13 ms·
Behind the scenes of the Pirate Bay trial
- white_devil 14y agoDisgusting, but par for the course in today's world.
- monsterix 14y agoI have been reading about this for quite a while. Why is it that we never come to see faces and names of people who exert state control like this? For example, name and pictures of people from MPAA, US of A and Sweden and everyone in between starting from the lobby to those pushed over to set an example. Though it's quite natural for people facing unjust trial to surface more often, it might just do good to the world if we can see faces of agents pushing the case for say RIAA, SOPA and so on... wouldn't it? 360 degree transparency will help if this is truly in the interest of public (as any Government claims).
- maeon3 14y agoCorruption likes to hide in the shadows, that's why you don't hear about the names and see faces of the individuals doing this. As soon as a name becomes known, all sorts of political shifting occurs. They've got several layers of scapegoats and fall-guys to take the hit when abuse of power, corruption and treasonous behaviour are provable. The types of crimes committed in suppressing the pirate bay are orders of magnitude more alarming than the notion of some 15 year old somewhere downloading a Brittany Spears CD and listening to it on his ipod. This has nothing to do with fairness, it has everything to do with taking a step to own the internet and every bit/byte that travels across it, why? So you can tax it. Congressmen need to curry favor with entities with lots of cash, and you can't get them on your team unless you can threaten them with restrictive legislation. The congressman is like a parasite with tentacles into the host's brain. The parasite's power is only as great as it's ability to convince the host that it is in the best interests to feed the parasite. What we see here is the parasite trying to drill a hole and insert another tentacle into the host. You don't ask for lower regulations, you must forcibly remove it with a weapon or surgical instrument. You do not ask a parasite to stop regulating.
- monsterix 14y agoTrue that! > "As soon as a name becomes known, all sorts of political shifting occurs. They've got several layers of scapegoats and fall-guys to take the hit when abuse of power, corruption and treasonous behavior are provable." After political shift/transfer bring out the new profiles and names. I am sure their number wouldn't be more than let' say - Facebook? :)
- jacquesm 14y agoAnd even after all of that the piratebay still operates as though nothing ever happened. You have to give those guys props for stamina.
- sp332 14y agoThe four guys on trial were not involved with the site at the time the trial first started. There were already other people running it by then.
- jacquesm 14y agoSure, but seeing your compadres nailed to a tree in this fashion would likely be enough to give most people pause. To push on in light of that seems fairly determined to me.
- nwh 14y agoI imagine that the operators have absolutely no connection to the pirate bay. Access by Tor, pay to PRQ with an anonymous method (they even do cash), and there's really very little risk in it for them. The money flow could very well be followed, but one would hope they have planned for that.
- Falkvinge 14y agoThe Pirate Bay is indeed a technical trailblazer. Not necessarily for back-end architecture or user experience, but damn, the site is resilient against anything you throw at it. Pretty much every Power That Be <tm> has tried to bring the site down, and it still stands. That's amazing. Cheers, Rick
- 3pt14159 14y agoI do not know if the facts presented here are true (although I expect that they are) this publication is heavily biased as it was founded by the creator of the Swedish pirate party.
- moilolita 14y agoHey, greetings to the US Embassy, how do you do ?
- ruswick 14y agoYeah. I took one look the site, decided that it look illegitimate and/or suspicious, and closed the page.
- white_devil 14y agoYeah, it's not like he might have been making a point. Let's just latch on to one word's literal meaning and use that to dismiss the whole article.
- jacquesm 14y agoFalkvinge is a polarizing figure. He says these things to wake you up and make you think. If a left-wing do-good society such as Sweden can have a court case this perverted then likely in other countries it is even worse. A charged headline will help in bringing the audience to the content, if 'one look' is all it takes for you to dismiss the data as illegitimate and/or suspicious then perhaps I can allay your worries by stating that he's 100% legit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickard_Falkvinge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickard_Falkvinge
- Falkvinge 14y agoIllegitimate - no. It's my site and I can confirm that. I've been working hard on it for quite some time. Suspicious - well, that depends on exactly what you are suspecting. Cheers, Rick
- rgbrenner 14y agoYou needed to open the link to see that? The link called Sweden a banana republic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic A banana republic is a politically unstable country that economically depends upon the exports of a limited resource (fruits, minerals), and usually features a society composed of stratified social classes, such as a great, impoverished working class and a ruling plutocracy, composed of the elites of business, politics, and the military. Who in their right mind thinks that describes Sweden?
- doe88 14y agoAnd then some mock Assange when he expresses fears that it could be the perfect scheme to grab him and extradite him to the US in the end. Reading this, I would also be myself cautious in the Sweden justice system. And btw my position is not against Swede at all, I think the justice system of my own country (France) is no better and is also rigged toward what the establishment/politics have decided.
- eriksank 14y agoWell, the main actors are still laughing about this and asking us: "You do not like this and so what?", and they are right, because indeed: "So what?". They damn well know that nobody is going to do anything about it anyway. We all know that the next time, they will be even more arrogant and even more condescending.
- contingencies 14y agoDown with government! The internet is dead! LONG LIVE THE INTERNET! Honestly though, Sweden will never be forgiven. I hassle Swedes every time I see them now, and have done for nearly a couple of years. Mostly they are ignorant (particularly the older ones), but some of the young people are on our side (though not necessarily following the issues). Seems their political and legal systems have slipped together in to extremely right wing, corrupt, and US-aligned without anyone in the country noticing.
- darkchasma 14y agoThe Swedes won't be forgiven because they let America bully them? Yup, that's logical.
- gwern 14y agoYeah, pretty much. Sweden is not poor; it is not uneducated; it is not corrupt; it is not dependent on the USA for economic or military aid; it's full of people who ostensibly understand that sometimes the USA should be opposed; and so on and so forth. They have means, motive, and opportunity to do the right thing at little cost to themselves, and they failed to do so.
- mindjiver 14y agoSweden has been a close ally of USA ever since the end of WWII. This was necessary due to our location near the USSR. We might not rely on direct aid but with a small (nowadays) military and an export oriented economy being friends with USA is beneficial.
- beagle3 14y ago> it is not corrupt Well, time to cross that one out of the list. It might just be a small part so far, but since there's nothing to oppose it, it will spread like a disease. Quickly or slowly, depending on lots of factors. But with nothing to oppose the spread, it is unlikely to stop.
- duuude 14y ago
- flog 14y agoI'm trying to figure out how to get Adam Curtis to make a doco about all of this political machination. It would be an entertaining and interesting watch. Surely someone on HN has his ear? Whisper the idea would you, please.
- subsystem 14y agohttp://www.tpbafk.tv http://www.tpbafk.tv A documentary film-maker has been filming this since 2008. It scheduled for release in 2013 and will be released as download (cc licensed), but also on Swedish national TV.
- sameerp1 14y agoThis article operates on the premise that the defendants are not guilty. But can someone explain how/why creating a site like the Pirate Bay that encourages or at least tolerates piracy is not a crime. I ask in all seriousness.
- nirvana 14y agoSo, if someone made a webstie that was pro-marijuana, would you assume that was a crime? They're encouraging/tolerating piracy. The pirate bay did not host nor distribute any pirated files. So where's the crime?
- sameerp1 14y agoSo would owning a site called childporn.com and allowing people to post direct links to download child pornography without any attempt to stop it also not be a crime? Again, I'm being serious that I really dont know the answer. These are the actual issues at play. Can one really free themselves of legal responsibility by just saying we don't host or post the files ourselves?
- SoftwareMaven 14y agoIs Google committing a crime if it indexes a CP site? Are you committing a crime if somebody links to CP in your blog's comments? Of course not. Having a link to something is not a crime.
- sebcat 14y agoIntent makes a big difference here.
- archgrove 14y agoBecause Google and you are not setting out explicitly to build a set of links to copyrighted material against the wishes of the copyright holder. It's all about intent. If I go to a high-street store called "Kitchen Goods" and buy a knife, that store's fine. If I go to a store called "Jay's back-alley shivs" run out of the inside breast of his raincoat between 02:00 and 04:00, he's probably not fine. The law recognises intent in most situations, and the Pirate Bay exists to provide access to expensive-to-create content without compensating the people who made it. Hence, they have problems (and justifiably so).
- nirvana 14y agoAs countries become more corrupted, their "legal" system becomes less about the law and justice, and more an arm of the state to impose its will. I've seen countless examples of this, where the law was ignored, precedent and procedure was ignored, and obviously corrupted officials acted for their best interest in persecuting the people the state had decided needed persecution. In fact, this tendency is so common, historically, that it is one of the reasons the US had its revolution, and one of the reasons the form of government created in the USA was so different from the rest of the world, at the time. Many protections were enshrined in the US constitution, designed to prevent exactly these abuses. However, even in the USA, these protections have become meaningless... because at the end of the day all systems rely on people. When all of the people with power in any system are answerable to the state (And the state only) the system quickly becomes merely an agent of the state's interests... and not a defender of the public's interest. We see this most starkly with the states demonizing of "terrorism" (when in many cases it isn't actually terrorism it is going after)... with its massive power grabs due to the "War on drugs" (after decades of demonizing drugs) ... and now, lately, after "piracy" (with decades of demonizing "pirates".) Things will continue to get worse in this regard-- because there is no effective force to counter it. US elections, no matter which party wins, put "anti-terrorist" and "anti-drug" and "anti-piracy" people in office. Note Obama who promised a "softer war on drugs" picked the Architect of the Drug War, Joe Biden as his running mate and his tune immediately changed after getting elected. Bush was no better, etc. It has been decades since blatently unconstitutional asset-forfieture laws were enacted under Reagan. Further, in those decades we've had uncountable incidents of police outright stealing property under them, never charging someone with a crime. I can think of nothing more corrupt than, for instance, florida cops stopping tourists to take all their money. (similar incident happened in texas.) Despite public awareness and many appeals to the courts over the years, this practice is only growing bigger. So, what is to be done? They're getting away with it, and show no signs of stopping.... and the alleged methods to hold them accountable: The law, the courts, the supreme court, and elections have all failed.
- jacquesm 14y ago> I can think of nothing more corrupt than, for instance, florida cops stopping tourists to take all their money. That's the worst you can think of? Well, lucky you. Even so, a few bent cops don't mean all police officers are like that. Plenty of them are doing the best they can. > So, what is to be done? Well, now that you've laid it out this clear, the way forward is obvious: Revolution!!
- w1ntermute 14y agoWhy was the "Banana republic justice: " prefix removed from the title? I really don't like the subversive censorship on HN. Who are these mods, and who are they to make a decision on how/when titles should be changed?
- archgrove 14y agoBecause it's inflammatory, and patently nonsense. By any non-mad definition, Sweden is not a banana republic. Saying so prejudices the points made (though frankly, the entire "article" is 1 sided hyperbole).
- pyre 14y ago| By any non-mad definition, Sweden is not a | banana republic This can't be a kangaroo court! We're not in Australia, so there are no kangaroos here!</sarcasm> The prefix "Banana Republic Justice" can also be seen as claiming that Sweden handed out banana republic-style justice in this case, not that Sweden is a banana republic.
- bluedanieru 14y agoBut, it's in the title. It shouldn't have been edited out.
- Androsynth 14y agonote: this comment isnt directly about this post, it is comparing the comments of this post to the comments of one of yesterdays posts: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368. Yesterday there was a debate about whether the spewing leaded gasoline fumes into the air was something that should be regulated by the govt or privately litigated. The pro-regulators handily won the votes battle, but this post is an example of why it is bad in a general sense. The government is a giant complex system. It is also extremely prone to the slippery slope. If you allow the federal govt one new dept. they will make 5; if you allow the govt to increase budget by $1B, they will increase it by $100B; if you allow them to regulate one industry, they will regulate them all. You can't judge the govt by a single mandate, you have to judge it as a whole. This is why federal regulations are bad in a general sense, because you start with something 'good' (the environment) but you are giving them permission to eventually regulate IP and other areas where more powerful business interests may not allow the regulations to turn out the way you want. If you want the negative externalities of businesses (eg clean air) regulated by the govt, you have to acknowledge that they now have permission to regulate everything similar. But while the public has limited resources (energy, time and money) to fight for 'good' regulation, the corporations have essentially an infinite amount of each. It is a nebulous, interconnected system and the slippery slope is a very real dilemma here. So its easy to downvote an anarcho-capitalist because you think the clean air act was a good thing or because private litigation is a bad thing, but you have to look at their underlying reasoning. Every inch you give the state, it takes a foot and in the end you only approve of 1/12 of the moves they make.
- hamai 14y agoAccording to Firebug this article page made 298 requests, totaling 2.1 MB, taking my poor computer 52.79s (onload: 50.11s) to process everything. Is this really necessary?
- subsystem 14y agoThe biggest mistake they made was not hearing the case in the supreme court. There are some strange things in the verdict which I think if not revised at least should be addressed to regain some trust from the public. For example: "One factor making this case special is that the main crime is not particularly severe, as seen individually they are of limited scope, not organized and not commercial", p43. "It should be noted that in paragraph 9 in directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights the following is concluded: 'Infringements of intellectual property rights appear to be increasingly linked to organised crime. Increasing use of the Internet enables pirated products to be distributed instantly around the globe.'", p46 "That copyright infringement by illegal file-sharing is a social problem, which in later years spread like wildfire, does according to the court of appeal appear close to a publicly known fact", p46. "The court of appeals overall assessment finds it clear that the illegal file-sharing quickly reached proportions at which the general preventive considerations must have great importance in the application of the law. According to the court of appeal there are therefore concerning this form of copyright infringement very special reasons to see the crime of such severity that the sentencing should be imprisonment", p47. So... Judges joins copyright organization. Copyright organization tells judges that file-sharing is bad. Judges sees file-sharing as a huge social problem. Judges sentence defendants to exceptional sentences without being biased? http://cybernormer.se/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/defavgdok.pdf http://cybernormer.se/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/defavgdok.p...