legislators have been lent on by the music and film business, it indicated that no one actually understood the technology involved.
If anything, the high profile court case promoted file sharing in a positive way for the pirates. Instead of appearing like criminals, the 'pirates' where shown to be well meaning, if slightly arrogant geeks, who were not making a penny from their antics. It makes any penalty look like the last scene in Braveheart. The Bully won and the penalty was stupid and the so called bad guys looked like Robin Hood.
As a result Pirate Bay membership has swelled following the trial. The outcry against the sentence has been huge in Sweden. Indeed it is starting to look that instead of bring an end to P2P it could be the beginning of something big. Politicians don't like being seen as doing something unpopular and the sentencing of the Pirate Bay organisers is starting to appear just that.
What is strange is that the movie and film industry did not see this one coming. Its hope that prosecuting away piracy has failed for decades and if anything has strengthened resolve against them. Who has not had the urge to log onto Pirate Bay after spending a minute of your life watching one of those stupid anti-piracy adverts before you watch the main film?
Very well summed up. Completely agree with this.
No. I think that the intentions of a website are not as important as what it does. You seem to think that the name is what is important. It is not.
Talk is cheap, action is everything.
Answer the questions. Do you understand the technicalities? You state that there is little difference, state the difference.
You sidestepped the gun argument with a not quite accurate response by talking about hunting guns. Gun shop sell guns which are designed for people and they are not prosecuted because there is more than use for it. That is the same as what you are doing.
You say that if the gun shop was called Murder Inc. then it would be illegal... is there such a law? Which law? Because this is exactly the same as what piratebay are doing.
Tell me a legal use for a torrent which facilitates me downloading illegal content.
Which side are you on?
I believe TPB should be shut down. I think the court case was handled very badley but I think the quoted summary really hits home on the realities of the press converage.
There are lots of legal uses for torrents, not everything is copyright protected.
Nine Inch Nails released some free albums via torrents.
They're coming right for us!!!
Re-read my question. I realise there is legal uses for torrents.
To catalogue how many seeders and leeches there are. Done. What's your next argument, or do you want to address the insinuations that you are technically ignorant.
How else do you think that the MPAA identifies who downloaded a file? Or perhaps the MPAA just uses the regular torrent clients and is infringing the copyright of its members? Some of whom have denied them the right to use their IP in this way.