No retrial for The Pirate Bay
 

Just saw this. It seems an appeal court has ruled that the judge in the Pirate Bay trial's connections to pro-copyright lobby groups do not make him biased so there will be no retrial for them on those grounds.

They will still appeal the verdict though.

http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-j...etrial-090625/

Hopefully now the appeal will go nowhere and these guys can take their punishment.

couldn't happen to a nicer group of folks

Nice :thumbsup

Excellent :thumbsup:thumbsup

that btw is totally fucked up

the prosecution failed to prove that the pirate bay was even involved in the trading of copyright material (DHT was turned on, they didn't have a single screenshot of the tracker list to show that the peers were assigned by the tracker)

and they got convicted.


so basically the arguement was the pirate bay is guilty of copyright infringment even though there isn't any evidence they were even involved in any of the transactions we investigated.

I realize it getting off on a technicality but if to say that a judge who complete ignores the fact that the procecution didn't even prove defendents were involved at all and still comes to the conclusion that they were guilty of the crime that (at least based on the evidence) they were not involved in at all is not bias is total bullshit.

shocker you feel that way

Dude, they run a site that links directly to copyrighted material which then allows you to click it and download at your leisure. I am not going to argue the semantics of their guilt or innocents or the details of torrents vs seeds vs leeching vs the swarm vs whatever. The bottom line is this: Before the Wolverine movie came out (a few weeks before it was even in theaters) The Pirate Bay had links on their site that allowed you to download it. Every single person that downloaded that movie (and the MPAA estimates were that it was around 4 million - although probably all of those were not from The Pirate Bay) violated the copyright law. Maybe they weren't hosting it, maybe they weren't seeing it, but they linked to it knowing full well what it was. They facilitated it. I am of the opinion that sites like that should not be allowed to exist. Maybe they got a raw deal and this judge should have been removed but Karma is a bitch. When you make a ton of money facilitating theft sometimes things don't work out for you.

so your ok with being convicted of distributing kiddie porn without any proof because I
say you did.

they didn't have a single shred of evidence that the pirate bay was involved in the trading of copyright material.

It could have been completely traded based on the local peers being discoverd by the clients alone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_hash_table


If you are so biased that you don't see finding someone guilty of commiting a crime that you didn't even prove they were present for is wrong, that just sad.

You can't be this big a moron, can you?

Oh yes, my bad, you can.

the hardest thing to do is makes someone understand something that they have a financial benefit to not understanding.

good, fuck them :thumbsup

Gideon, the pirate bay was clearly operating in a very grey area at best, but the way they conducted themselves was just inviting trouble. Flouting the law and the very people they were accused of stealing from is just stupid. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but that's the way the world works. If you want to steal from the man, you better stay out of his cross hairs.

The funny thing is, if they kept a lower profile and didn't get caught up in their own phony crusade and bullshit, they would have never been brought to court.

I honestly think that all the freedom talk and liberty talk started as a spin move, but they ended up falling for it themselves the more it grew.

That is the most honest thing you've ever said gideongallery. Which is why you can't be made to understand that it's stealing. Because you want everything for free so you don't have to pay...which is your "financial benefit"

I have told you time and again that it's just a matter of time for the laws to close the loophole that was NEVER intended for websites like pirate bay to make a fortune off of other people's work.

That's why everything you have been "working" on (your "torrent recorder" for instance and your ideas for advertising via "branding bugs") are dead on arrival. Everyone in mainstream and porn knows and recognizes what is going to happen. I've tried to tell you to use your talents elsewhere...but you have become obsessed.

every fair use successfully won operated in a grey area at best at the time it was first being established. That not the point. IT what was proven in this case.

Quite simply did the police meet the burden of proof to get a conviction.

DHT was turned on
local peer discovery was not only a strong possiblity but the primary way in which peers would be discovered.

The police didn't even do something as simple as screenshot the tracker tab of the client
and circle the number of peers and say see that the number of peers the pirate bay was responsible for bring together.

The isp could have blocked the pirate bay complete and the transaction would still happen locally, the dns could have been out, or tracker could have been done. There was simply no proof that they were involved.

Your trying to argue that they should be found guilty for a crime based on evidence that was not even presented ("clearly operating in a very grey area at best") and existed outside the scope of the trial.

i don't want everything to be free
i sell scripts right now so of course i don't want everything to be free

i have repeatedly said that if you were to take my scripts and load them onto a public tracker i would not sue you for copyright infringement but i would sue you for the breach of contract and the $900/seed in damage that breach would cost.

I can do that because i setup a private tracker for my scripts.


as for branding bugs not working
the fact is branding bugs and doing watermarks right has everything to do with how the brain interprets pleasure.
And how you can create palovian associations to those pleasurable actions with your sales message.

It doesn't matter if the pleasure watching a porn video, or watching a tv show, it is still the same characteristic that you are talking about manipulating.


The difference is i have tested and you have not.
Which means i know weather it works or not
and you are just talking out of your ass.

oh and btw the reason i don't understand that is stealing is that it is not stealing

By definition since the original is not taken it can't be stealing.

Even if the case of stealing services, like bandwidth, or cable you take way from the functional capacity of the infrastructure.

Tap a cable line and the split single cause greater degradation of the single on primary line

Use up someones bandwidth and they have less maximum bandwidth to use.

Copyright infringement doesn't reduce the source at all. It is a fraud at best
claiming you have a right to the content when you don't. But that also leaves a lot of things that are legal, like when you are granted a right by fair use
or when you are granted a right because the copyright holder put a clause in their contract allows it to be distributed via torrents with a private tracker (see amacontent).

No, I'm talking from making around 5 million dollars over the last decade actually selling memberships while you were "testing" and "theorizing" and babbling about a pavlov dog.

Of course watermarks are a good way to advertise your website, Duh. We've all been doing that since the beginning of the internet. And as for what you have named a "branding bug"...we have all called it an annoyance for the last 12 years anytime someone did something like that. Including the ones that Naughty America are now doing on their vids on their galleries. Totally unusable, and I won't run those on my sites.

No gideon. You are the one with ZERO real world experience in online marketing. You're just another pretty bright guy who thinks he came up with some brilliant new marketing scheme. Got some bad news for you pal. I have and always will run circles around you when it comes to marketing skills, promotion, and just the overall understanding of the entertainment industry. It's what I've done all my life.

What have you done again? Oh yeah...a "systems administrator" at a school is your latest claim. And how much money and success have you achieved so far in actual real world marketing?

What? I couldn't quite make out that answer. You sort of looked down at the ground and mumbled.

Oh wait...I think I heard it that time....ZERO.

Gideongallery your terminology is very interesting.

You indicate that you have no problem putting your scripts on your own private torrent, but not a public one. Thus you are simply selling memberships to a script site, and I guess everyone who joins your private tracker would be able to download for free based upon the membership fee.

What if I set up my own private torrent and sell memberships to it. What if my content is your scripts, even though I did not request permission from you to do it. After all, my members are only paying for a membership to my tracker. The scripts are free content.

How about that?

Ohhhh and as you posted above Gideon, I would not be stealing because your scripts would still remain in place.....isn't that how you put it?

How can you defend sites like the Pirate Bay, when in your own examples you are only talking about keeping any content that you create on your own private tracker and retaining control of it yourself?

Can we take your content and put it on our private trackers without compensating you for it? If so, let me know, I would love to have some content to put on a private tracker to sell memberships to, and give it away for free.

Well a court found that they did have enough proof. That's all that matters.

And the site is called "PIRATE BAY". Do you really think they weren't involved in trading copyrighted material? I suppose if someone setup a search engine called Kiddie Porn Lookup, you'd say it had nothing to do with underage stuff.

Oh cry us a river.. You are always jumping on the pro steal people shit bandwagon. Just because it's not favorable to your stance that it's ok to steal peoples shit doesn't mean the judge was biased.

Gideon I am beginning to think yours is the correct way.

You should not seek to make money for your scripts that you talk about. I know, I know, you might make hundreds of thousands of dollars off your scripts if you sell them, but this is not the best way to proceede. Instead, what you should do is go into another business, and insert branding bugs into the scripts and links into the scripts that will drive traffic to your new business, such as making widgets, and you can sell those to this traffic.

Of course you won't enjoy this as much as writing and selling your scripts, nor will you make nearly as much money, but as you say this is the new way of the internet.

We can all memberships to our script sites, giving your scripts away for free and give a link back to your widget business.

Do let us know how that works out.:1orglaugh

I will admit this much. I didn't follow the case day by day. I don't know what evidence was submitted and what evidence wasn't. Clearly there was enough evidence put forth that they were found guilty. Here is something I took from an article that quotes the verdict, "By providing a site with, as the district court found, sophisticated search functions, easy upload and storage, and a website linked to the tracker," the defendants were guilty of assisting copyright infringement," the court said.

That seems pretty cut and dry to me. Again, I go back to the Wolverine example. They linked to it, they knew it was illegal. With that they helped foster and encouraged illegal activity.

Do they have legal torrents on that site? Yes. Are there people legally downloading stuff from that site? Yes. But are they also providing a service that encourages and helps people break the law? Yes.

Go to the site now and search for the wolverine movie. Guess what you find? Links still to it. That, in my eyes, is breaking the law.

Yes, every fair use case operated in the gray area before a ruling one way or the other. The Pirate Bay is one of those people and this time the law went against them. That is how it works when you operate in a gray area. Sometimes you are vindicated and found to be right and other times you lose. If you decide to walk that tightrope you can't be surprised when it falls.

The wolverine movie is not being time shifted. It is not being backed up. There is no legal way someone should be downloading. Each and every person who downloads it is breaking the law The Pirate Bay is helping them do that.

another thread where everyone argues with gideongallery for hoursrrrrrrrrsssssss..... aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

but the wolverine movie was not one of the pieces of content referenced in the case

so again your talking about convicting them based on infractions outside the scope of the trial.

How can you believe that is fair.


They knocked down the proof that they were involved in all the transactions they were accused of.

I use the wolverine movie as an example that they are providing links to a movie that when downloaded is done so illegally. As I said, I didn't follow the trial day by day and line by line. I don't know what was put forth and what wasn't. I don't know what was knocked down and what wasn't. With a trial a lot of is perspective. How many times has someone gotten convicted of something and said that the prosecution gave no proof of guilt while the prosecution says they gave plenty of proof? It happens all the time.

The Pirate Bay is involved in illegal activity. The Wolverine movie is simply an example of that. As I said in the previous post when you operate in a gray area and eventually someone calls you out on it sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. If there truly was no proof of their guilt then they have nothing to worry about and when the case goes to appeal it will either be tossed out or the verdict will be set aside.

Sorry man...I can't help myself. It's a guilty pleasure, almost an addiction. I will stop in this thread for now, though I can't promise I won't succumb to temptation in another thread. But I'm trying to go cold turkey on breaking my gideongallery habbit. It's not easy though.

I know what you mean. I see a thread and tell myself I will not go into the Gideon vortex again, but then, like a moth to the flame, I end up back in there.

first of all the arguement is a circular proof

fair use is an affirmative defence, you need to accused of something to be able to argue your actions are not an infringement because of fair use

using wolverine (work print) as proof of no fair use presuposes that the fair use right of access shifting would not be recognized (Which most certainly would have covered an unreleased work print).

But the fair use of access shifting could not be argued wolverine work print was not part of the trial.

Which leads back to the presuposition that it would not be recognized.

And starts the loop all over again.

Fair use was irrelevant the judge allowed the procecution to state that linking to a torrent file which contains no copyright material in it, has the same legal liablity as a bbs linking directly to the copyright material
in the closing arguements
outside the possiblity of rebuttal or cross examination.
That is the entire bases of the case, the only way the could have got the conviction they got, because as i have said over and over again
the police didn't even prove that the pirate bay trackers were involved in the transaction at all(DHT was enabled, no screen shots of the tracker page).

aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Gideon....stop!

You can assume they had the best lawyers available in the world who would love to have won this case if they could have as it would be a huge boost to their stature in the legal field as well as establishing some very important new case law and precedent for the torrent community at large.

If the technicalities you are bringing up are indeed worthy of note in this case, you can bet your bottom dollar these attorneys would have raised them. It didn't happen.

Or perhaps unbeknownst to you they did and they were argued down.

You need to take a good hard look at this and admit that you yourself do not know all there is to know about this issue. Others with even more expertise than you were in the courtroom when this decision was handed down.

So now downloading the work print version of Wolverine that was leaked pre-release is fair use? How exactly is that fair use?

What about the version they have up there now. In the notes it is the release version. The one I saw linked on their site said it was a handheld video copy meaning someone snuck a camera into the theater and recorded the movie then put it up for people to download. Is that fair use?

me too

maybe I should start a support group

but this ruling gets a :thumbsup from me

I think we could make money with a gideongallery paysite for webmasters. It would just be a small forum where you pay $10 a month recurring billing to argue with gideongallery.

Of course he would steal it and post it on all the torrent sites :(

It wouldn't be theft. . .he would be backing it up to the swarm. :)

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Yes and of course we would want to be sure his right to time shift the content was observed.:1orglaugh

I'm with you guys, this Gideon guy is addictive!