The Pirate Bay in Legal Soup, Owners Fined and Jailed

[tkpenalty]

John Kennedy, chairman and chief executive of global music body, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industries, said: "The operators of The Pirate Bay have always been interested in making money, not music.

This disgusts me, and what are record labels out to do? Make even more money. The Pirate Bay's owners dont even make 1/1000th of what record labels make in a year. I have to admit it but this is the scum of capitalism.

And whats funny is how John Kennedy mentions how The Pirate bay has been interested in making money, not music, the Pirate bay has never been interested in either, it just wants to distribute content to its users; a free world. Moreover do record labels actually make the music? Its their artists, and all the record labels do, is record, and then package the records and ship them to retail outlets, and advertise.

 

[KainXS]

in the music industry the tyrant is not the artists its the record labels, I know a few record artists personally, and I have not heard one of them say something good about them, they always rant about how they are being ripped off by them and not getting what they agreed to and there is nothing to do about it, Some artists have tried to fight back and mostly all have failed so far.

Its the higherups that are the enemy here

You guys say artists are profiting and you don't understand they're getting screwed also, only the large companies are making some "nice" profit.

 

[my_name_is_earl]

-1 torrent +1 Fat Pig, heard Mininova is next on the list :[

 

[farlex85]

This disgusts me, and what are record labels out to do? Make even more money. The Pirate Bay's owners dont even make 1/1000th of what record labels make in a year. I have to admit it but this is the scum of capitalism.

And whats funny is how John Kennedy mentions how The Pirate bay has been interested in making money, not music, the Pirate bay has never been interested in either, it just wants to distribute content to its users; a free world. Moreover do record labels actually make the music? Its their artists, and all the record labels do, is record, and then package the records and ship them to retail outlets, and advertise.

Preach it.

Places like the pirate bay and torrents and, well, the internet in general may not be the best solution, but they have freed us from the tyranny of record labels and have really opened the doors for the future of music. The market is now better than ever, the music industry is thriving more than ever, it's just not being funneled like any other corporate venture anymore. The doors are blown wide open, the corporate big wigs can fight it all they want, we'll keep running with our headphones on, they'd do good to have a listen.

 

[TheMailMan78]

What they are willing to take is extortionate. They can lower the cost and still make oodles of money.

Ok YOU think its extortionate. They think its fair. I think Lamborghini's are extortionate but I've never stole one because I felt that.

WhiteLotus is right they expect us to pay loads of money when the profits they make go into the billions.
IF they are a monopoly or are market leaders they can practically charge what they like

They provide an unnecessary good. It has another name right now but it escapes me. Anyway you do not NEED it to live therefore they cannot "overcharge" you for it. Especially when listening to songs on the radio is free.

So local councils should be shut down if people utilize their environment for crime purposes ?

Individuals should be held accountable, not the platform they are working on.

The platform they operate on is the Internet. No one is shutting that down. Also if this councils sole purpose was to commit crimes than yes. It should be shut down. FYI don't argue its not. They named the thing "Pirate Bay".

so lets look at this situation, if you bought a dvd player as new and you opened the box and it was broken who was robbed there, I believe you should be able to demo something before you buy it so you don't get ripped off, I was done with buying games I couldn't test after buying spore and getting pwned, if its bad I just don't buy it and don't play it.

Theres a limit sure, if you pirate something with no intention of EVER paying for it that is clearly illegal, but if you buy something and it turns out to be advertised then that should also be illegal.

The store is robbed if you buy a DVD player and its been open and broken. Return it. As for buying a game and not liking it than download the demo. If there is no demo read reviews. If you are still not sure then don't buy the game. You do not have a right to steal an exotic car and test drive it because the dealer doesn't let you due to whatever reason.

So technically everyone that taped the radio back in the day to get a particular song is also guilty of pirating?
Also those people that try chocolates for free at those stands with no intention of buying a box afterwords is also a pirate.
Most bands now let you listen to their songs on their website without paying them - so i guess that's pirating seeing as your not paying for the privilege of listening to them.

Songs that are played on the radio are like game demos. They are designed to promote the game. They want word to spread about the game so they give you a test for free. Songs on the radio are the same. The only time you get in trouble for that is when you sell the tapes.

If you eat anything at a store that isn't offered as a free sample then you are a thief until you pay for it. As for the bands comment and offering their song on the web as a free trial before you buy then thats their business. They are no different than a company representative giving free samples of its company's goods at the market.

This disgusts me, and what are record labels out to do? Make even more money. The Pirate Bay's owners dont even make 1/1000th of what record labels make in a year. I have to admit it but this is the scum of capitalism.

And whats funny is how John Kennedy mentions how The Pirate bay has been interested in making money, not music, the Pirate bay has never been interested in either, it just wants to distribute content to its users; a free world. Moreover do record labels actually make the music? Its their artists, and all the record labels do, is record, and then package the records and ship them to retail outlets, and advertise.

It doesn't matter how much the record company makes. Its none of your business. Because they make money that makes them bad? I think because someone wants something free that makes them lazy. If they steal it that makes them a thief.

Guys no matter how you spin this its legal and ethically wrong. Intellectual property is still PROPERTY and you cannot take it without permission. These jackasses provided a service that gave you the tools to take whatever you wanted at any time. Look at it this way. If you come to my house and I have a box of car keys and I tell you these are the keys to an exotic car lot. Take how many you want because I THINK they charge to much for them. Guess who goes to jail with you as an accomplice when you steal that Lamborghini. Sure I can deny I gave you the keys but these guys bragged about it.

 

[farlex85]

Guys no matter how you spin this its legal and ethically wrong. Intellectual property is still PROPERTY and you cannot take it without permission. These jackasses provided a service that gave you the tools to take whatever you wanted at any time. Look at it this way. If you come to my house and I have a box of car keys and I tell you these are the keys to an exotic car lot. Take how many you want because I THINK they charge to much for them. Guess who goes to jail with you as an accomplice when you steal that Lamborghini. Sure I can deny I gave you the keys but these guys bragged about it.

It's true it's theft. For the sake of argument let's just say TPB deserves to be shut down. Now another 10 pop up. Why? Why does the RIAA and other keep pursuing this? What is there to gain? Imo they have been attempting to stop this since Napster, and look what good it's done. It's a difficult problem for sure, but a truly successful venture is one that adapts to change, not one that fights it tooth and nail. Satalite radio, itunes, the deceased Ruckus, these are progressive ways of moving into this realm. Fighting every torrent engine that comes up won't do anyone any good except perhaps alienate potential customers.

Money is to be made in concerts, TV, internet sites, and still in CDs and mp3s. But sooner or later they have to change the way they do business or it will only hurt more than help. One of the main reasons capitalism can be good is the consumer should control the market. If you want their business you do it their way.

 

[Relayer]

I would like to know how much the RIAA, MPAA and software companies have spent on lawyers, media coverage, etc. These pirate bay guys will go to jail, they will get out early and they will be unable to pay that massive fine.

It's not about the cost of this lawsuit. It's about setting a precedent. The Pirate Bay was an easy target. If they called themselves "The Torrent Depository" the plaintiffs might not have targeted them. Just by their name though they announced their intentions. This made it easier for the case to be made against them. Once the precedent has been made though, they can go to other sites that do the same thing and have them fined and put in jail (theoretically). Do this to 5 or 6 of the largest sites and you'll scare the others off.

What we need is for the RIAA and MPAA to be deemed monopolies and regulated as to not take advantage of their ability to basically charge whatever they please for movies and music. When individuals are making 10's of millions of dollars per movie I think it's excessive. If they were able to eliminate p2p file sharing how much more would they be able to charge?

 

[TheMailMan78]

It's true it's theft. For the sake of argument let's just say TPB deserves to be shut down. Now another 10 pop up. Why? Why does the RIAA and other keep pursuing this? What is there to gain? Imo they have been attempting to stop this since Napster, and look what good it's done. It's a difficult problem for sure, but a truly successful venture is one that adapts to change, not one that fights it tooth and nail. Satalite radio, itunes, the deceased Ruckus, these are progressive ways of moving into this realm. Fighting every torrent engine that comes up won't do anyone any good except perhaps alienate potential customers.

Money is to be made in concerts, TV, internet sites, and still in CDs and mp3s. But sooner or later they have to change the way they do business or it will only hurt more than help. One of the main reasons capitalism can be good is the consumer should control the market. If you want their business you do it their way.

Why? Because some people are lazy and cheap. The RIAA has every right to defend its property and should at all costs. Not you or anyone else has the right to take what is rightfully theirs. As for how they make their money you have no right to dictate how they do it. Unless its illegal.

 

[farlex85]

Why? Because some people are lazy and cheap. The RIAA has every right to defend its property and should at all costs. Not you or anyone else has the right to take what is rightfully theirs. As for how they make their money you have no right to dictate how they do it. Unless its illegal.

I'm not saying they don't have the right, I'm saying they are fighting a losing battle and they are stubbornly digging their own hole. I do have a say in how they make their money, that's what the consumer market is all about. If I don't like what they sell, I won't buy it. If enough are the same, they won't make any money. They can either try and find another way to make money or wither.

You're an artist so I understand your stringent belief in creative rights, but I don't. I also don't believe in drug laws. I also don't believe in speed traps and various other aspects of the law. Do others have the "right" to prosecute me if I don't fall in line? Sure, but you can bet that doesn't change my mind about how it should be, and I'll push when I can and when the time is right.

As I said this isn't an easy fix, you can simply say well it's the law, but that never was good enough for me. And in this case, it isn't good enough for most.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I'm not saying they don't have the right, I'm saying they are fighting a losing battle and they are stubbornly digging their own hole. I do have a say in how they make their money, that's what the consumer market is all about. If I don't like what they sell, I won't buy it. If enough are the same, they won't make any money. They can either try and find another way to make money or wither.

You're an artist so I understand your stringent belief in creative rights, but I don't. I also don't believe in drug laws. I also don't believe in speed traps and various other aspects of the law. Do others have the "right" to prosecute me if I don't fall in line? Sure, but you can bet that doesn't change my mind about how it should be, and I'll push when I can and when the time is right.

As I said this isn't an easy fix, you can simply say well it's the law, but that never was good enough for me. And in this case, it isn't good enough for most.

Well its a simple fix. A lot more simple then downloading a torrent and DL music from Pirate Bay. DON'T BUY THEIR PRODUCT. You said it yourself. They will fail and a new business model will form. Until then however you can't break the law of ethics or government.

Out of curiosity why do you think I do not have a right to protect whats mine? Do you?

 

[farlex85]

Well its a simple fix. A lot more simple then downloading a torrent and DL music from Pirate Bay. DON'T BUY THEIR PRODUCT. You said it yourself. They will fail and a new business model will form. Until then however you can't break the law of ethics or government.

Or, the law can be changed. This isn't an age old creed passed down for 100s of years. Music used to be a community thing, not something you could put ownership on. Only recently has it been put on such a pedestal. I think it's time to take it down. It's much prettier and varied down here.

I don't think creativity is something that can be owned. You can own a CD, you can own the computer, you can own the internet space, but you can't own the music. If I hum a tune that you wrote to myself, am I stealing it?

 

[TheMailMan78]

Or, the law can be changed. This isn't an age old creed passed down for 100s of years. Music used to be a community thing, not something you could put ownership on. Only recently has it been put on such a pedestal. I think it's time to take it down. It's much prettier and varied down here.

Its still a community thing. You can play any song you want on your own guitar. However if you want to listen to the original composer then that will cost you. It always has. Do you think Beethoven's concerts were free? Have music record's ever been free? Because of the Internet artists lose all rights to their creations? Just because you can steal electronically now you want it made legal?

 

[farlex85]

Its still a community thing. You can play any song you want on your own guitar. However if you want to listen to the original composer then that will cost you. It always has. Do you think Beethoven's concerts were free? Have music record's ever been free? Because of the Internet artists lose all rights to their creations? Just because you can steal electronically now you want it made legal?

Much of Beethoven's original work was simply played at parties and other gatherings, or for the church. This was common with music of the period. You had to pay to see a show, just as you must pay now. Most primitive music before then was almost always religious, and almost always a community participatory thing. Modern technology has brought in the idea of purchasing recorded mediums. Most of the profit went to those who distributed the recording (record companies). Now the internet allows for anyone and everyone to distribute music freely and easily, eliminating the need for a record company all together imo. You still have to pay to see the shows, but you shouldn't be expected to pay for the recordings. Should you pay me for reading this post? It's mine.

 

[kciaccio]

They could have used a more low profile name for christ sake!! I am sure the name alone pissed them off. Probably why they got targeted sooner than other torrents.lol

 

[TheMailMan78]

Much of Beethoven's original work was simply played at parties and other gatherings, or for the church. This was common with music of the period. You had to pay to see a show, just as you must pay now. Most primitive music before then was almost always religious, and almost always a community participatory thing. Modern technology has brought in the idea of purchasing recorded mediums. Most of the profit went to those who distributed the recording (record companies). Now the Internet allows for anyone and everyone to distribute music freely and easily, eliminating the need for a record company all together imo. You still have to pay to see the shows, but you shouldn't be expected to pay for the recordings. Should you pay me for reading this post? It's mine.

So let me get this straight. Artists have no right to their work or how its used because its not tangible? Then a car mechanic has no rights to his repairs only parts. His time should be free. If you do data entry it should be done free. Chiefs should cook for free. Waitresses should wait for free. See my point?

Also no you posted this on a free forum. However if you wrote it in a book I would expect to pay to read your rhetoric

 

[RadeonProVega]

buy the new, share the oldies, thats my way of thinking. I remember warning supernova(another bittorrent site) years ago , but they did not listen, and look what happen with that.

 

[farlex85]

So let me get this straight. Artists have no right to their work or how its used because its not tangible? Then a car mechanic has no rights to his repairs only parts. His time should be free. If you do data entry it should be done free. Chiefs should cook for free. Waitresses should wait for free. See my point?

Also no you posted this on a free forum. However if you wrote it in a book I would expect to pay to read your rhetoric

Correct. Intellectual property is imo a farce. My ideas written on a forum are no more worth money than someones compositions (not saying they are equal, I would much rather pay for music than my rantings ). What, because they are "artists" their ideas are worth more than mine? You pay chefs and waitresses because they make your company money. Essentially the money comes from the ingredients that are bought, which are made into food and served. You pay them to complete these steps. CDs are what the money comes from in the music business, you pay artists to make them. When the artists can distribute their music themselves, the company is no longer needed. If the artist wants to charge, that's fine, many will pay. How much does it cost to put a song on the internet? How many need to pay you to turn a profit? Not many.

The Pirate Bay was also free.........

 

[pantherx12]

The materials in question were created in a free world.

Its just relative and as I said earlier, depends on personal moral codes and ethics as well as social norms etc.

Its all just getting a bit silly, we have different opinions guys, its nature!

 

[ShogoXT]

In my eyes I dont recognize the publishers anymore. The developers that are embracing digital distribution are prospering and laughing at the publishers. Its not our fault they keep trying to force their expensive craptastic CDs on us that are old tech by now. "You wont buy our CDs!?!?! SUE SUE SUE you must be evil". Along with that it seems they make alot of their money off of sueing their customers. By now its their business to sue people, not sell people things.

EA: "Ahh we are dieing because of pirating, there is no way around it!"

Valve and Stardock: "lawl get with the program newbs, we are rolling with green without having to make any disks!"

The fact Valve and Stardock say such things (not worded like I worded it) instantly falsifies the publishers and EAs claims in general. If they were so right, why are there other people being successful!?!? I would believe them if they were all going into bankruptcy and all complaining all at once that its impossible for them to make a living, but its wrong. Game companies that are smart and switching to digital distro are successful.

Quit punishing your customers for your own failures god damnit. Its just like giving AIGs retired CEOs bonuses. WORST BS EVER. NO REWARDS FOR YOUR FAILZ!

 

[farlex85]

In my eyes I dont recognize the publishers anymore. The developers that are embracing digital distribution are prospering and laughing at the publishers. Its not our fault they keep trying to force their expensive craptastic CDs on us that are old tech by now. "You wont buy our CDs!?!?! SUE SUE SUE you must be evil". Along with that it seems they make alot of their money off of sueing their customers. By now its their business to sue people, not sell people things.

EA: "Ahh we are dieing because of pirating, there is no way around it!"

Valve and Stardock: "lawl get with the program newbs, we are rolling with green without having to make any disks!"

The fact Valve and Stardock say such things (not worded like I worded it) instantly falsifies the publishers and EAs claims in general. If they were so right, why are there other people being successful!?!? I would believe them if they were all going into bankruptcy and all complaining all at once that its impossible for them to make a living, but its wrong. Game companies that are smart and switching to digital distro are successful.

Quit punishing your customers for your own failures god damnit. Its just like giving AIGs retired CEOs bonuses. WORST BS EVER.

Exactly, even if it is wrong what the consumer is doing, you are still better off finding a way to appeal to them and have them pay you than spending resources on telling them how bad they are. It's bad business 101.

 

[troyrae360]

Also check the will google be sued link. surley if the pirate bay gose down the so should google for giving us links to even worse eg kiddy porn etc....
+ google has an even bigger database of illegal downloads probley the biggest!!
really it shouldnt the ISP's be responsable for illegal internet traffic?

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=1329503#post1329503

 

[pantherx12]

No, users should be.

Its blaming company's and higher ups all the time that has caused horrible things like political correctness and OTT health and safety, and all the damn cameras and such like in the UK.

( well maybe not the last point)

 

[farlex85]

No, users should be.

Its blaming company's and higher ups all the time that has caused horrible things like political correctness and OTT health and safety, and all the damn cameras and such like in the UK.

( well maybe not the last point)

I agree with that as well, the user can be the only one held responsible for misusing something. Back to the whole punish everyone thing, it just doesn't work. In the case of The Pirate Bay though, their name and general bravado really was their own fault. That doesn't (shouldn't) hold up in a courtroom, but there's no need for that.

 

[troyrae360]

No, users should be.

Its blaming company's and higher ups all the time that has caused horrible things like political correctness and OTT health and safety, and all the damn cameras and such like in the UK.

( well maybe not the last point)

yes, users should be. But if the pirate bay gets done then so should google and isp's.

 

[DaMulta]

Why? Because some people are lazy and cheap. The RIAA has every right to defend its property and should at all costs. Not you or anyone else has the right to take what is rightfully theirs. As for how they make their money you have no right to dictate how they do it. Unless its illegal.

I have youtube where everything is free
I can rip and make CDs all day everyday there