Forum - View topicNEWS: 4 Convicted in Pirate Bay File-Sharing Trial, Appeals Planned
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fallout2man
Posts: 274 Location: San Diego, CA |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
While this is true, this becomes a more important definition when you consider the cultural applications. A hyperlink A website isn't illegal either, yet the idea of linking to certain websites might be considered illegal. It's an important definition of when something becomes legal or not. Saying "I don't do this, but I've heard you can ask around here for X" is something that's often fell into a very grey area legally, so it's important to see what's decided, that's the issue here. The Pirate Bay case is essentially going to ramp up to the EU being forced to decide whether they can prosecute someone for linking to potentially copyright infringing content. On one hand you'd think the issue is shut and closed due to TPB's outspoken nature as a pirate haven, but legally speaking the real question is how much culpability an internet service has in the actions of its users. We've had decisions like the Grokster case which sidestepped the issue by saying the defendants were obviously promoting piracy, which is true, but still doesn't address the actual issue of where the line is in the digital world. TPB was waiting and is obviously extremely ready to define that line, however long it takes, and they're trying to get it decided in their favor. The future will definitely be an interesting one.
How do you justify that without essentially singling out a technology you find uncomfortable? You can't just declare something illegal because you think it's icky. We've had numerous instances in the past where things involving race, religion and other sensitive subjects were ruled on by this prevailing attitude, and all were overturned in future cases. Yes someone will say I'm comparing apples to oranges because they hold those things in high regards and You could never compare this to that, ever, I'll ban you if you do!!! But the fact is that making something illegal based on a narrow interpretation of personal morality has never worked long term. Right now we're being faced with a very serious challenge, and that is how we as a culture are going to define completely intangible goods with completely intangible values. Sure you can say it cost X dollars to make, but that doesn't define a creative work's value. If that were the case then a B movie producer could sue theaters it licensed for not getting high enough box office receipts. Value is determined entirely intangibly in someone's mind and that makes it tricky in today's currency driven world.
Not likely, As they've said before on their very own website's legal FAQ. They've been expecting and waiting for this trial to take place practically since day one. They want it to happen so they have the power to define the scope of certain laws. They knew full well what they were getting into and they most certainly had made sure not to keep any logs that'd be folly for lawyers in this case.
If you think this is going to actually produce any "results" or end at all anytime in the next several years you're sorely mistaken. As I've said before, they wanted and prepared for this battle for a long time. Imagine this like someone intentionally trying to get a case to the USA supreme court to decide the constitutionality of something. This will take time, and at the end there will be a significant decision. It's too early for anyone to celebrate. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
JINROH
Posts: 56 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
I agree with you pretty much.I am very much against fansubbing in its current form (egotripping,more and more groups dabbling in outright dvd ripping,subbing past the first few eps,subbing after CnD letters,or having a few members of said group 'branch off' to sub the series anyway,ignoring the CnD,but do it via IRC only,or keep changing the group name,or use no name at all,etc,etc) What media companies need to do more of,is get to together with ISP's and basically pay them to throttle people's speed whenever they use torrents or IRC,MU/RS,etc,etc This newer tactic,Is being done right now by a few ISP's in NA,as a sort of pilot project with media companies,and I suspect it will get much,MUCH bigger and more widespread in the near future.It saves the ISP bandwith monies,and the copyright holders legal costs.This along with bandwith / packet shaping,etc,will ultimately stem a lot of the piracy going on.As it damn well should.Everyone's granny and thier dog,now knows about MU and RS and torrents. Its a free for all,that many abuse in the extreme,and just take for granted. Anime and other forms of entertainment have never been this cheap at retail/etail (YES,I realize we are in a deflationary spiral right now),and yet people are stealing like its no tommorow...and as though its thier god given right. We have raised a generation,that feels quite deeply it is their right to take whatever they want,whenever the hell they want,damn the law,or copyright holders,or artists.Me first,and eff the rest.All these shallow justifications about its all just 0's and 1's,is just that crap.IMO. Can it be stopped ? No ! But,it can be heavily curbed as I mentioned above,and it will. In fact its already happening,coming to an ISP provider near you !!! |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Labbes
 Posts: 890 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
I think you got me a little wrong there, so I will try to explain my point with a comparison. There's a pawn shop in my city. Now if people would bring bootlegs there and the police came, I think they would at least confiscate the bootlegs. It doesn't even matter if it's clothing, a Rolex or DVDs. If he said "But it's my customer's responsibility", would he be innocent? I don't think so. The same way, I think there should be a better control of ebay, considering how many bootlegs are sold there. If you can't handle it, don't do it. If there's a small amount of illegal content, I have no problem with it. But if there's 99% illegal content on Pirate Bay, or 50% bootlegs on ebay, I think that is not acceptable. I don't want to abolish the torrent system itself. In fact, as a Linux user, I have used it very often in a legal way. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Why do that when it's better to propose a music tax, or a 3 strikes law (with no ability for the "offender" to challenge an accusation), or force ISPs to track user personal data to turn it over, again, on a mere allegation? All three of these ideas have been proposed, are still being proposed, and shows the idiocy of a business to make it someone's responsibility but their own to fight against this so-called "piracy". Don't expect me to be on board with any distribution company using my ISP to do their dirty laundry.
Those so-called "pilot projects" is called bandwidth capping, which will affect every user, not so-called "pirates". It will raise YOUR rates. Explain to us why you believe this is the "right" thing to do.
Time Warner was under fire for capping bandwidth, proposing the most heinous of rates based on usage ever seen by experts. $150/mo. for "unlimited" bandwidth? Are you freakin' kidding me? Time Warner has since backed off. Why? Because their 2008 financial statements prove that costs are going down despite user growth going up. Customers got pretty pissed over that one. Google it.
Wrong, again. I know what a torrent file is, but I don't know how to torrent. I do believe extra software is required to torrent, correct? Now, add in the time it takes to download a file, rip it, and burn it. Do you really think any granny would take the time to do this? Doubt it. I would suggest you read up on piracy and its influence on modern bandwidth so you'll realize this activity accounts for less than 2% of usage world wide. These numbers, by the way, come from those who host broadband networks. Oh, and for the record: Spam accounts for over 60% of broadband usage. And we can see how effective stopping spam is.
While I do agree there are some who go out of their way to abuse the system, most don't. For every 1 person "pirating", there are 10 who legitimately purchase through other means.
I don't condone downloading, so keep this in mind when you read my reply. However, entertainment is now more expensive than ever before. Not cheaper. Finding sales is one thing, but retail price has increased over the last 20 years. CDs were once $12 retail. Now most can't be purchased for under $16. $1 for a song? Now you know why. DVDs went from a standard $14.99 price tag to a new tier of $19.99/$24.99 (popularity affects cost). Streaming costs an average of $50/mo. for the internet access by ISPs. DSL is cheaper. And I've yet to find a single person who ever said their cable bill was "cheap". I saw the original "Batman" movie with Michael Keaton for $6. I saw "The Dark Knight" at $9.50. Consumers don't mind paying. But they do mind having to pay increased costs in which every sector of the entertainment industry continues to raise prices, making it much more difficult for people. Those 5 movies you saw last year? $100 to "own" on DVD. Want 500 songs in your mp3 player? Cough up the newly increased price of $1.30 per song, and that's $650. Your cable bill went up again this year. Average increase: 12%. And now, for the kicker: Most of this money doesn't go back to the artist. It lines the pockets of distributors, who didn't write, create, sing, or televise the content. So you'll have to excuse those people who can no longer afford this "cheap" entertainment but can still spend when they can. Even your own spending is capped at what you can, and cannot buy, within your means.
Maybe your parents raised you like this, but mine certainly didn't. Do I stream from fansub sites? You betcha. Do I do it without paying? Hell no. I pay my dues. So do most. Because that's the way we were raised. We were also raised to take advantage when opportunity knocks. We don't rip, supply, or host the files but don't blame me if I want to take advantage from a system that provides it to me. "Legal" or not, the new wave of entertainment is coming via digital distribution. You should ask yourself why it took so long for the companies whining about piracy to just now starting to adapt streaming. Hint: ad revenues from a website.
Want to curb it faster? Give consumers what they've paid for, willing to pay for, and don't call them thieves while doing it. Oh, and it helps if they remove their dinosaur thinking of how to deliver content without raping wallets in the process.
May your bill jump to $150 per month for "unlimited" access. Let's see how you enjoy the increase. And I'll be damned if my internet bill goes up because I want to stream 50 episodes from Crunchyroll because my cable provider doesn't offer it and it's not available on DVD. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
DomFortress
 Posts: 751 Location: Richmond BC, Canada |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
The real "Safe Harbor Act" is no longer called DMCA but rather, it's been known as the Limitations on liability relating to material online, or section 512 in the US Code of Law since JAN. 3, 2007. And in that law, there's no "fair use" limitations on illegally duplicated and distributed digital files on the internet. Furthermore, duplications and then distributions of copyrighted intellectual properties without license are illegal copyright infringing actions, regardless of "fair use" limitations like modifications for domestic and private use. I can understand how people honestly don't know a thing about law, but lying about stealing is wrong! 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Now I understand why you linked in the other thread. First, I never said the DMCA and Safe Harbors were the same thing. Safe Harbors does remain in effect as long as a DMCA is not ignored without justification. And, for the record, current "verbiage" still relates the terms DMCA and Safe Harbors. No one calls its "Limitations blah blah blah".
Where in the world did this come from? You've got me confused.
Okay, with this, I'm starting to see a picture of you confusing my words to that of Safe Harbors, file distribution, and protection of said owners of sites that distribute. You figure it out. You're so quick to point out the law, but you quickly dismiss rights people have regarding fair use (ANN, or did you skip this), protection (Safe Harbors relating to U.S. based websites), or file distribution (legal file sharing sites). Please read the verdict handed down by the courts regarding the Pirate Bay. Never once will you read they were charged with infringement.
No, what's wrong is allowing U.S. based companies to push embargoes on countries because those very countries don't establish the draconian copyright laws our country does. Then, turns around and claiming a "victory" while the site remains up. On top of that, turns around and tries to take the due process of an international company and pushes it through our government under the guise of "piracy prevention". I've never condoned unlicensed file sharing, but you apparently don't get this. Can't be helped, but I really, really think you should pay attention to the very law you seem to know about but twist it for your argument. Because tomorrow, your rights may just get stripped with yet another idiotic decision by our court system. Especially fair use of copyright, which gets tighter and tighter every day. For the latest news in this crap, please view the CNN and Fox News fiasco regarding "rights" and the *AHEM* DMCA. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
DomFortress
Posts: 751 Location: Richmond BC, Canada |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
When US President Bill Clinton signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act(DMCA) on on October 28, 1998, it amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services(OSP) for copyright infringement by their users. And the DMCA Title II: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, creates a safe harbor for online service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright liability if they adhere to and qualify for certain prescribed safe harbor guidelines and promptly block access to allegedly infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) if they receive a notification claiming infringement from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent. Therefore your "Safe Harbor Act", which was a part of the DMCA, is in reality the United States Code Title 17, section 512, the Limitations on liability relating to material online, you liar.
Now that I've called out all your lies, here's why I'm really angry about the likes of you anime pirates: you publicly lied about the content of the law, the facts, and the truths on this open forum with your post, thereby violated all our freedom of speech here on the ANN forum. Because the freedom of speech doesn't allow us the freedom to lie in open public, instead it only grants us the right to share our honest opinions, not lies! 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shale
Posts: 337 Location: The Middle of Nowhere, DE |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
No, freedom of speech allows for lies. It's incumbent on people who aren't lying to point out the truth, and on the people who care about the argument to figure out which is which.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
DomFortress
Posts: 751 Location: Richmond BC, Canada |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shale
Posts: 337 Location: The Middle of Nowhere, DE |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
So who arbitrates the difference between dishonest and misinformed? It's about the pursuit of truth, not its dictation, which means argument. And it takes more than being wrong to make speech dangerous, which is why truth isn't the only defense against a libel charge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
DomFortress
Posts: 751 Location: Richmond BC, Canada |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Right now, all you got are skepticism and bias opinions, which you barely managed to keep them sounding rational by making excuses for your lack of discipline. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
bayoab
Posts: 831 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Way to show your ignorance of the news and your intent to just be your typical incorrect trollish self. TPB was not convicted of copyright infringement itself. They were convicted of accessory to copyright infringement for making money off of the site. Also, (IANAL) since TPB was knowingly violating copyright laws, they never qualified for any of the immunities to begin with.
WIPO isn't about making unified worldwide draconian copyright protection laws. It is just a UN working group and they only have one really major contribution so far. There is also nothing that says that countries have to bow to media cartels who want absurd copyright laws.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
It's shameful to see you stoop to this level, calling everyone liars because you can't accept the truths that are out there. I feel sorry for you, DomFortress. In truth, your attitude does nothing but fuel the problems and the ignorance you portray stifles changes. I'm a programmer/web developer by profession. For you to sit there and quote me crap after crap about my profession is insulting. I know exactly what the full intent of copyright law, DMCA, and Safe Harbor provisions allow. If you can't accept that, then take my pity. As for the verdict, again, you ignore the facts. Nothing anyone says here will educate you otherwise, so again, take my pity on carrying your ignorance. But it stuns me you can't see the obvious outcome on your own. If the Pirate Bay were truly a copyright infringing site, it would have been shut down. Instead, it's garnering the largest user increase in its history. You also don't seem to follow Sweden's populous reactions, who are extremely angry the courts gave way to U.S. threats. Of course, they have every right to be. The verdict is out there for you to read, and for you to assume they were charged with copyright infringement shows your complete ignorance on this entire matter. DomFortress, you should take some time to actually educate yourself on the ramifications of what these entertainment industries are doing, not trying to defend their actions using the "letter of the law". For it's these laws that get passed because of the entertainment industry's push on pockets of politicians they line. Why don't you go and review the Universal v. Sony case. Go see just how close we came to losing VCR/Beta technology. The summation by the judges should be enough to open your eyes. This one case will lead you to many others. Napster (et al) were shut down because they lost the ruling when trying to defend themselves with the ruling handed down in the Universal v. Sony case. Oh, wait. The exact same damn ruling which was handed to those running the Pirate Bay. Yes, they knew infringement was happening. Yes, their site was built for that purpose. Had the Pirate Bay not reaped in million in "profits", this would have never hit the courts. I'm done trying to educate you, especially when you call me the liar when my information comes from facts, not personal feelings towards "piracy", sites, or anime itself. You should do the same, instead of making yourself look the fool because you can't accept truth. Oh, and for the information regarding the CNN v. Fox war: Read it for yourself. This is the last time I do your homework for you. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
DomFortress
Posts: 751 Location: Richmond BC, Canada |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Furthermore, would you care to explain to us in your own word just what do you see in copyright law being draconian, when the said law was only to serve the people by protecting them from having their ideas being stolen by others? Or did all those intellectual property thefts left you incapable of even forming your own thought?
If you can't explain that, then you don't deserve being pity by others for your ignorance. For "pity makes suffering contagious". |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
First, what you're doing is not proving me as having been lying. Instead, you have been taking my opinions about the case, copyright, Safe Harbors, and facts and rolling them into one snippy reply. There is no way for me to have a discussion with this type of reply. While I do my best to break apart coherent sections, you immediately turn around and add further insult to injury by doing it over and over. The mere fact you ask for my qualifications in regard to being an expert in copyright shows me you're more about arguing rather than education. I will bet a dozen donuts you didn't even read the Universal v. Sony case files. Had you done so, you will clearly see even copyright lawyers can't define this idiotic system in "black and white". I believe you should walk away from this thread. It's obvious you will not respect us by reading the information we present to you and how your logic/replies are refuted with facts, not lies. So, until you do so, this will be my last reply to yours. I think readers are getting pretty sick of this back and forth nonsense. Have a wonderful day, DomFortress. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group