The Pirate Bay: the verdict doesn’t matter
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Roll-up Roll-up for the Show Trial of the Century, being held in NEUTRAL Sweden.
All the bases are loaded, the umpire looks behind him, and the pitcher swings early.
The Swedish government enacted a piece of legislation during a court recess into whether or not the people running The Pirate Bay are arch criminals.
The judges who heard the case are to give their ruling later this month.
Cynicists would be forgiven for querying the remarkable timing of the Swedish legislature in passing the Bill.
Pressure on the judges is building by the day.
With the whole world watching and waiting with baited breath, the outcome now seems to be a foregone conclusion.
But what’s this case really about?
I’ll tell you what the case isn’t about.
It isn’t about reality.
The Pirate Bay do nothing more than Google, or Ask Jeeves or MSN. They provide an indexing service — just like the Electronic Program Guide that we all use when we’re selecting our viewing choice for the evening.
An EPG.
The Wikipedia defines EPG as an “electronic program(me) guide (EPG) or interactive program(me) guide (IPG) or electronic service guide (ESG) is a digital guide to scheduled broadcast television or radio programs, typically displayed on-screen with functions allowing a viewer to navigate, select, and discover content by time, title, channel, genre, etc. by use of their remote control, a keyboard, or other input devices such as a phone keypad.”
So what’s the differences between that and what TPB does?
Their EPG is a digital guide to unscheduled content or programs.
The site doesn’t host content. It relies on third parties to supply ‘links’ to content.
On this topic, the Wikipedia states:
“Most EPG systems, however, rely upon third party “metadata aggregators” (companies such as Tribune TV Data, Gemstar-TV Guide in the U.S. and Europe, and Broadcasting Dataservices in Europe), to provide good quality data content. Newer media centres (PC based multi-channel TV recorders) and digital video recorders may use an internet feed for the EPG. This enables two-way interactivity for the user so that media download can be requested via the EPG, or related link, and remote programming of the media center can be achieved. Examples include IceTV and MythTV.”
So what exactly does the Patent for the original EPG say ? It says this »»»
Abstract of US Patent 4751578 (A)
The electronically controllable system of the invention for viewing on a television, updateable television programming information comprises a microcontroller which is partially controllable by remote control system and is updateable via telephone link, magnetic cards or floppy disks, or television or radio subcarrier, the microcontroller including input/output interfaces, a microprocessor and a RAM; a mixer for mixing a regularly received television signal with the signal generated by the microcontroller; an RF converter for receiving the radio frequency information from the mixer, microcontroller, and television antennae and properly converting the information into information which may be sent to the television; ; and a remote control system for permitting the viewer to direct the microcontroller to perform searches on information contained in the RAM so as to provide on the television screen in a chosen format, subsets of information desired by the viewer. The system preferably also includes a ROM for directing the microcontroller to access the information link should the RAM lose information due to power failure.
Looks awfully like a computer with a mouse to me.
In other words, the guys running TPB aren’t responsible for the Third Parties who supply the EPG content.
So who should really be in the hotseat, if anyone?
The Protagonists (the prosecuting party) are from America, masquerading under the guises of WIPO to press home a guilty verdict.
But, dear reader, please be under no illusion: the lobbyists, presenters, and so on, all come from America..
And it would appear that defendants are also located in America.
Herman Hollerith invented the recording of data on a medium that could then be read by a machine which was rapidly engaged as a Tabulator system to help count electoral votes so that politicians could get elected quicker and cheaper; later Holleriths company became IBM.
Xerox, the inventors of the first copyright infringement tool, the Photocopier, also invented the first Graphic User Interface (Windows) and the Mouse with which the GUI is controlled.
It would seem to me that all the parties are actually from America.
Why, then, is this battle being fought on Swedish Territory?
Is it because the DCMA passed in 1998 has failed?
Is it because the content industry com[anies are realizing they can't keep antagonizing their good American customers because of the pushback?
It would seem to me the Swedish Nation has to let its voice be heard above that of its legislators, and needs to let the judiciary know that their ruling has been carefully orchestrated as a political gesture.
Further, the Swedish people should consider very carefully whether or not they wish to retain a government at the next elections that's happy to put a handshake from Obama above that of the needs, of what used to be a neutral, proud and united nation.
Tom Koltai - p2pnet
[Koltai is an economist in Sydney Australia. He's says he's been online for 26 years, has run several ISPs and, "lobbied governments in four countries to prevent Internet restrictive usage legislation from being enacted". He says he's a strong believer in P2P, "as being a technological requirement to fully exploit the convergence of telephony with computers and remove the last barriers to human communication and interaction".]
April, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:50 am
whatever the outcome, if it’s possible in swedish law, i think either party will appeal based on the timing of the new legislation, or call it an unsafe ruling (as is sometimes done in the UK), bullifying the judgment and causing a retrial.
also, i hope some interested parties (EFF, pirate party, etc.) can contest the law based on it being enacted while the court is in recess.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:51 am
not “bullifying”…i mean “nullifying”.
but bullying does come into it.
freudian slip?
April 6th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
All if this ‘Copyright’ law they are trying to push on us is ridiculous. If this is what they deem illegal, then that is the same for my Digital TV PVR. I record TV episodes, Movies, anything I want, and YES…I do show them publicly because my friends come over and watch them for FREE!! So I must be a so called “pirate” also.
Time to sue all the Cable, Satellite companies, TiVo, all the manufacturers… it will have to be everybody if this is to be a fair judgment. We do not build the tools to “Pirate” the product in question, the manufacturers do, so where does it end?
It never will…….
April 7th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
What we’re seeing are the death throes of an industry that cannot adapt. Many artists think that record companies make them rich – they don’t. Their popularity is what makes people want to watch them and listen to them. A record company’s primary purpose is marketing – everything else, including distribution, is a product of that marketing. Artists PAY record companies to market and distribute, and if the record company fails, they come after the artist.
So-called “piracy” takes over the distribution aspect of the recording industry. Pirates perform a valuable service – distributing media at their own expense, rather than the artist’s. Forcing pirates to remain anonymous has hindered the music industry’s ability to profit from this distribution method. Look at axxo. Pirates love to download and share authentic axxo rips due to their consistently high quality. People search for “axxo” when trying to discover new media! There is absolutely no reason why the recording industry couldn’t do the same thing, sharing under their own labels. This could be the cornerstone of a label’s marketing approach, but instead of adopting it, they’ve sandbagged it.
People will always want merchandise of popular artists, whether that merchandise is a CD, autographed CD, t-shirts, etc. People will always want to see live performances of popular artists. The recording industry can create plenty of revenue streams and slash their own costs just by utilizing the goodwill of consumers to build the all-important popularity of the artist.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Dave’s right!
April 14th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
What about the sheer robbery of the record companies constantly re-releasing old recordings on so called compilation albums just to get more money from gullible punters. “Pirates” who share there purchases are no different to “law abiding citizens” who lend each other their toys, clothes, etc, etc. get a life you low grade American morons, Why is it always the damn yanks who have to rip off the rest of the world? Come to Oz mates and we’ll show you what we do with low-lifes……..