The Pirate Bay Verdict

[Nubbins]

rapeage....

http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39424654,00.htm

The Pirate Bay outcome could have wide and lasting implications for the likes of Google and YouTube, says lawyer Simon Levine.

Last week's verdict that the four founders of The Pirate Bay file-sharing website were guilty of helping to make copyright-protected content available to others marked a major milestone in online litigation.

The penalty of $3.6m will go toward compensation of 17 music and media companies, including MGM, Sony BMG and Warner. This penalty is significant, as it is the largest case ruling since the 2001 Napster case, and is clearly a victory for media rights owners.

One interesting feature of the case is that the founders of the site were found guilty of helping to make copyright-protected content available, a secondary act of infringement which is different to actual copyright infringement in the traditional or primary sense.

Similar to Napster, The Pirate Bay site did not host audio and video files, but instead included links to material hosted elsewhere on the internet. In other words, the site was found to be guilty of facilitating illegal file-sharing.

This case also serves as a reminder that the same rules of copyright infringement apply whether the content is online or offline. This is something a lot of people tend to forget, or choose to ignore due to the flexibility in online regulation.

The Pirate Bay founders have vowed to appeal the ruling. It's hard to speculate on how they will fare but chances are it will be difficult for a successful appeal as the precedent is out there now so the example has been set.

Indeed the precedent set by The Pirate Bay ruling could soon have wide implications. The likes of YouTube and Google may be affected, as they also provide access to copyright-protected material. Indeed we are still awaiting the outcome of trials in the United States surrounding YouTube's ability to offer copyright material free of charge to the general public.

So the tide seems to be changing - but is it all one way? Perhaps not - this case also emphasises the fact that traditional business models do not always work in the online environment.

New models still need to be adopted for the digital age to help end these sorts of copyright breaches, encourage users to use legitimate products and see it as good value. This very point is highlighted in Lord Mandelson's Digital Britain report - but it will need to happen sooner rather than later, otherwise more companies are going to be in the legal firing line.

Finally it must be kept in mind that The Pirate Bay case is just one ruling in one country. While most countries have similar laws outlining copyright infringement and rights, it is difficult to compare with certainty what happened in Sweden with what could happen in the UK. But as new UK laws and practices are set, it is more likely that companies and individuals could find themselves in a similar situation to The Pirate Bay.

And that is no bad thing - the ruling is a positive outcome for all media rights' owners. People who facilitate the infringement of copyright need to be stopped for the benefit of all creative industries, and the outcome of this case is a significant step in the right direction.

Piracy does not suddenly become acceptable because it is on the internet. This is something The Pirate Bay learnt the hard way.

[nacho]

Pirate Bay had it coming anyway.  Yet another massively high profile torrent site taken down!  This will teahc them to spend years openly mocking the system and saying that they're untouchable. 

Weirdly, it's almost a judgment against our modern entitlement culture.   

[Tatertots]

Except they have a good case for an appeal because it turns out the judge was biased:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/drm/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217100145&subSection=Privacy

[nacho]

Yeah, there was that.  Which isn't surprising either!  But, still, I think they got what they deserved.  They were idiots about it.

[Tatertots]

Actually they have a very strong case. There's *nothing* on their servers that is copyrighted. At all. They may be accessory to copyright infringement because they turn a blind eye to it, but they're only that: accessories.

Using The Pirate Bay is the same thing as searching Google with "filetype:torrent", basically. There's technically no illegal information on their servers. If you're going to sue The Pirate Bay, you better sue Google, too.

It's like suing a map maker because they made a map with the red-light district outlined.

[Cassander]

i did sue that mapmaker, and i won. 


their damages were teaching me how to fold a map correctly.  they were sooooooo pissed.

[Tatertots]

Am I the only one who finds folding insane maps to be plenty easy?

[Cassander]

triathalon maps only have two folds....?

[Tatertots]

Maps of your mother, however, have a very large number of folds.

[nacho]

I agree with you Tyson, but then they flaunted it.  They'd go around saying that they were untouchable and everybody should download and so on.  Hubris.  They should have just kept quiet and anonymous.  No flag waving torrents are a culture stuff.

When you have all these corporations gunning for this shit, the last thing you should do is try to stand up to them... They'll never catch the secret sites, the member's sites, or the ones that understand how to be criminals.

It's the difference between smoking pot privately and cultivating it in your front yard.  Or, in this case, the vacant lot next to your house.

[Nubbins]

I agree with Tyson.  If they didn't have anything copyrighted on their servers and were merely directing people to places where illegal stuff was available, they might be able to win an appeal.  Even the flaunting is understandable because, in the end, it's just free speech.

Of course, you're right too... if they'd just kept their mouths shut then none of this would have happened.

[Sirharles]

Now I know I'm a noob when it comes to this interweb thing, but I just don't get the appeal of downloading all this stuff.  Is it the thrill of doing something illegal or morally grey?  Is it because it's free?  To me, it's way more hassle than it's worth.

[nacho]

Now I know I'm a noob when it comes to this interweb thing, but I just don't get the appeal of downloading all this stuff.  Is it the thrill of doing something illegal or morally grey?  Is it because it's free?  To me, it's way more hassle than it's worth.

I do it to save money, to give me instant gratification when I don't want to wait for Netflix, and to grab collectible stuff that isn't available in Region one (or at all).  And because I don't have a TV.

Hardly a hassle at all.  These days, it's just a few minutes to download something.  At most an hour, if it's a big file.  You can get the same quality as a digital HD broadcast in some cases, and many TV's and laptops can talk to each other so you're not always bound to a computer screen.  Or you can just download and burn the DVD.  Easy.

[RottingCorpse]

and to grab collectible stuff that isn't available in Region one (or at all). 

This is actually the one place whee I support piracy, because the U.S. studios/distributors are archaic morons when it comes to niche or classic stuff. They could be making tons of money on this, because collector's would much rather have a quality remaster of some of this stuff than some thrice dubbed VHS tape that's been transferred (poorly) over to DVD. Pirating this stuff SHOULD help convince U.S. DVD companies that there's a market for it.

That said (and I think I've said this before), as someone who's a copyright owner of something that will certainly be pirated, I mourn the revenue I could be generating by folks who would be renting or buying my movie if they weren't downloading it for free. Then again, these people probably wouldn't pay to watch the movie anyway.

AND for me, pirating will be a blessing as long as people are watching and talking about the movie. I'm nobody so one more person who sees the movie is one more person who knows about the movie.

That said, it is stealing. I spent a lot of money making my movie and you're watching it for free. I'm not asking you to buy a $50 special edition. I just want you to add it to your Netflix queue so I get a small cut.

[nacho]

That said, it is stealing. I spent a lot of money making my movie and you're watching it for free. I'm not asking you to buy a $50 special edition. I just want you to add it to your Netflix queue so I get a small cut.

And most people will.  The secret sites out there that are doing the real hardcore pirate stuff have small memberships.  People don't want to be bothered with the hassle, as Sirharles points out.  A blockbuster hit movie will probably only see 500-1000 downloads between the three sites I creep around.