Pirate Bay defendants to fight on
Pirate Bay spokesperson Peter Sunde jokes: "I owe u 30,000,000 SEK" (30 million Swedish kronor, or $3.6 million) during the Pirate Bay web press conference.
(Credit: Mats Lewan/CNET)The verdict has been handed down in the Pirate Bay file-sharing case, but the legal actions are far from done.
"The prosecutor leads 1-0 after the first round, but this will of course be appealed," said Per E. Samuelsson, defense lawyer for Carl Lundström, one of the four individuals sentenced in the Pirate Bay trial, according to the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter.
Samuelsson calls the verdict a scandal. He also claims that his client will have to pay the damages ruled by the court--a total of $3.6 million--because the other three sentenced lack economic resources.
Lundström has been financing a great part of Pirate Bay's operations.
In the verdict, the court regards Lundström as one member of a team. Peter Sunde, spokesman for the Pirate Bay and another of the four sentenced, found this odd.
"We barely know Lundström," he said in an interview broadcast live on the Internet shortly after the verdict on Friday morning. (The interview starts in Swedish but continues in English at about 5:00 minutes in.)
"We cannot pay and we wouldn't pay," Sunde said, then wrote on a piece of paper and showed it to the camera: "I owe u 31,000,000 SEK -- just kidding." That's 30 million Swedish kronor, or $3.6 million.
Sunde continued: "Even if I had the money, I would rather burn everything I own."
Defense lawyer Jonas Nilsson, who represents Pirate Bay's Fredrik Neij, expressed surprised over the verdict--which he, like Samuelsson, called "just the first round."
"I had expected them to be cleared. $30 million Swedish kronor is an enormous amount. It's obvious that the court has followed the policy of the prosecutor. I think this is a clear case for the Supreme Court."
Another critic of the verdict is Christian Engström, vice president in the Pirate Party political group that has a close connection to Pirate Bay.
"I recall what copyright organizations such as IFPI have said. That in case of a conviction, the verdict would be used as an argument to claim blocking of websites that deal with file sharing. That would correspond to banning books and newspapers," he said, according to the Swedish newspaper SvD.
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry and other film and music industry groups saw the verdict as a victory for copyright holders.
Sunde seems to be the one who worries least about the court's ruling.
"You can look upon it as a movie, at the point when the heroes just have had the first real setback. But thanks Hollywood! You have taught us that in the end the good will win. And it will be a really big victory", he said.
The purpose of the creation is where the problem exists. If I wrote, composed, or recorded, the creation with the purpose that had nothing to do with monetary enrichment and purely for the love of participating in its creation and the benefit it brings to my fellow man or woman, then there is no problem.
The problem is we are taught that to create for a reason other than monetary enrichment is foolish, and an unworthy reason. So today those that create songs, movies, books, excreta, only create for the purpose of monetary income. So is it wrong for these guys to point to a resource of the copied material? The answer is, only if they gained some monetary wealth from such actions. Because the product was created to acquire monetary wealth and these guys provided a means to circumvent that, does not in anyway make them guilty of breaking any law, as they never received any monetary enrichment from the product.
It makes them guilty of showing the true shallow purpose of its creator. The true guilt falls at the feet of the creator of the material who hates what he does and feels it a burden to be monetarily compensated for, A True artist of the Twenty-first Century.
If you choose to write for a newspaper via letters to the editor, you do it for free. If the paper asks you to write for them, they pay you, and are entitled to have certain controls on that work, while you may retain other rights.
As 'A True artist of the Twenty-first Century', eat your work, and live under it. That's YOUR choice. Other than that, let others decide for themselves and be protected.
The true guilt is with the creator? What about the loser who feels he is entitled to read, listen to or watch any work on the face of the earth just through his mere existence? Your existence entitles you to nothing, which is apparently what you can afford to pay.
KEEP YOUR HEAD UP AND YOUR SPIRITS HIGH !!!
THEY CANNOT STOP THE HUMAN SPIRIT OF YOU AND ALL THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT YOU!!!
NEVER SURRENDER !!
YOU ARE SUPPORTED IN THE U.S.A.
WE LOVE YOU GUYS, YOU ARE HEROES !!!!!!! :)
Copyright infringement is not stealing/theft/etc. Piracy is what happens in the waters (most recently near Somalia)
Have a great day!
It may well be that film companies, the record industry and printing houses have reaped unjustified profits but the fact remains that creative writers, reporters and artists in all fields deserve compensation for their work just as do auto mechanics, house painters and burger flippers.
Anyone who knowingly facilitates the theft of property is aiding criminal activity. They should be prosecuted and made to compensate those from whom they have stolen.
Library of Alexandria made copies of every book on any ship that came into the harbor, Mediaeval scribes copied documents freely and thankfully preserved ancient knowledge, as did printers for hundreds of years. It wasn't until England passed a copyright law in 1710 giving the creator the rights for (get this) 14years. Copyright also became a US law but it was also for a only a few years.. Oddly enough even though 19th century US book publishers paid fees to US authors, they sure as heck didn't pay any to British writers, because they weren't obligated by law..
The same with the movie industry, in the early years, moviemakes had no qualms about stealing material from plays, books etc.. without paying any royalties until the industry itself got big and established and only then did copyright suddenly become important to them. The irony is that Disney would not have been able to make Snowhite, or Pinocchio if copyright law existed as it does now because neither story would have been in the public domain back then. Are you also aware that if you go and have your family picture done at a portrait studio, almost all of them insist they will own the copyrights to the image.. And for that matter so does the photographer that took your grandma's picture in 1917 that is sitting in a shoebox in the attic.. How ridiculous is that?
Running an indexing site is just like owning a crack house, just cause I own it doesn't mean I'm responsible for the dealings inside.. I say close em down the same way, kick in the doors and and drag em out kicking and screaming..
Artists should get paid, but not at the cost of stifling innovation. Its quite obvious the current business model for the RIAA & the MPAA is not working, they keep suing and their sales keep declining, btw who sues their own customers anyway? Most downloader?s also purchase music/movies, that is unless they get sued, then they never purchase anything from the company suing them again, is that what the RIAA/MPAA want?
And as previously stated, all the torrents on PB are available elsewhere, RIAA/MPAA and ANY government can?t police the entire Internet and if they try too, every torrent site they shut down will be replaced by two more torrent sites!
Share and share alike my friends!
Hopefully all of you penniless file-sharers will be next. Maybe iTunes will start accepting food stamps so you can buy music?
You constantly seem to assume that people who share information are without money, on welfare, and are lowlife people. Would you care to back up your claims with proof?
Why must you insult those who are not as well-off? Your food-stamp comment is really out of line.
every made a cassette copy of some music, record on a vcr, photocopied a news article, etc..
or perhaps posted a video to youtube of the kids with the radio in the background playing a pop song?
- by techie76 April 19, 2009 11:53 AM PDT
- the pirate bay guys can always move their servers, hey guys check out Antigua, no copyright laws
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (33 Comments)