Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Sweden goes after Pirate Bay

ANNA RINGSTROM

Reuters

Latest comment posted at 2:27 PM EDT 29/01/08

Owners of torrent site to be charged in copyright case ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: The last time someone raided TPB, I remember some anonymous people performed a DoS attack on a bunch of Sweden's government websites....better duck....
  2. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: Wel GOOOOOOOD LUCK to Sweden. The Pirate Bay will just move to Finland. Then to Latvia. The Pirate Bay has gone on about the fact that American companies cannot touch the Pirate Bay using American laws. Sure, there are clampdowns like the idiot monitoring laws in France (thanks, Monsieur Libertarian Sarkozy) but someone will find another method to outwit the censors. When the authorities meddle with the internet, they're stepping into the wild west, and the authorities are outgunned.
  3. Steve Tatone from Ottawa, Canada writes: So what? So what if Hollywood DOESN'T have a solid lock on the flow of information? Less money for big budget stinkers that's what. More money for the ordinary Swede, more distribution for independant and cult appeal films. The only thing that lawsuits like this will accomplish, is to drive the advertising revenue from these activities into 'rogue states' that don't prosecute like Venezuala or Iran. If not? Eritrea, Chad or Off-shore etc. There are more winners than losers when information is shared freely.
  4. Barry Turner from Ottawa, Canada writes: Censorship of this kind seems to work in Red China. Is Sweden the new China? Or just a puppet of the US governement? I traded comics as a kid. Read five or more for every one I bought. The cops never came after me. How is file trading different?
  5. Acoc Aloc from near Toronto, Canada writes: Barry Turner from Ottawa, Canada writes: Censorship of this kind seems to work in Red China. Is Sweden the new China? Or just a puppet of the US governement? I traded comics as a kid. Read five or more for every one I bought. The cops never came after me. How is file trading different?

    The difference, Barry, is the five copies you borrowed were paid for by someone else first. Different story if you were reading five comic books your friends lifted from the local corner store. File trading starts on the premise of a downloaded file that was not paid for. I'm not sure how one justifies in their mind the taking of intellectual property, such as a song or movie, off the Internet for free, when we'd be up in arms someone walked into our kitchen and helped themselves to the contents of our fridge.
  6. J J from Canada writes: This is how I justify it - it is not illegal in Canada to share files. As of yet, the MPAA and RIAA haven't been able to infiltrate the government to further their ludicrous agenda.
  7. RD Lone from Vancouver, Canada writes: The argument is that it is simply a replication. The owner loses nothing physical and doesn't perform any incremental task that leads to "loss." Your analogy should be altered to say that it would be like someone going to a grocery store and cloning a food item instantly and taking it home. That is, the grocery store physically doesn't lose anything, but misses out on the potential sale.

    Of course if everybody did this eventually the grocery store would go out of business and then nobody would be able to clone their free food and that helps nobody. I buy the occasional movie/CD just to support the company, but I think this whole thing will squeeze a lot of the excess out of the system. Who thinks that Britney spears should rake in millions and that actors/actresses should get a paycheque of $20 million for a single movie? Anyone?
  8. Acoc Aloc from near Toronto, Canada writes: J J - I hear you. Not illegal in Canada (yet) which is why many torrent sites are set up here. RD Lone - the other analogy would be to go to your local bookstore and just photocopy the magazine you wanted, or use your camera phone to take pictures of each page. You didn't steal anything but a copy, yet the magazine publisher doesn't receive any monetary reward for producing the magazine. It's not just about whether anyone suffered an immediate loss, such as when I steal that apple from the grocery store, but whether they suffered potential loss, such as when I download the latest REM album rather than purchase it.

    As for the $20 million question - that's just mass entertainment. As a human does Britney deserve the money? Maybe not. The argument is only whether in a capitalistic society as ours is, if you can find a buyer for your product, then you deserve whatever profit you can make. Should any human make that kind of money? Maybe not, but until we go 100% to socialism, it's gonna happen.

    I'm not judging anyone's actions in downloading. You are all adults, and can operate inside the law. I understand our laws in Canada, and appreciate it is not illegal to do. Lots of things not illegal to do in Canada that I choose not to do for various reasons. Again, I only question personal justification of copying someone's work that they have for sale, such as a song or a movie, and not thinking that this is wrong on some level. It's an interesting moral question, and I like to hear the debate, as long as it maintains a level of civility.
  9. Sheldon B. from Amsterdam, Netherlands writes: I was so hardcore about paying for music, I bought into the whole "your stealing from the band" line. Then I had a few beers with the some of the bands I love, and they informed me that they didn't make a cent off of album sales. Now I download everything, if I like an album I buy the record (cause their just better!) and I'll see the band in concert when they come by...I probably buy a shirt too...does that ad up to enough cash to keep MPAA and RIAA from suing me?
  10. Billy Bob from Bluder Bay, Canada writes: TPB.org will only roll their eyes over this latest stint. Read their legal page......quite hilarious. It seems legal threats don't scare them too much.

    People file share for may reasons, firstly because, one should no have to pay over and over for something they already own and secondly, the prices for Software, DVD's and CD's (outdated format) is unjustified. If prices are low and justified, it would not be worth pirating. Simply put....the general public has beed ripped off for the last 50 years and are finally sick of it.

    The industry needs to wake up and get with it....or sit back (as they are) and continue to waste more money on legal letters and attacks that go no where. Times have changed, the the industry hasn't.

    Do artists really need to make 100 million dollars or would 10 million be ok? Don't even get me going on the executive and their salaries.......

    In the meantime, I will contine shopping at TPB.org and encourage others to do the same. It's simply, hassle free and no late fees.....
    Did I mention ......Free?

    Of course you will need Utorrent sofware and and a broadband connection, before you set sail.

    Arrrrrrr matey! :)
  11. Trillian Rand from Canada writes: The situation is clear. Copyright limits, as the very name suggests, the right to copy. The original laws applied to printed materials, but the principle applies equally to music or film.

    On any basis, copying copyrighted material is illegal. Borrowing, lending and otherwise sharing arguments do not diminish the legal requirements not to make copies. Most often these arguments are put forward by criminally liable parties to justify what they know is wrong.

    However, in a world where technology has trumped legality, perhaps the parameters of copyright need to be examined. For instance, if a person in Canada likes the works of a musician in Australia (for example) and their music is not readily available because the record distributor has chosen to ignore the North American market, should those CD's be available for download? If the distributor has no intention of selling into a market, does he have a legitimate complaint if people in that market 'pirate' works he withholds?

    This is the state British publishers once found themselves in when American publishers would ship best-selling books back to the US and print them without consideration of the British copyrights. Eventually the US did recognize foreign copyrights. At the same time, publishing houses became international.

    The music industry now finds itself in the same situation except that it is not a few infringing on copyrights, but millions of people worldwide. The problem for the music and film industries will not go away if they try to stay their present course.

    Which is not to apologize for those who violate copyright. Fault lies on both sides. The present litigious attitude of the entertainment industry, while understandable, is doomed to failure. No business can suspect all its customers and flourish.

    Likewise, if piracy remains unchecked, it will eventually destroy the entertainment industry as surely as bad product will.
  12. J J from Canada writes: I guess another way of looking at this is from the other side of the coin. I buy an album or movie, then share it on the internet. I've paid for the movie and now I let others copy it for free. On the flip side, the artist records the album once, then the record companies make millions and millions of copies of the initial recording and sell them for huge profits. Now, if the torrent sites charged $50 a year to use their services, would it still be considered a moral issue? The only real difference is the amount of the price, right?

    You can see these models springing up in society now. Many bookstores allow, and even encourage people to sit down and read a book in their store rather than buying it.

    I think it all boils down to the perception, right or wrong, that it is pretty much a victimless crime. The artist is not struggling to make ends meet. The person who has to pay $25 to hear their favourite artist may be. The real message that comes across is that billion dollar profits are not enough for entertainment industries.
  13. Darren X3 from Toronto, Canada writes: Sheldon: "I was so hardcore about paying for music, (but then some of my favourite bands) informed me that they didn't make a cent off of album sales. "

    Exactly correct. Unless an album is a monster hit it is unlikely the band will not see a nickel from it. It is the RECORD COMPANY that is harmed by downloading, not the band. (the band benefits from the exposure, which boosts interest in concerts and merchendise, which is where they actually make their money).

    P2P is unstoppable. Record companies and the service they provide are obsolete. They will be gone from the landscape in ten years.
  14. Le Malbadon from Canada writes: Sorry Trillian, the fact that Meet the Spartans was the #1 movie at the box office is all the proof I need that the movie industry doesn't need to worry about bad product killing them. Apparently people will watch anything.
  15. craig cutler from St. John's, Canada writes: On the one hand we have the moral issue of "stealing intellectual property" whether it be, say a CD or a DVD. On the other hand there is a moral issue of protecting out environment.

    I had many CDs and DVDs that I proudly displayed in my living room and one day I thought to myself, "Self, that's a whole lot of plastic/packaging that you've spent an awful lot of money on."

    Once I ripped CDs to my hard drive and put the physical plastic cases in a box and in turn, put into storage, I was amazed at how much space was now free. It was then that I realized and made the decision to not purchase CDs with plastic cases and downloading music just made more sense to me.

    So does one moral issue trump another?

    Now I'm confused.
  16. Lou Bix from Van, Canada writes: This has been going on since Napster.
    Even if you killed PB off, another will start the next day.
    Seems like a big waste of taxpayers money.
  17. Michael D from Hamilton, Canada writes: All of this won't matter. There is a strange atmosphere in Sweden that has the public very anti big brother and business influencing government. Each time the government has gone after someone in the torrenting/privacy etc industry there is a huge public outcry, people lose jobs, and everything goes back to normal.
  18. Robert Boyd from Windsor, Canada writes: So was the original in these cases.

    "Acoc Aloc from near Toronto, Canada writes: . Is The difference, Barry, is the five copies you borrowed were paid for by someone else first".
  19. Dick Nails from Canada writes: Steve Tatone from Ottawa, Canada writes: So what? So what if Hollywood DOESN'T have a solid lock on the flow of information? Less money for big budget stinkers that's what. More money for the ordinary Swede, more distribution for independant and cult appeal films. The only thing that lawsuits like this will accomplish, is to drive the advertising revenue from these activities into 'rogue states' that don't prosecute like Venezuala or Iran. If not? Eritrea, Chad or Off-shore etc. There are more winners than losers when information is shared freely.

    >> It is not information, it is intellectual property. No business can survive if it's property is appropriated and illegally distributed. WRT to your last mis-statement, information, let's say a how to build a nuke, does not benefit anyone if it is shared freely.
  20. D K from Canada writes: "Steve Tatone from Ottawa, Canada writes: There are more winners than losers when information is shared freely"

    Steve's locker combination is 26-12-22. His bank card number and pin number is 513....

    Gee you are right there are more winners.
  21. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: I would not mind paying for my movies - if the studios promised to give refunds when the movie is a lemon.

    Seems like Hollywood produces nothing but lemons lately, and still there are no movie stars living on skid row - yet.

    Downloading is so convenient, and hollywood is missing the boat as they are not meeting consumer demand. Perhaps a major hollywood shakedown would solve the problem.
  22. Sask Langer from Canada writes: File trading starts on the premise of a downloaded file that was not paid for. I'm not sure how one justifies in their mind the taking of intellectual property, such as a song or movie, off the Internet for free, when we'd be up in arms someone walked into our kitchen and helped themselves to the contents of our fridge.

    Bad analogy. It is not equivalent to taking a physical product off the shelf. And how is it based on stealing when you've bought the original CD but then want to listen to it on your computer without having to rip the disk? Or watch a TV show that is available FOR FREE, but you don't want to have to sit down at a particular time?

    ---

    Trillian Rand from Canada writes: On any basis, copying copyrighted material is illegal.

    NO. That is pure fiction spread by the media industry to make you think they're justified in ridiculous copy restrictions. Look up Fair Use and Parody for starters. Those were also written into copyright legislation because they were deemed a necessary tool in a free society. It's only now that they're able to buy laws which, either through gross negligence on the part of the writers of the bills (like Jim Prentice) or through expensive lobbying by a single group while completely ignoring others (again, like Jim Prentice), eliminate this right. But until laws like this are passed, copying copyrighted material is not illegal under certain terms.

    And just for the fact that the PB has been successful in making sure American laws stay on American soil and aren't blanket applied to the internet, they're all right by this guy.
  23. Frank N. Stein from Canada writes: Hollywood should be more aggressive in updating their skills to match marketplace needs. These old-timer money-bags need to realize they need to sell their movies direct to the public, a buck each, maybe incorporate advertising like a small pepsi add in the bottom corner of the movie for a certain mount of time.

    Hollywood is stuck in 1953 mode. Hollywood needs to match consumer demand.
  24. D. Grant W from Saskatoon, Canada writes: RE: Dick Nails (>> It is not information, it is intellectual property. ). As a matter of interest, can you determine when intellectual property began, who, why and how we as a society began to define something that was up until that point clearly not legal property? At the stroke of a legislative pen, something became property. Then you can ask, who benefits chiefly from the "new" definition (one that is increasing in scope, e.g. plant patents and the Harvard Mouse in some jurisdictions)? In 1850 there were no intellectual property rights associated with listening to music, yet today there are. Sheerly a case of definition, not reality. Surely you are not arguing that without intellectual property there would not be any music? Copyrights, patents, genome and DNA issues all represent the bleeding edge of the redefinition of property, one I am not sure serves everyone equally or well.
  25. Anti Fascist from Canada writes:
    Come to Canada! We have very advanced copywrite laws which protect everyone. Everytime you purchase blank media you pay a special tax which is used to pay off the authors of the material being copied.

    It was one of the few good ideas brought foreward by the fiberals or cons (can't remember whose turn at bat it was). When I burn a movie to disk I know the writers and producers will be re-imbursed from the tax paid on the media. Very comforting. Thanks to Lyin' Brian or the Cretin.
  26. Craig Cooper from Toronto, writes: As usual, ignorance abounds. But then that is what one expects from thieves.
  27. Peter Smithy from United States writes: Pirate Bay is a torrent control web site (the correct technical name escapes me) , it contains no copyrighted material, other than that copyrighted by Pirate Bay of course. It does contain information about hundred or thousands of servers located throughout the world that do contain little pieces of copyrighted material. The Torrent idea uses a distributed database where hundreds of servers can contribute to one download obtaining bandwidth multiplication. From a legal perspective it is not obvious that Pirate Bay is breaking the law. For example, it is illegal for an American to travel to Cuba. Is it also illegal to provide information to where Cuba is located? That would make Google Earth illegal. There is a sentence in the article about "accessory".
  28. Some Guy from Otttawa, Canada writes: 1) Morality is not a factor in capitalism. Goods and services are traded to make profit, the largest possible, with little regard for the consumer. The objective is to make you spend your money, alot of it, and frequently.

    2) Benevolence is not an obligation on the consumer, but capitalism has tricked you into thinking so. For those of you who 'give' your money to corporations simply because you feel for their cause and wish to do a good deed have become delusional.

    3) The above analogies of comic book reading and cloning produce at the local grocer break down before they're even started. One cannot conclude that just because a file is downloaded that a song or album sale is therefor lost. This isn't arithmetic. The third option, which is rarely considered, is that the downloader never intended to buy the song or album to begin with and is only acquiring the same because it is available easily and for free of charge.

    4) There seems to be a great level of confusion as to what is, and what ought to be, in the area of filing sharing and this is demonstrated in this thread.
  29. Krusty G from Ontariario, Canada writes:
    I just saw OZZY the other night. Paid $108 for the ticket, total $125 plus all the service charges. I feel no moral compunction whatsoever for downloading his and Black Sabbath's entire catalog. I support the music industry enough seeing them live, to me recordings are just commercials for the big show. And as long as I continue to pay through the nose to see live bands, all music is free for me to download. A reasonable price for a song is a dime, not a buck. If it were a dime and of good quality, I'd probably buy it just to save myself the time of searching. But as long as it's a buck, and as long as I pay exorbitant fees for live music, downloading torrents it is.

    I just rented a movie from Rogers and copied the disc. The future revenue I am supposedly stealing by this act is from Rogers, not from the movie companies nor the actors/directors/etc. In fact, RENTING is stealing from the studios, no? I didn't pay $25 for the DVD, just 5 to watch it. Why aren't the studios complaining about rentals? They sold it once, but COULD HAVE made 10 times the money if everyone had to buy their own copy.

    I had previously attempted to download the movie, but it takes really long to do that, and the quality is often pretty low. So I rented it, because 20 bucks is worth it to save my time. The fee I paid Rogers was a convenience fee for stealing it for me beforehand.

    Same as with music, as long as you're greedy charging 10 times what it's worth, people are gonna go steal it. The industry is shooting itself in the foot and doesn't even realize it, and they keep reloading. Ever notice how the issue of over-charging NEVER comes up? It should, because it's the whole point.

    Besides, there's a million torrent sites better than Pirate Bay - BTjunkie, isohunt, mininova - just to name a few.
  30. Sask Langer from Canada writes: Peter Smithy from United States writes: Is it also illegal to provide information to where Cuba is located? That would make Google Earth illegal. There is a sentence in the article about "accessory".

    Technically a torrent site would be more analogous to providing information to facilitate an American actually travelling to Cuba. Say, posting a website listing where there's a guy with a boat who'll take you over no questions asked. The legalities of that are a little more dubious.

    The problem here is what is the legality of a guy in Canada who knows a passport checker who will look the other way when Americans get on a flight to Cuba? Is the US government able to arrest this person given that there is no law in Canada that makes it illegal to travel to Cuba? Can the US government unilaterally go into any country and enforce its own laws regardless of the law of the soverign country they are actually in? You bet the US would have a problem if someone tried to do that on US soil.

    And to the next extent, what is the situation when a government allows themselves to be used as an accessory to a foreign government coming in to enact foreign laws on their own soil? This is what the fight about the Pirate Bay is over. It shouldn't be generalized into "thieves vs laws" because that's even more gray an area than travelling to Cuba.
  31. Sam Snead from Canada writes: One thing is clear, Hollywood et al. by not adopting digital distribution are using a fair amount of energy and carbon output to maintain their existing distribution channels.
  32. Matthew King from Canada writes: Huh, I didn't know they played baseball in Sweden.

    Oh, wait....
  33. Michael Kalus from writes: The content industry has lived based on the fact that they were the ones in control of the distribution. Keep in mind when it comes to books and music the artistic piece is generated by a handful of people. The content industry came into play by providing a channel to sell the music / books to.

    When it comes to books it is still not practical to quickly photocopy / distribute it without a distribution network (unless you like reading on a notebook, I don't).

    Music though has become portable and digital, simply put: There is VERY limited reason for the music industry to exist anymore. Artists that require huge amount of marketing and ego stroking are simply a thing of the past in this "new world", the industry just hasn't realized it yet.

    Does that mean downloading should be legal? Why not? The bands get exposure (something that had to be bought for a lot of money before) and if they are smart they set up a paypal account and release the files themselves so that people who like it can donate.

    The change IMO is coming, but it will be a while longer before bands realize this.

    As for movies, that's a different story, they do require (mostly) large sums of money to be made, though with the new technologies around the corner (e.g. the RED) the price tag is quickly coming down and with increased bandwidth and other outlets there may be a market emerging over the next decade that will allow directors and producers to bypass the movie studios as well.
  34. Darryl Moore from Canada writes: RD Lone Said: "Of course if everybody did this eventually the grocery store would go out of business and then nobody would be able to clone their free food and that helps nobody. I buy the occasional movie/CD just to support the company, but I think this whole thing will squeeze a lot of the excess out of the system. Who thinks that Britney spears should rake in millions and that actors/actresses should get a paycheque of $20 million for a single movie? Anyone?"

    In this case the we'd have small services which offered access to food for cloning. They'd make their money on, or I don't know, advertising. Yeah the grocery stores would go out of business but so what. Local telephone operators are gone, as are blacksmiths. Technology changes things. We as a society have to adapt. The RIAA, MPAA, and much of holywood will go bust so what. We will still have lots of local independant bands, CBC, BBC, and other national broadcasters, and more reality shows than you can shake a stick at. Even if we had no copyright what-so-ever, we'd still have culture. And what's more. we'd control it. Not big American multinationals.
  35. Trevor Stafford from Toronto, Canada writes: Lets bring some historical perspective to this conversation.

    The music industry has fought every medium capable of recording music. Does anyone else remember the donnybrook over cassettes? What about CD-Rs? If anything, technology made the industry richer, not poorer. (And it is a very profitable industry).

    The music industry doesn't remember this dialectic (most human beings don't, actually, and so we have bubbles and stock panics), and in that way aren't much different than any other monopolistic and top-heavy business in recorded history. They fight and connive and lobby to insulate their business model: just as the Luddites did, just as the British East India company did, just as Microsoft did.

    Intellectual property has nothing to do with this, at least not in the sense that the artists are being stolen from. Instead, established interests are seeing their model threatened. They are reacting rather than integrating. The cycle of control, absorption, fragmentation and dissolution is being renewed.

    The fruit of ideas has always and will always be stolen. It seems to me that music's price and distribution methods are broken and archaic. The emerging model wants to change them, the powers that be are resisting this change -- as every power feels it must.

    Ultimately, every power loses. Ask Eatons, or the Big Three in Detroit. They either change, or they die.
  36. i coffey from Canada writes: The movie industry needs to wake up and realize that given an alternative, people don't necessarily want to go to the theatre to watch the latest releases when they have a big comfortable couch at home. Again, given an alternative, consumers don't necessarily want to go to the local mall to buy a DVD, nor wait till it comes out. For current releases, consumers are given an option to a) leave their house and spend money on a film or b) stay at home, download a movie over night for free, and watch it cozy with home-made popcorn and a blanket. This is about convenience as much as it is about cost. If the movie studios would only realize this and set up some sort of process to alleviate the "convenience" concern then perhaps at least some of the issue would be solved. "But it's wrong and against the law" is no argument at all if the argument holds no weight with the offenders. Come up with a system that is better, faster, and more convenient than bittorrenting for consumers to use to get the latest media - now that's a solution.

    Or maybe they should look at getting into bed with the ISPs and somehow encourage them to implement monthly hardcaps on uploads and downloads...
  37. doctor business from vancouver, Canada writes: The copyright debate continues - one sided- in the pirate media (copyright defenders) that allow us to imagine no other possibility except a corporate tax on sharing our intellect (property). Today my two cents are this: Copyright is a new idea being forced upon us. The idea that this is an ancient principle just isn't supported. It takes legal activism and lobbying to put these new laws into place. That kind of undermines the notion that there is something intrinsic or natural going on here. The public perception of sharing being considered a crime - that too - has only recently emerged from a very sustained public relations campaign (read propaganda) that has cost millions and millions of dollars. Copyright law it turns out, patents and trademarks... all of these things actually have very non-public interest reasons for being in the law. Copyright gets extended every 20 years so that disney can keep mickey mouse. Seriously, look it up! Modern copyright is a very very new idea. Even the olden times idea of copying printed material copyright is fairly recent. (1700s the first mention of the concept - long before the idea came into being). Last, when it comes to computers there is a real differance for real and that should be recognised instead of pretending that a computer copy is like a paper copy. Software that is copyrighted is the symbol of obsolete. Lets wake up and stop conflating old and new ideas... the best old and new idea is sharing, the worst is stopping people from doing that. Yup.
  38. Chuck the Canuk from east coast, Canada writes: Copyright is just money grubbing for the dinosaurs of the entertainment industry (music and film), and it is fat cheques for their lawyers. All scum. I have not purchased a movie on DVD, a music CD, been to a theatre, or purchased ANYTHING from that industry since they started suing people for downloading. Years ago when Napster went down. And I never will. They have lost a customer forever. I used to purchase music cassettes and Cd's by the dozen from Columbia House and private stores. I had a movie collection on the old VCR format and DVD. That was years ago, now I do not give 1 penny to those scum. Multiply that by the many millions who are as pissed off as I am, and you have the drop in their sales. DUH. Not from pirating, from their ex customers leaving them because of the illegal actions of the COMPANIES, not the customers. And Craig Cooper from Toronto, go crawl back into your pompous upper Canada, center of the universe hole. It is the music and movie industry that has been stealing from it's customers for decades. Price gouging, charging 10 to 20 times what they should. Now it stops, with the internet and p2p. Just like the ancient horse and buggy, the 8 track, etc. New technology makes some things extinct. Live with it.
  39. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: Some Guy from Otttawa, Canada writes:"3) The above analogies of comic book reading and cloning produce at the local grocer break down before they're even started. One cannot conclude that just because a file is downloaded that a song or album sale is therefor lost. This isn't arithmetic. The third option, which is rarely considered, is that the downloader never intended to buy the song or album to begin with and is only acquiring the same because it is available easily and for free of charge."

    Very true. There is nothing to say a song downloaded is a song lost to Sony BMG.

    A friend of mine actually works at EA, one of their major benchmarks of a game's success is how many downloads it receives. This sounds counterintuitive, but as someone who downloads a ridiculous amount, downloading has encouraged me to consume MORE from legitimate sources. It is rather convoluted, but suffice to say i would have never bothered to pay 13$ to watch Hackers (w. Angelina Jolie).

    Places like Blockbuster and PayPer View are being screwed by this though. But after so many years of ridiculous late fees and a totally asinine selection i can't say i feel sorry.
  40. Newmarket NDPer from Taipei, Taiwan, Taiwan writes: GOOD LUCK TO PIRATE BAY IN BATTLING AMERICAN IMPERIALISM!!!!!
    Remember that song by the Village People that went "You can't stop the music"? Well Bush and the Hollywood mafia have done their best not only to stop all music but to push the world into a new Dark Age! My dentist friend in Burnaby doesn't dare play his hi-fi mood music for clients in his waiting room out of fear that agents of Hollywood will nail him for copyright infringement!
    Over here in Taipei, my firm use to pump music over the P.A. to signal off-on hours. Then about seven years ago, with the consolidation of Bush and Hollywood, they changed over to playing one single plain tune which was public domain. Now they've dumped even that song since the Hollywood agents threatened action if they used ANY music used without payment, their agreement, and full payment. To the Pirates, I say fight them even harder, at every juncture since the days of Washington-Hollywood hegemony are rapidly coming to an end.
  41. Bryce Richards from Canada writes: So maybe all the libraries of the world should be shutdown to protect intellectual property. When many thousands of people borrow a book, magazine or CD from the library they are depriving the rights owner the ability to earn a commission from each and every book that could have been sold had the book not been lent in the library. If my only intention is to view the material and not reproduce it for potential gain then as far as I am concerned the file transfer falls under the the same auspices of a library borrowing. This mania about intellectual property rights is getting completely out of control. There needs to be a clearer distinction between a viewing policy and else when intellectual property rights have been abused. I won't even touch the issue of making copies of programming from television. Where does this manic depression end. Perhaps a better way would be for the bit torrents of the world to model themselves like a library and institute a check in check out file service that allows a user the privilege of checking out a file for a specified period of time say a week to view movies or listen to music. After that time the file would self destruct whereever and whenever it happened to be whether on an ipod or a hard drive. You could download again if you liked.
  42. zen rainbow from Canada writes: Since when did Sweden become a fascist-like state?
  43. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: Acoc Aloc from near Toronto, Canada writes: I'm not sure how one justifies in their mind the taking of intellectual property, such as a song or movie, off the Internet for free, when we'd be up in arms someone walked into our kitchen and helped themselves to the contents of our fridge.

    This is the internet, not your kitchen. The internet does not have the same proprietary rules as someone's home. By the way, Coca Cola tried to buy the rights to the colour red. They may sue you for using their name in skewed fashion.
  44. mad ala from Canada writes: 'Record' industry...what's a record?

    You better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone, for the times they are a changin'...........
  45. dave sharpe from Canada writes: the stupidity of the movie and music industry knows no bounds, they could not keep the pirate bay down for a week i bet, to fight all of this instead of embracing it really shows where they are at.....fools
  46. Oh Canada from Canada writes: TPB will not be shut down it is like al-Qaeda.

    Who knows where TPB will pop up. I would fully resist any laws that told me what I could put on my computer or share with somebody else off theirs.

    Everyone should resist any attempt by the industry to lobby you to stop downloading. The digitial age is plug and play and the trade is p2p.

    We are getting government out of the bedrooms and we must keep them out of our computers.

    Torrents make information, technology and more available to the poor, to students and more.

    The pirate bay shows where money can be made. Host the stuff for free on the net and sell advertising space on the site....

    you can get traffic to your site and sell a ton of space.

    DUH!
  47. Unabashed Opinion from Toronto, Canada writes: The issue of copyright has created all sorts of bogus infringements on the public domain. Because of the fictions being spread by the content industry, there have indeed been calls by the publishing industry to shut down libraries (because borrowing a book to read is allegedly stealing according to the head of the publishing cartel in the US), people have been arrested for taking photographs of public buildings and squares (not for alleged security concerns, but because the building or square design is claimed to be copyrighted), fair use (in the US) and fair dealing (in Canada) are constantly under attack through technological interference, and the content industry has claimed variously that media shifting (copying music that one has paid for to another device for convenience) is illegal. Mix tapes are supposedly illegal. And on it goes.

    The facts of the matter, according to a non-cartel sponsored study, are that those who download content actually spend more on so-called legitimate content. An earlier poster is correct: the content industry has opposed every innovation since the piano roll, and every time their revenues and profits have skyrocketed. If the famous Sony Betamax case had been lost (the one that would have prevented the sale of VCRs because videotaping television was decried as stealing intellectual property), the movie rental business would never have been established, which would have meant no business or consumer environment for DVDs, which is where Hollywood makes most of its profits today.

    The content industry is ailing, but only because of their own intransigent stupidity.
  48. Chris W from Sudbury, Canada writes: Just to set the record straight Krusty G., Rogers pays their distributor every time that movie is rented plus a huge flat fee, not just $25 like you and I at Wal-mart. The studios always get their percentage of the take.

    And I agree with Frank N. Stein, the studios, no mater what they produce need to get with the times and figure out how to get their content to the consumer in a more 21st century manner with 21st century pricing and options. Not that it's hard to do, they just don't want to do it. They will eventually figure out that if they keep pissing off the customer, the customer will walk away and leave them bankrupt. There will always be another company waiting to fill the void.
  49. Mo Monk from Canada writes: Tp all the moral crusaders coming down on the downloaders as thieves... I'm curious, have you ever done any of the folowing:

    Stolen a candy bar as a kid, or a pen from work?
    Gone over the speed limit or rolled through a stop sign?
    Made a false insurance claim?
    Claimed a refund you're not entitled to on your tax return?
    Payed cash in order to avoid paying taxes?

    I'm sure that you can justify your actions... as you are morally superior to the downloaders, right?
  50. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Anti Fascist, the CD levy you speak of was thanks to Cretin and Shiela Copps, not lyin' Brian. He was too busy with other shady business to deal with this CD stuff. The Cretin cd tax made me mad back then and even madder now, considering the price of CD's has dropped to the point where 75% of the purchase price of a blank CD goes to some music association, and they go after the manufacturers so Canadians are none the wiser that they are getting ripped off. What's even more outrageous is who uses CD's for music anymore? Seriously? I don't even think I have anything in my house that will play CD's. Well maybe my DVD player will, not sure. Anyway, no matter, bend over and pay the levy everytime you burn some pictures for your family or friends, thank you Cretin. Anyway, since that day I've hated both Cretin, the Liberals, and this Canadian Music Association. By the way, this same group just proposed a five dollar per month levy on all Canadian internet connections so they can collect the money and give it to Celine Dion, coz we're all stealing her music. This is a great trend. Soon Chapters and Indigo will ask for a five dollar levy too, and Hollywood will want a ten dollar levy, and the newspapers will want a 3 dollar levy, and on and on it goes for everyone who thinks their stuff can be put on the internet for free gets a levy. Sooner or later your 30 dollar internet connection will cost 30 dollars plus 70 dollars in levy for a total of 100 dollars, JUST LIKE THE BLANK CD 30-70 split! If you don't want this to happen make sure you don't vote for any Cretin/Copps admiring liberal.
  51. Pooh Bear from Canada writes: Down with the fascists! Long Live Pirate Bay!

    Let Hollywood and the blood-sucking "Recording Industry" wither on the vine. The sooner Big Entertainment goes under, the sooner we'll see real artists producing good music and good films rather than the diet of mindless tripe we currently "enjoy."
  52. Sam Snead from Canada writes: I suspect their ultimate goal is to completely demonstrate they cannot stop downloading piracy. Then they will make a bid to take a percentage cut of every internet connection. Which is just nuts.

    They are pushing every angle, all of which end up with ... every pair of eyes/ears must purchase their own copy and only use it in the form provided. Anything else, if it occurs must therefore be because they periodically allow it and may change without notice. I am amazed why anyone bothers to listen, let alone consider changing laws.

    If they want to continue to peddle their product the same way as always ... go ahead. There is no market for it. You'll end up holding the rights to a whole bunch of content you can't even give away. Even if they got the insane regulations they want, it wouldn't matter. Other companies/players would be popping up like flies to capture the market share they just threw away.

    There isn't a problem anyway. If the content was made available digitally for a reasonable price most people would simply choose that method. Well, there is a problem, digital delivery drives the price down by a hugh amount. So the final argument is, they won't do digital because there is less money in it. FINE, don't do it, if you can make more money elsewhere go for it.

    Final analysis is easy ... they want to be compensated by society because advances in technology changed their business. Of course it also created their business. That applies to almost every business.

    Hey, if it's that hard to protect, maybe we should just change the laws stating ... since you can't protect it ... you can't copyright it.
  53. Yngwie J. Malmsteen from Toronto, Canada writes: Download what you want, but please buy my albums. I need a new Ferrari to park beside my Bentley.
  54. Peter Ledwinka from Canada writes: So why is it that the same parent company (Sony) that manufactures the devices (Sony Computers) that can copy the product (Sony Music). Yet they delight in taking our money and then tell us that we cannot use the products for uses that they were designed to do.

    This from the same recording companies that took the talents of earlier generations of artists and let many of them die in poverty once their "contracts" had expired.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top