Just minutes ago the verdict in the case of The Pirate Bay Four was announced. All four defendants were accused of ‘assisting in making copyright content available’. Peter Sunde: Guilty. Fredrik Neij: Guilty. Gottfrid Svartholm: Guilty. Carl Lundström: Guilty. The four receive 1 year in jail each and fines totaling $3,620,000.

Source:http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-trial-the-verdict-090417/

[Name updated as requested – Tony]

Thou Peter Sunde has already explained that this decision does not mean the end of the line in this case. There will be an appeal which means we are still far away from the ultimate decision – possibly years away. The case is now expected to move to the high court. Both sides have three weeks to file a written appeal.

[Name updated as requested – Tony]

This. Sucks.

Good luck in the Supreme Court!

OT stuff...

what is OT . is it "Other Things"

   "[Name updated as requested – Tony] " and what is changed

OT = off-topic (non-Google)

Well the website is only 80% Google, so maybe it's in that 20% and not off topic :D

(I think a Pirate Bay discussion fits this forum very well. The more tech-related, the better fitting...)

A ./ comment that explains the difference between Google and TPB: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1203623&cid=27626345

<< Look, there'a a huge difference between Google and TPB. It's willfully obtuse to pretend there isn't.

1) Google crawls the Internet and indexes content for searching. It presents search results in the form of hyperlinks to the sites of the people providing the content (exactly the way the WWW was intended to work). (...)

TPB, on the other hand, is a website that contains a user-editable index of torrent files people are willing to share. In other words, TPB doesn't crawl for general content that is already publicly available. TPB then facilitates the transactions between users by functioning as a tracker. Torrents are useless without a tracker, so this is a critical difference. Google would not be able to provide the same service as TPB. Yes, you can find torrents via Google, but that is because Google has indexed a tracker like TPB and is just linking to their site.

2) Most of the content accessible through Google is legal, in the sense that the people who own the copyright have shared it explicitly on their website, which is crawled by Google. Most of the content on TPB is not legal, in the sense that the people sharing the files do not own the copyright and are not within the realm of fair use.

3) The content in both Google's search index and TPB's website is trivial to update to remove content that is in violation of copyright. Google willingly does so, usually at the notice of copyright holders. Google also removes content they don't necessarily have to, like Google Streetview images, when requested. TPB consistently refuses to remove content brought to its attention, and often responds with rude, immature, and insulting remarks. >>

so lonut do u support The Pirate Bay or u r against of it . no offence just asking . i support The Pirate bay

Pirate Bay would have a better case if a significant portion of its use was legitimate (non-infringing). The site could promote sharing open source software, music from independent artists etc. to show that torrents is not necessarily associated with copyright infringements. Pirate Bay encourages piracy even in its name and I don't think this is the right attitude. Users will share "infringing" files anyway, it's not necessary to explicitly encourage this.

> "Most of the content accessible through Google is legal"

Nah, I'd say Googlebot is rather indifferent to the legality of content it crawls, unless it gets copyright notices. Sometimes the ratio is actually like 1 copyright-owner-publishing a text or pictures causing a dozen or so sites to republish that content elsewhere (sometimes surely fair use, but Googlebot really doesn't understand fair use or copyright laws in general).

Hollywood's Victory Over The Pirate Bay Will Be Short-Lived

Hollywood may have won a battle, but the war against piracy is far from over. Unauthorized file-sharing will continue (and likely intensify), if not through The Pirate Bay, then through dozens of other near-identical swashbuckling Web sites.

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.

Source:http://www.pcworld.com/article/163366/hollywoods_victory_over_the_pirate_bay_will_be_shortlived.html

> Pirate Bay encourages piracy even in its
> name and I don't think this is the right attitude.

What if we're entering a copyright-free future, if it turns out that copyright is causing more harm than it does good to society? I think it's an interesting question to ponder.

Saw this on Reddit:

http://imgur.com/O11AZ.jpg

You can create "a copyright-free future" by promoting works that are distributed using less restrictive licenses. Why encourage people to download a "pirated" version of Windows when you can help Ubuntu become more popular?

Not My Comment but i thought it it would be appropriate comment

"For years record and film companies have made billions off the consumer often charging more than a product is worth (When CD's began to replace vinyl and were much cheaper to produce, the price doubled and trebbled depending on the content) and now the consumer has a way of fighting back, they're crying to the courts."

Source:http://www.pcworld.com/article/159638/pirate_bay_may_sail_away_scot_free.html

yes lonut well said u hav a Very Valid point .

> You can create "a copyright-free future" by promoting
> works that are distributed using less restrictive licenses.

The content of the present is often based on that of the past (you might say: always, in one way or another), so it's also critical that the past culture will not be blocked for us. Copyright terms are nothing "natural", they are society-made laws and thus defend upon cultural agreements (and often, industry lobbying). In other words, where you rightfully say "use more legally copyfree stuff" we can additionally argue "make more currently illegaly copied stuff legally copyfree".

but its only apply to Softwares . othere things . and not every open source software has same professional quality as the paid software has . yet . and mass people cant wait (and stop there daily work) when it will get better.. so they need those software urgently . + add my othere copy paste comment "companies have made billions off the consumer often charging more than a product is worth"

whole game is like "Catch me if u can " some times corporate fool us by making vendor lockins ,hype marketing , low quality product . or good quality product but ultra high price for Brand name . some times extra charge on bill with idiotic reason. and times we make them fool like piracy , physically stilling product. etc etc . just like " u hit me now ready for the hit back . and it will never stop .

Philipp I just burned 70 of these DVD's and tomorrow I'm delivering them :D

LOL

Pirate Bay judge is member of Copyright Association http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4675

<< The Pirate Bay may have grounds for a retrial. It turns out that the judge in the case, Tomas Norstrom, might have a slight conflict of interest. He’s a member of the Swedish Copyright Association and sits on the board of Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property. >>

This is like watching a football game! The only thing we're missing is popcorn and cheerleaders.

Can't wait to see the results!

http://blogoscoped.com/forum/153496.html#id153851

Hah, i knew something had to have been up xD