The Pirate Bay founder charged and sentenced.

[BTM]

Well, apparently the guys who run the Swedish site The Pirate Bay have been convicted in court.  The four guys who run the site have each been sentenced to one year in prison and are compelled to pay damages of $905,000 each.

Now, for the two or three or you unfamiliar with the site, basically, The Pirate Bay contains links to where torrents can be found of various materials like movies, software, video games, TV shows, etc.  It doesn't actually HAVE the copyrighted material in question stored ON their site, just links to it. 

So, dunno, that's kind of interesting I think.  I mean, fines are one thing, but jail time?  Wow.

Anyway, the guys are going to appeal, so dunno how long the case will take to wrap up.

On a side note, the site contains several hysterical responses TPB made to various "cease and desist" emails they've gotten from various studios and groups.  You can read them here http://thepiratebay.org/legal.  Course, in light of what's happened today, they may end up putting the label "Hubris" on them...

Article below, you can read the original here http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/139600

The Pirate Bay: Guilty as charged

Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:06PM EDT

In one of the biggest technology-oriented legal cases of the year (the entire trial was broadcast live on Swedish TV), the four men responsible for the operation of the notorious Pirate Bay website -- an unapologetic haven for obtaining copyrighted music, TV shows, movies, software, and just about anything else for free -- have at last been found guilty of "assisting in making copyright content available." All four defendants have been sentenced to one year in prison and are compelled to pay damages of $905,000 each.

The verdict is paradoxically both surprising and wholly expected. On the surface, it's obvious that The Pirate Bay has always done what it was charged with, "assisting in making copyright content available" is the site's very charter, and the website has long been upfront that that's exactly what it does. But TPB has always offered up the defense that, under Swedish law, making copyrighted material available for download is not actually illegal. Some of its letters to Hollywood studios in response to demands that it take down copies of various movies linked on the site are downright hysterical in their brashness.

The Pirate Bay's major point of defense (popularly dubbed the "King Kong" defense) makes some good points: The Pirate Bay is a BitTorrent tracker site, and it doesn't actually store any of the content in question on its servers but rather (putting it in simple terms for the sake of this post) merely links to places where the content can be found. The Pirate Bay may be instrumental in the management of these illegal downloads, but it doesn't keep copies of the files in question. That's significant, but the court ultimately decided, as other courts have with similar P2P networks in the past, that it didn't matter: Facilitating the transaction was reason enough for the verdict.

Of course, since this trial is occurring on Swedish soil and involves Swedish defendants and Swedish law, it's not as earth-shaking and precedent-setting for U.S. Internet users as, say, the Napster trial was at the beginning of the decade. However, it does set a bit of a chilly stage for the future of file sharing, as at least a few other P2P sites are likely to shut down in the wake of this verdict if for no other reason than they simply want to avoid a prison term. (A fine is one thing, going to jail is something else.) That said, it's almost certain that other networks will rush to fill the void left by the potential absence of The Pirate Bay, though I should note, the site is still up and running and seems likely to continue to do so for the immediate future.

Meanwhile, the pirates of The Pirate Bay seem unfazed by the verdict and say they will appeal -- a process which some say could take as long as six years to run its course.

[Jack]

Pretty hard to feel any sympathy at all for those people after reading their childish and obnoxious email replies.

I guess I'm fairly ambivalent on the subject:  On the one hand, I think the studios have gone completely nuts over this whole issue, and their alienation of their customers and harebrained digital rights management garbage have probably done far more damage to their sales than illegal downloading ever would.  On the other hand, I've never felt as if I had any right to get stuff for free.  I'd just as soon buy my own copy.  That's not to say that I wouldn't get stuff for free if it's available, I just wouldn't count on that ability lasting for very long.

[ghouck]

I thought their replies were pretty good. I mean, think about it: Someone from another country emails you and tries to project the laws of that country onto you. If someone did that to me, they'd not get a very nice reply.

The whole bittorrent thing is just one side of the scales that balance things out. The other side of the scales are laws pushed by the might of a gigantic industry that are only designed to line their own pockets all the while stifling competition. It's hard to feel sorry from the artists that make such huge amounts of money all the while occupying the spotlight and being HORRIBLE examples of people, and the same power they used to get copyright laws passed, they use to avoid trouble the rest of us fear. Just look at Vince Neil and how little trouble he got in for his car wreck.

The fact of the matter is that even at the height of file-sharing, music artists still made buttloads of money. One good thing in my book is that more and more artists are turning to marketing for income, which means SOMEONE is at least trying to keep them in check, and not paying them to act like a***oles.

[Rev. Powell]

I thought their replies were pretty good. I mean, think about it: Someone from another country emails you and tries to project the laws of that country onto you. If someone did that to me, they'd not get a very nice reply.

Ghouk, someone can tell you "have a nice day" and not get a very nice reply.   

I imagine you wouldn't feel the same way if the issue was a country with no laws against child pornography making stuff available to Americans, then thumbing their noses at those who tried to shut them down.

Besides, without doing any real legal research, I know that Sweden's a signatory to the Berne convention, so I doubt these guys have a legal leg to stand on.

The whole bittorrent thing is just one side of the scales that balance things out. The other side of the scales are laws pushed by the might of a gigantic industry that are only designed to line their own pockets all the while stifling competition. It's hard to feel sorry from the artists that make such huge amounts of money all the while occupying the spotlight and being HORRIBLE examples of people, and the same power they used to get copyright laws passed, they use to avoid trouble the rest of us fear. Just look at Vince Neil and how little trouble he got in for his car wreck.

The fact of the matter is that even at the height of file-sharing, music artists still made buttloads of money. One good thing in my book is that more and more artists are turning to marketing for income, which means SOMEONE is at least trying to keep them in check, and not paying them to act like a***oles.

I think it's misleading to say that music artists make "buttloads" of money.  The top 1-5% do, sure, but most of the rest struggle to make ends meet.  It's exteremly hard to make a living off any kind of creative work; the fact that the very top musicians, writers, actors etc. do very well financially just isn't relevant to me.  I don't care that much if someone takes money out of Brittney Spears' or Michael Bay's wallet, but I know the vast majority of artists aren't in that position and need legal protection. 

[ghouck]

I imagine you wouldn't feel the same way if the issue was a country with no laws against child pornography making stuff available to Americans, then thumbing their noses at those who tried to shut them down.

Different issue altogether. I AGREE with anti-child porn laws, they are intended to protect the victims and potential victims. The same can't be said about copyright laws. What I DON"T believe in is the typical American thinking that we can ram our laws down other people's throat just to make a few of our companies more money.  You're right, not all artists make the kind of money the big players do. That's partially because it's so F-ing lucrative there are tons of people trying. Anywhere in the US you can find a bunch of people trying to make a living in music. Go ask them why.

[Rev. Powell]

I imagine you wouldn't feel the same way if the issue was a country with no laws against child pornography making stuff available to Americans, then thumbing their noses at those who tried to shut them down.

Different issue altogether. I AGREE with anti-child porn laws, they are intended to protect the victims and potential victims. The same can't be said about copyright laws. What I DON"T believe in is the typical American thinking that we can ram our laws down other people's throat just to make a few of our companies more money.  You're right, not all artists make the kind of money the big players do. That's partially because it's so F-ing lucrative there are tons of people trying. Anywhere in the US you can find a bunch of people trying to make a living in music. Go ask them why.

I look at it from the perspective of the artist.  I don't think the media companies are always the bad guys (though they definitely are sometimes, such as the "Mickey Mouse" lobbying that contracted the public domain, or the RIAA's selective prosecutions of small-time downloaders). 

But in general, I don't begrudge music labels all the profits in the world.  That's because they are the ones who fund the artists.  About 5-10% of albums released are profitable, some of them massively so.  The labels use the hit recordings to fund advances for the rest of the bands on their roster, hoping they'll become the next big thing.  The same thing happens with movie studios, book publishers, etc.  Most working artists get funding from these companies, not from the sales their work generates.  If you've made a low-budget movie, your hope is to sell it to a distributor who'll pay you something for it.  If the distributor has less money to pay you because piracy is hurting his bottom line, that could mean he'll pass on your chancy project, or pay you less than it cost to make the film.

Due to loopholes and lax enforcement of copyright laws, there are some Russian websites that sell song downloads directly to people for less than Itunes.  They get away with it because they don't pay the original artists or copyright holders anything.  You can even find song downloads from bands like the Beatles and Metallica who have refused to sell digital music.  I wouldn't mind cramming our laws down these scumbags throats.  But I AGREE with copyright laws.  In fact, I don't know what system we could replace them with.  It looks like the road we're heading down is "take whatever you want, pay for it if you feel like it."

Sorry, I try to bite my tongue on the issue whenever it comes up, because almost no one seems to agree with me that intellectual property is worth protecting.  You're in a vast majority that sees the media companies as greedy bastards that are abusing the legal process to create unjustified profits for themselves.  Every now and then I have to give a different viewpoint, even though I know it's ultimately hopeless. 

P.S. I think guys are joining bands to get laid, not to get rich.   

[trekgeezer]

Artist don't get squat from record companies.  They get put under contract making them the sole distributor of the artists work (sometimes the sole owner of the rights). The artist has to pay for the studio time and get's practically nothing from the sale of their work. They make their money by touring and public performances.

I don't understand why any musician would bother with a record company any more.  You can set up a studio in your house for probably 3 grand and sell your stuff over the internet.

The RIAA and MPAA don't give a rat's ass about "the artist", hell most of the time "the artist" has to end up suing these companies just to get what is due them.

[ghouck]

Well take a look at the lawsuit regarding Kaliedescope and the actual wording involved: The studios stopped Kaliedescope (a device that holds DVDs and allows a person to watch them in any room of their house.) They pushed the lawsuit based on a technicality that really had no merit: The point was that DVDs were copied onto a hard drive for use, but the DVD remained in the box, and what was on the hard drive could not be used without the disc. Their answer was "We don't want people to be able to do that, they can either carry the disc from room to room, or buy multiple copies". The response was "People want to avoid doing so because of how fragile DVDs are, which is why so many people are buying DVD jukeboxes". The reply to that was "DVD Jukeboxes are what we're addressing next". I'm not sure what explanation there could be for that except they don't like the protection a jukebox provides, and want to eliminate it.
Never being able to show ANY way that Kaliedescope allows one to watch a movie without the DVD, or contributes to piracy, they oppose it, KNOWING that all it was doing was protecting the actual DVD as an investment.

[Rev. Powell]

Artist don't get squat from record companies.  They get put under contract making them the sole distributor of the artists work (sometimes the sole owner of the rights). The artist has to pay for the studio time and get's practically nothing from the sale of their work. They make their money by touring and public performances.

I don't understand why any musician would bother with a record company any more.  You can set up a studio in your house for probably 3 grand and sell your stuff over the internet.

The RIAA and MPAA don't give a rat's ass about "the artist", hell most of the time "the artist" has to end up suing these companies just to get what is due them.

Maybe you have personal experience in the recording industry I don't have. I'm mainly just going off what I was taught by my entertainment law professor, Mark Tratos, and what's contained in my textbook, "Law and Business of the Entertainment Industry." 

Here's what the book says about the ecomomics of record labels:

"The break-even point for a record company's investment is high and reflects the high-risk nature of the business... There are thousands, perhaps millions, of artists who seek to enter into a recording agreement... with hopes that, with a record company's investment of money and personnel, the artist will achieve the notoriety and translated sales of recorded products to provide the artists with a short term livelihood, long term career, and financial security... The cost of a major label album for a new contemporary music artist ranges from $100,000 to $500,000.  From this amount (recording 'fund') the recording must be produced and any remaining balance will be 'advanced' to the artist.  The entire recording fund is typically subject to recoupment [from royalities]... the label will 'advance' the costs of certain promotions... financial support for the tour to the extent the income from the tour doesn't cover tour costs... the result is that there is usually about $300,000 to $1,000,000 advanced to an artist's recoupable account... Usually, at about 250,000 copies... sold, a label will break even... All advances to the artist are only payable through recoupment.  If an insufficient number of albums are sold to achieve recoupment of advances, the artist does not have to pay the deficiency to the label... very few of the new artists's signings break even; perhaps one in twenty."

So, as I understand it, a label will fund all the recording costs, all the advertising costs, pay to send the band on tour, and give the artist something to pay rent with while recording, all while knowing there's a 95% chance they will lose money.  It's true, the artist usually doesn't see any money from royalties, but that's because most of the albums never make back their investment.  The band doesn't have to repay their beer money for the time they were under contract.

Now, it is also true that some producers will rip artists off.  That's a matter for the courts when it happens.  But, when the system works the way it's intended to, the label takes all the risk, the artist gets an album made and promotion that they never could have afforded on their own, plus they get money to live on while they're under contract.

I think the obvious reason why every band wants a deal with a label rather than to set up a studio in their basement and sell their records over the internet is because no one has ever made a dime doing that.  That's fine if you're an amateur who just wants to get their stuff out there and is happy people are listening, but it's not a career path.

Everyone thinks the big corporations are automatically the bad guys, but there's two sides to every story.  Record labels may be evil, but they're a necessary evil.

[Torgo]

The only times I've let friends of mine burn me off stuff that they downloaded for "free" is when I was wanting to check something out to see if I liked it before I bought it.

Every single thing that I have liked that I've gotten downloads of I've ended up going out and actually buying the CD/DVD.

Being a musician, I still say that an artist is entitled to every single dime that they should get for their art.  People don't realize that by actually BUYING you're allowing more lesser known or struggling artists to keep making the kind of art that you like.

[The Burgomaster]

So, dunno, that's kind of interesting I think.  I mean, fines are one thing, but jail time?  Wow.

I'm in favor of the jail time.  They were facilitating illegal activities.

[trekgeezer]

What really worries me is how many politicians these record and movie people have in their pockets. 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10224689-38.html


Add this to the fact that Obama has put 5 former RIAA lawyers in top positions in the Justice Department.

[Rev. Powell]

Being a musician, I still say that an artist is entitled to every single dime that they should get for their art.  People don't realize that by actually BUYING you're allowing more lesser known or struggling artists to keep making the kind of art that you like.

That's my point exactly.  People sometimes assume they're just taking away money from a rich corporation or a rich musician, but they don't make the connection that those profits filter down to the poor schlubs who are trying to work for a living.  Less $ for record companies means less $ to promote new musicians.