PirateBay Founders Jailed

[danlisa]

Read Here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5170684/What-does-The-Pirate-Bay-ruling-mean-for-the-web.html)

:nope:

So, providing an index service is a violation of Copyright is it?

I sense the deep pockets of the Entertainment Industry here.:shifty:

[Dowly]

They were decided to be quilty long before the trial. We'll see how the ruling changes when they appeal to higher courts.

[XabbaRus]

But they were facilitating piracy by indexing links to copyrighted material.

In that way it is no different to people putting links to cracked software here and Neal doing nothing about it.

I don't deny that copyright law has to be reformed but with this case it seems that there was intent and they knew it was copyrighted material.

Now I see the telegraph guy was asking if google for example could be held liable if an internet search provided a return which was a link to illeagly hosted copyright material. I think that is disningeous as the google search is largely automatic so it won't know if the material is legit or not. With pirate bay there was definitely knowledge it was illegal.

[GlobalExplorer]

So the swedish state has finally given in. Jail for providing infrastructure that is very much similar to google.

In other news: Obama will not prosecute torturers.

Depressing. I just hope they win in a higher court. In also hope there will be a new boost to pirate parties world wide, generation X has been apolitical for far too long.

[danlisa]

Now I see the telegraph guy was asking if google for example could be held liable if an internet search provided a return which was a link to illeagly hosted copyright material. I think that is disingenuous as the google search is largely automatic so it won't know if the material is legit or not. With pirate bay there was definitely knowledge it was illegal.

It's hard to call TBH.

Yes, the majority of indexed links on PriateBay are illegally distributed items however, P2P sites such as these were initially created to share user created/un-copyrighted material. Not all torrents are illegal.

Also, yes I concede that they probably did initially create TPB to share illegal files but that's a hard thing to prove in court. I think a modicum of assumption has been applied to this case. That's not correct for a profile of this size.

[danlisa]

I just hope they win in a higher court. In also hope there will be a new boost to pirate parties world wide, generation X has been apolitical for far too long.

For every one that gets taken down, 2 more arise.;)

The interweb is too large to police effectively.

[XabbaRus]

That's the thing but with a name like pirate bay I think that is a fair assupmtion.

[Rilder]

Next up to be jailed: Google owners for enabling copy protection violation, allowing minors to access porn and a whole host of other illegal activities.

[XabbaRus]

Sorry Rilder I think that is taking it to extremes of silliness to make a point. Looking at what these guys did and going by the name they were quite complicit in diseminating copyrighted material illegally. Say waht you will but copyright holders do have the right to protect their stuff.

I'm not saying they always go about it the right way and I don't think the law is sorted out as it never foresaw the digital age but to spout that is just disingenious.

[NeonSamurai]

Read Here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5170684/What-does-The-Pirate-Bay-ruling-mean-for-the-web.html)

:nope:

So, providing an index service is a violation of Copyright is it?

I sense the deep pockets of the Entertainment Industry here.:shifty:

Uhh the pirate bay is a bit more then a indexing service, they also provide the trackers themselves, and that is a key difference.

Now if they only offered the torrent files with out tracking services that would be a different story.

As for copyright i think it needs some major reforms myself, like the expirey period.

[porphy]

These guys got sentenced 1 year in prison and 30 millions to pay. They were found guilty as accomplices for the crime of illegal file sharing for 20 songs 9 movies and 4 computer games. :-? The court case was about this specific material only and the Pirate Bays part in how this media content was made available for illegal distribution. Whatever one thinks about illegal file sharing, the punishment for the specific crime tried in court is totally ridiculous. :nope:

The initial amount of money claimed from the legal right holders was 100 millions. Everyone knows there is no established or very clear way to calculate this stuff. It will be interesting to see how the court reasons to establish that sum of 30 millions... Compared to other cases, like manslaughter or even a cruel murder, where the guilty part might have to pay some feeble sum for their crime this really makes me think something is wrong in parts of the legal system.

These guys obviously advocate totally free file sharing without control of the content. Voicing that idea is not a crime, not even when you run a bit torrent server where copyright material is found indexed. It seems to me that they where in part convicted for their thoughts and attitude to the whole media industry and copyright holders. They played hard and fast, trusting that the bit torrent technology would protect them, that is, if no illegal content were ever stored on their server or passed through they would be safe. They were probably found guilty as they didn't care about the consequences, which actually can be a crime in some cases. But as other have pointed out, there are a lot of companies out there that doesn't care at all if their services are used for making illegal file sharing easy, as long as their customers pays them good money....

During the trial the question was asked if the legal right holders had tried to locate or contact the persons who uploaded the torrent files for the movies etc. The answer was in every case "no". They didn't even try to find the guys that actually committed the crime, but went only for The Pirate Bay guys and wanted them convicted as sort of accomplices in the crime, which someone else they never had any contact with decided to do. The case, as presented in court, was not very strong in some parts, and I can't shake of the feeling that the guys were found guilty and heavily fined from the the reasoning of something like this: "we already know that they advocate totally free file sharing, and that means they accept crime, and that means that The Pirate Bay was set up to make illegal file sharing easy". Yes, maybe, but I don't think that was very well proved in court, and certainly not with respect to the specified illegally spread material, which The Pirate Bay never handled or distributed themselves.



I look forward to follow the next trial, in this case. :salute:


cheers Porphy

[porphy]

Uhh the pirate bay is a bit more then a indexing service, they also provide the trackers themselves, and that is a key difference.

Now if they only offered the torrent files with out tracking services that would be a different story.

As for copyright i think it needs some major reforms myself, like the expirey period.

True, but if I remember the trial correctly they never managed to show that the files they had downloaded as evidence actually were fully tracked through The Pirate Bay. If I understand the thing right, the torrent file can and do often contain more than one tracker. So in theory, you can download a torrent file from one site,say The pirate Bay, but the tracker used is provided elsewhere or even from more than one place?

[Aramike]

Erm, wasn't it called PIRATEBAY?

[GlobalExplorer]

But you can't be sentenced for the name, otherwise quite a few Rock Bands would be in jail too.

[Aramike]

But you can't be sentenced for the name, otherwise quite a few Rock Bands would be in jail too.No, but if the name describes the activity it's called evidence.

[Platapus]

Well, Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive is the law in Sweden. If they disagreed with the law, they have the right to get the law changed, but in the meantime, it is still the law.

Just because one does not agree with the law does not give one the right to violate it... just the right to ask the legislators to change the law.

[Dowly]

Right, peeps. Most are judging PB by what they are, not by the law. Hosting a tracker website is (AFAIK) legal in sweden and that's what is PB's main weapon, the law. IMHO, the verdict was biased and like Dan said, alot of big companies had their hands in it. Same as the raid that was made on the PB's servers.

Not saying I defend them (I am a terrible liar), but for one, jailing these 2 has absolutely no difference, PB will stay online and/or be reborn and second if they are jailed... well.. they cant be jailed AFAIK if you think about it...

[Stealth Hunter]

Erm, wasn't it called PIRATEBAY?

Yeah. What's your point?

[Aramike]

Yeah. What's your point?Umm, my point was (which everyone else seemed to be able to get) that it was a site clearly promoting copyright piracy.

What these fools were attempting to do is use the letter of the law to skirt the intent of the law. Glad it didn't work.

In any case, what if they opened up a website called "crackbay.com" and let others distribute crack cocaine via that site? Would that be okay too, because, hey - they aren't the ones actually distributing the drug?

[Dowly]

Umm, my point was (which everyone else seemed to be able to get) that it was a site clearly promoting copyright piracy.

What these fools were attempting to do is use the letter of the law to skirt the intent of the law. Glad it didn't work.

In any case, what if they opened up a website called "crackbay.com" and let others distribute crack cocaine via that site? Would that be okay too, because, hey - they aren't the ones actually distributing the drug?

Distributing crack is illegal in most countries, having torrent tracker isnt. That's the difference. My guess is, that the pair wont go to jail. And if the "justice" really prevails, they will be announced not-guilty. They havent done anything wrong by the swedes law AFAIK. It's the pressure from the big companies and the fact that the officials cant do nothing about it that drives them to "make their own laws" and handing out sentences that are based on nothing at all.

IF the 2 guys are found guilty in every court they can appeal to, then it is obvious that it is the pressure from the companies that did it i.e. not fair trial and then I personally will promiso to myself to never ever buy anything anymore. If they can bend the law, so can I.

[CaptainHaplo]

Actually Aramike - your judging the name. So MegaDeath should have been locked up because their "devil music" was filled with lyrics of violence, thus any teenager who killed someone and listened to MegaDeath - must mean that the band was an accomplice to the crime because of the name.

PB servers did not - as the case showed, ever hold any ILLEGAL content. They didn't distribute copyrighted files or any intellectual property.
Those who searched, and downloaded using the torrents, specific IP or copyrighted data - are the ones who were wrong.

By the logic that providing an index is equivilant to a crime - then ANY web browser maker is in trouble. Any search engine is in trouble. One creates an index - often of ILLEGAL things (just because they exist) - and the other provides people a way to access those illegal things.

This is like blaming gun makers for the deaths of those murdered by guns. Instead of blaming the person who pulled the trigger, or in this case used the torrent to gain access to illegal material.

Torrents are a legitimate way to share files. If you doubt that - then why are Company of Heroes patches now available from Relic directly in only a torrent form? Can torrents be used illegally? Of course. So can guns. So lets go jail all the gun makers instead of the murderers.... right?

Not the way I think we should be doing things.

Had these guys been in possession of illegal material - that would be one thing. But they were not.

Show me where they did anything that violated existing law. There isnt anything. Because if you use the standard of indexes equaling the data itself - then every search engine out there better shut down right now. This was simply people seeing something being used for illegal activity, and using these guys as examples and the scapegoats to try and scare the true pirates out there.

Whats even more telling than the fact that they didn't go after the people who actually committed the crimes - did anyone notice that they also failed to go after those CREATING the torrents? Those are the link to the pirates. Funny, no one cares about that huh....

[Aramike]

Actually Aramike - your judging the name.No I'm not, I'm judging their name AND activity.

Sure, they weren't hosting the content - but they were empowering its distribution.

They called themselves the PirateBay, and the content they "tracked" is, by and large, pirated content.Torrents are a legitimate way to share files. If you doubt that - then why are Company of Heroes patches now available from Relic directly in only a torrent form? Can torrents be used illegally? Of course. So can guns. So lets go jail all the gun makers instead of the murderers.... right?This is completely different.

What percentage of content listed on PirateBay was legitimate, do you think?

What percentage of guns are used in crimes, do you think?

Furthermore, considering those facts AND that they IDENTIFY themselves as a piracy site by name, I think there's a case.

Sure, it is just a name. But again, judging the name and activity....

Besides, the more accurate analogy would be the gun maker listing a directory of where to find illegal weapons.

Would that be okay too?

[CaptainHaplo]

I don't disagree that it was used for illegal purposes. But again - why not go after those that used the TOOL provided. Are they not the ones that violated the law?

Its entirely legal to have information that CAN be used in a crime. Its entirely lgal to make that information public.

What is not legal is to use that information to COMMIT a crime.

So why were those that COMMITTED the crimes not tracked and brought down?

If you don't like the gun comparison - try this one. The local alcohol sales place sells to an alcoholic. He decides to imbibe while driving, ends up getting smashed and killing someone. This case is the equivilant to putting the proprieter in jail for accessory to murder, while letting the drunk off scott free.

Dont think so? Here is how - alcohol is legal. So are indexes. It is the choice of the USER to COMMIT a CRIME by driving and drinking and killing someone, just as it is the choice of a leech or seeder to actively perform an action that they know is illegal.

This is a token attempt pushed by the DRM folks. Had the authorities really wanted to deal with this - why not use the trackers to find the seeders and shut them down for the actual distribution? Why not go after those downloading? Instead, they went after highly visible people with name recognition - even though BY LAW they committed no crime. It is simply an attempt to get the DRM folks off law enforcements back, by giving them a public victory. Sad that justice is perverted in doing so.

[Aramike]

I don't disagree that it was used for illegal purposes. But again - why not go after those that used the TOOL provided. Are they not the ones that violated the law?I don't disagree with that at all.Its entirely legal to have information that CAN be used in a crime. Its entirely lgal to make that information public.That's not accurate.

Using your example of guns, if a gun manufacturer were to publish a list of resources where one could purchase illegal weapons, they could face conspiracy charges.

Also, making information public on where to find child-pornography is illegal.

Those are just a couple of examples.If you don't like the gun comparison - try this one. The local alcohol sales place sells to an alcoholic. He decides to imbibe while driving, ends up getting smashed and killing someone. This case is the equivilant to putting the proprieter in jail for accessory to murder, while letting the drunk off scott free.Again, not the same thing. Not even close.

Alcohol is a LEGAL SUBSTANCE. Pirated copyrights are ILLEGAL. There's a very clear distinction between what I'm arguing and how you're countering it.This is a token attempt pushed by the DRM folks. Had the authorities really wanted to deal with this - why not use the trackers to find the seeders and shut them down for the actual distribution? Why not go after those downloading? Instead, they went after highly visible people with name recognition - even though BY LAW they committed no crime. It is simply an attempt to get the DRM folks off law enforcements back, by giving them a public victory. Sad that justice is perverted in doing so. So we should let people publish lists on where to find child-porn?

By your logic, so long as they aren't actually making, distributing, or viewing it it'd be okay, right?

[NeonSamurai]

This is a token attempt pushed by the DRM folks. Had the authorities really wanted to deal with this - why not use the trackers to find the seeders and shut them down for the actual distribution? Why not go after those downloading? Instead, they went after highly visible people with name recognition - even though BY LAW they committed no crime. It is simply an attempt to get the DRM folks off law enforcements back, by giving them a public victory. Sad that justice is perverted in doing so.

Well for one thing accessing a tracker using a torrent that offers copywrite material is not a crime, Downloading it in many countries also isn't a crime per say, uploading it however is (and with bittorrent you upload while downloading). So the only way they can go after someone is to have them upload part of the copyright material to a company peer and then trace the IP. Also taking over a tracker generaly doesnt work either, as a lot trackers are set up to only use volitile memory and to purge if they are tampered with, and they don't keep any logs.

As for going after the seeders, there are way to may of them to effectivly go after (technicaly everyone who is downloading is also seeding the torrent file), most companies just send a take down threat to offenders they catch (via their isp). Its so wide spread now that its like trying to stop a tidalwave with a fishing net (and prosecuting Joe Shmoe college kid who can't afford to buy what he pirates makes the companies look like ogres to the public). So the companies then go after the trackers and index sites and try to take them out. They bring to bear a lot of pressure on countries to tow the line and shut down the sites, even though by law they cannot do that (I would probably bet money the Pirate Bay case gets overturned on appeal).

Aramike, I can easily find direct links to pirated software, and other illegal stuff on google and any other search engine, by your logic they should be prosecuted as well. All search engines work in ways very similar to torrent sites.

I have to say while I don't like software piracy, I don't like corporations using their power to twist the law either. I also don't much like the corporations themselves after being burned so often by them (its funny how them ripping us off with faulty software and the like is perfectly ok, but when they get ripped off they scream bloody murder).

[Stealth Hunter]

Umm, my point was (which everyone else seemed to be able to get) that it was a site clearly promoting copyright piracy.

That's a somewhat rash assumption. They may have just liked the name...

[owner20071963]

Well for one thing accessing a tracker using a torrent that offers copywrite material is not a crime, Downloading it in many countries also isn't a crime per say, uploading it however is (and with bittorrent you upload while downloading). So the only way they can go after someone is to have them upload part of the copyright material to a company peer and then trace the IP. Also taking over a tracker generaly doesnt work either, as a lot trackers are set up to only use volitile memory and to purge if they are tampered with, and they don't keep any logs.

As for going after the seeders, there are way to may of them to effectivly go after (technicaly everyone who is downloading is also seeding the torrent file), most companies just send a take down threat to offenders they catch (via their isp). Its so wide spread now that its like trying to stop a tidalwave with a fishing net (and prosecuting Joe Shmoe college kid who can't afford to buy what he pirates makes the companies look like ogres to the public). So the companies then go after the trackers and index sites and try to take them out. They bring to bear a lot of pressure on countries to tow the line and shut down the sites, even though by law they cannot do that (I would probably bet money the Pirate Bay case gets overturned on appeal).

Aramike, I can easily find direct links to pirated software, and other illegal stuff on google and any other search engine, by your logic they should be prosecuted as well. All search engines work in ways very similar to torrent sites.

I have to say while I don't like software piracy, I don't like corporations using their power to twist the law either. I also don't much like the corporations themselves after being burned so often by them (its funny how them ripping us off with faulty software and the like is perfectly ok, but when they get ripped off they scream bloody murder).

Totally agree,
Remember
[1] Internet Is File Sharing
[2] Every Country has Rules
[3] No Government,Or Country,
Can Rule Freedom Of Speech,eg,The Internet
[4] Every Country in this world has Access
[5] You Cannot Be Charged And Jailed By Providing A Link,
[6] The said webite provided Free Links To Users
To make a Choice,
[7] You are being Charged by Your Provider On Internet Access
[8] The Internet Is Yours,To Choose,Purchase Or Whatever
[9] This will hurt Big Online Companys; If the likes of Warner Bros
continue to Pursue Free File Sharing,then Companys Worldwide
will Sue them,Why?
[10] The Internet is What You Pay For;
So Sue Me For Sending My Friend A PM Or Music Or A Movie
If its for Home Use Only,
Thats what we Pay For,
Internet Free Access,
It must be Guarded To an Extent,
But That Website Just Points to Wherever,
You Choose,
You Download :salute:

[Aramike]

That's a somewhat rash assumption. They may have just liked the name...So a child porn directory site named "kiddieporn.com" would be okay because they may have just liked the name, right?

Although I do admit, it must be fun to make up loop-hole excuses for criminal behavior...

In any case, calling a site "piratebay" while that site is used chiefly for pirating is normally considered good evidence in any court.

You know, calling a duck a duck shouldn't be evidence AGAINST the duck being a duck...

[Aramike]

Aramike, I can easily find direct links to pirated software, and other illegal stuff on google and any other search engine, by your logic they should be prosecuted as well. All search engines work in ways very similar to torrent sites.If that's my "logic" than you didn't either read or comprehend my posts.

Google isn't in the business of primarily categorizing pirated works.

Piratebay is.

That's been my logic all along.

Am I wrong in the assumption that the VAST majority of torrent search engines such as piratebay consists of illegal distributions?

Furthermore, if typical search engines are adequate what's the need for torrent sites such as Piratebay? What market does it serve?

You guessed it: illegal piracy.

Postscript: I am a tad shocked that most people on here seem to think that sites such as those who clearly primarily serve illegal distribution are okay - even without demonstrating that other uses prevail. Makes one think people have a vested interest...

PPS: If you Google most illegal torrent files, the first links you find are on the torrent directories. I have nothing against torrents - just being intellectually honest about copyrighted works.

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike - again we agree and disagree at the same time.

Yes, PirateBay was likely USED for illegal activity almost all the time. I am not disputing that point. But the question isn't how they were used - because how they were/are used goes back to the pirate that used them, not the hosts themselves. Thats the key. The question is did the founders violate the law in some fashion. The fact that they did not have in their possession any copyrighted or IP protected data means they did not violate the letter of the law. The spirit of it? Maybe - but I have a serious issue with anyone being convicted of a crime because some judge or jury "imparted" their own views to the interpretation of a law. When that happens - justice is no longer the blindfolded weighing of evidence, it becomes the twisting of laws to suit those in power. Which this was.

As to your example of child pornography, that is the example that doesn't apply. To my knowledge, that type of thing (files, data, tapes, pictures, etc) are illegal in every form. As it should be. However, copyrighted material or IP protected data in electronic form is not illegal to have. In fact, we purchase it every time we buy a game, or a music cd, or a DVD movie. There is a big difference to giving people access to material that is illegal to POSSESS in any form, vs material that is commercially available.

If I buy a movie for my kids, then let a friend borrow it for their kid, by your logic I just violated the copyright and should be jailed. Because I made copyright material available to someone who didn't "buy" it. My neighbor has a huge movie collection , and tells everyone in the neighborhood they are welcome to borrow any movies they like. By doing that - he does the same thing as someone providing torrents. Giving access to material they didn't buy, but they can use it. So Aramike, is he committing a crime? Am I if I borrow a DVD to watch Jeff Dunham for a night of laughs with my lady? After all, I didn't buy the movie myself.

Now to be fair, I do realize one difference here - one is borrowing the "data" on disk, meaning he can't use it while I am, where pirate torrents mean people are copying that protected data. However, again - that goes back on the people using the information for illegal purposes. Its the equivilant of them "borrowing" the DVD and making a copy of it on their own. If a neighborhood person did that - they are the criminal, not my neighbor who allowed them access to the data. Its not the access that is illegal - its what you do with it since its commercially available data. Because we are dealing with torrent files, simple flat text really - its even worse because those files aren't even the real data. They are the same thing as him saying "Sure, drop by and pick up whatever you like from the collection". They are not protected data in any form by themselves.

One has to ask, had they not been named what they are, and had they claimed (regardless of reality) the data they provided was to allow legitimate users to gain access to previously purchased data that had been "destroyed" or rendered unusable, would the outcome be the same? I believe so, because this was pushed by DRM folks.

I am not agreeing with their name, or their real purpose. But the fact is that their actions simply do not - at least in the US - constitute a crime. The actions of those that used the indexes for illegal purposes - does. I do not agree with what they did, but my beef here is that the wrong people were prosecuted. Prosecuting people because you don't like what they were doing - when that doing was not truly illegal, is just wrong on principle.

One more example - a personal one - to perhaps put this into perspective. I have my motorcycle endorsement (required to ride a bike in this state) and used to ride ALOT when I was younger. This state also has a helmet law, if you ride, you must "wear an NCDOT approved helmet." I bought an appropriate quarter-helm and printed the general statute, carrying it with me in my back pocket. Then when I went riding, at times I would strap the helmet to my belt, or to my shoulder, instead of my head. Now - yes - I know - not the smartest thing. But the point is when I did that, I was often pulled and ticketed. I held the position that the law said I had to wear the helmet, but it didn't say I had to wear it on my head. Every single time I showed up for court with the General Statute in my hand, the case was tossed because I abided by what the law SAID, not what some state trooper or district attorney "thought it meant".

Make publishing indexes to copyright data illegal - and I would have no problem here. But to prosecute something that isn't illegal per the law, in an attempt to stop a true crime, while ignoring those who actually commit the crime, is just principally wrong in my book, and I will say so every time I see it done.

[NeonSamurai]

Couple of things, most trackers and indexing sites contain a mix of legitemate and illegitemate material. These sites are by in large a giant free for all where users upload what ever they want. The pirate bay is one of those. A key thing though is that they will not remove any links on their site when threatened by the MPAA and other groups on the grounds of Swedish law. Their name seems to come from the political party who founded the site, piratbyran.

Now there are purely illegal material sites and trackers where they only thing on their trackers is pirated material, but those sites are usualy private members only sites, and the tracker is located in a country where such stuff is not illegal (or where international copyright isnt recognized or respected).

Also as I said google links to plenty of illegal material, and even caches it. Should they be charged also? Google also like TPB makes virtualy no effort in filtering out of its search engine pirated or other illegal material. Worse though is their servers can contain cached illegal material, though unintentionaly.

Anyhow I don't support piracy, but I don't like the law being twisted far beyond its intent either. The MPAA and the like should be targeting those who directly make the material available, the ones who create the torrents and use trackers for illegal purposes. Problem is though, they are hard targets to pin down, so they attack the easier highly visible targets, and pressure the governments involved to twist their own laws.

Btw most countries operate on the notion that it is far worse to offer software to be pirated, then to actualy pirate it for personal use. I don't belive there has ever been a case where a person who downloaded a game or a song (or a whole pile of them) that has gone to court. The infamous mp3 cases were against people offering the songs for download only.

Even if the law does change, it wont change much, new tech will come along to get around it. One example would be a program that takes files and breaks them into blocks (note the blocks themselves contain no code or anything recognisable from the source file), and then makes a recipie, the blocks are made available over the network. The key thing is that the blocks themselves do not contain copyright data as each block can be applied to a wide range of recipies (an infinate number). So a block used for a pirated game could also be used in the recipie for music, or your grandmothers apple pie recipe file. So to download something (legal or not) you just need the recipie and download the needed blocks to form it. This scheme evades copyright law as the recipie does not itself contain any copyrighted data, and neither do the individual blocks, only when the 2 are combined will you get something that could be illegal. Such software already exists (not going to name it) and will probably be the next thing if bit torrent gets taken out.

In the end they are fighting a tidal wave and in the long run it could kill the software industry, and the recording industry (not the music industry though as live performances are still most artist's bread and butter). As such I think both sides need to wake up, the software/recording industry needs to stop screwing over their customer base, overcharging, and treating their customers like criminals with over the top DRM, and using piracy as an excuse for all their woes (like blaming piracy for a title not selling well, when it was unoriginal, bug ridden, and loaded with DRM). People need to cut back on the file sharing, and pay for what they like best and they can afford (this is good for the industry too as it will trim out the bad companies). You are never going to eliminate it, its been going on since the begining of files and recordable formats (tape, floppy, cd, dvd, etc).

What realy hurts companies, is filesharing (pirating) that which you could have easily afforded to purchase, and liked.

(Disclamer: The above is purely my own opinion and thoughts, not that of Subsim.com, its administrators, or any other staff.)

[Aramike]

Yes, PirateBay was likely USED for illegal activity almost all the time. I am not disputing that point. But the question isn't how they were used - because how they were/are used goes back to the pirate that used them, not the hosts themselves. Thats the key. The question is did the founders violate the law in some fashion. The fact that they did not have in their possession any copyrighted or IP protected data means they did not violate the letter of the law. The spirit of it? Maybe - but I have a serious issue with anyone being convicted of a crime because some judge or jury "imparted" their own views to the interpretation of a law. When that happens - justice is no longer the blindfolded weighing of evidence, it becomes the twisting of laws to suit those in power. Which this was.It's not the twisting of laws - the terms are conspiracy and accessory, at least in the US.By doing that - he does the same thing as someone providing torrents. Giving access to material they didn't buy, but they can use it. So Aramike, is he committing a crime? Am I if I borrow a DVD to watch Jeff Dunham for a night of laughs with my lady? After all, I didn't buy the movie myself. That's not my logic at all. In the US, copyrights expressly permits this.Now - yes - I know - not the smartest thing. But the point is when I did that, I was often pulled and ticketed. I held the position that the law said I had to wear the helmet, but it didn't say I had to wear it on my head. Every single time I showed up for court with the General Statute in my hand, the case was tossed because I abided by what the law SAID, not what some state trooper or district attorney "thought it meant". And I believe that the case shouldn't have been dropped. The law provides room for common sense. The legal term is "precedent".Make publishing indexes to copyright data illegal - and I would have no problem here. But to prosecute something that isn't illegal per the law, in an attempt to stop a true crime, while ignoring those who actually commit the crime, is just principally wrong in my book, and I will say so every time I see it done. I do agree that it should be specifically outlawed. However, again I believe that judges have the right and, quite frankly, the duty to properly determine the application of law. I'm not talking about those who create new laws based on their beliefs, however - I am talking about those who understand that a helmet wearing requirement clearly means on the head.

That's why we have judges.