An EU First: Person Sentenced for Sharing Information on Pirating Service

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

This isnt the solution either so your point is kinda moot... No matter how many lives they carelessly ruin they cant stop this without solving the root of the problem, which aint gonna happen because they are greedy beyond hope...

 

How is my point moot?  You haven't actually addressed the issue, just talked about other crimes being worse.

 

8 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Yes, they should. Resources are limited, and the ability of the courts are not absolute. Minor crimes should not be the responsibility of the courts to uphold, but a social responsibility. It's absolutely ludicrous how much inane junk is clogging down the legal system pretty much everywhere.

 

So next time someone steals your car or or if you are the victim of digital crime (ID theft and someone racks up a bill in your name), and the Police don't even bother to show up because they have more serious crimes to deal with you won't be upset?   What if your business faces a civil threat and the lawyers all told you you had no hope of justice because the legal system doesn't want to be "clogged down" with "inane junk"?

 

 

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

IDK, but I think their argument is based around the ol' they only go after uploaders and seeders!  Um, that's great and all, but they can still arrest you for theft.

yeah,  crime is crime, pointing at murder and rape doesn't legitimize piracy.

[Energycore]

On 2/7/2018 at 1:41 PM, mr moose said:

I guess regardless of whether you agree with piracy or not, the fact is it is illegal and they are having trouble shutting down the other end (pirate bay et al). That logically only leaves the user end to try and shut down.   

It's sort of like fighting drugs by educating kids about their dangers, except pirating is not actually dangerous and only "bad" because someone (the media's biggest) decided that they don't like it. It's corporate control of the law, and I don't like it.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

It's sort of like fighting drugs by educating kids about their dangers, except pirating is not actually dangerous and only "bad" because someone (the media's biggest) decided that they don't like it. It's corporate control of the law, and I don't like it.

Which is fine as an opinion, but if we don't support a companies right to defend their copyrighted material in a court (for any reason) then we also deny everyone else the right to defend their IP in a court.  Whether we think the crime has victims or not largely becomes irrelevant when we consider the implications of starting to decide what IP/copyright can be protected under law and what can't.

[aezakmi]

there are guys planning bombings, shootings and raping goats but sending some random dudes to the jail because they shared a ?️ class movie over the internet is way more important

[Energycore]

Just now, mr moose said:

Which is fine as an opinion, but if we don't support a companies right to defend their copyrighted material in a court (for any reason) then we also deny everyone else the right to defend their IP in a court.  Whether we think the crime has victims or not largely becomes irrelevant when we consider the implications of starting to decide what IP/copyright can be protected under law and what can't.

You raise a fair point. As long as the IP laws do more good than harm, I'm OK with them. They've served to protect IP for a very long time now and I think we'd all rather not lose that even if it means that we don't get to consume some media that we may want.

[Energycore]

Just now, aezakmi said:

there are guys planning bombings, shootings and raping goats but sending some random dudes to the jail because they shared a ?️ class movie over the internet is way more important

Lol it's not like they're not allocating resources to those concerns. There's more than one policeman / one institution / one bureau.

[Misanthrope]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

So are you "just saying" we should just ignore all minor crimes like petty theft for example until the bigger crimes are sorted?

Victimless acts like should not even be crimes to begin with like online file distribution of petty drug offenses?

 

I am absolutely and positively saying that, yes.

 

Whenever you want to believe publishers at face value on their claims of lost revenue is a different subject altogether, but by definition online piracy is not theft because the original product is not replaced or taken away and it's just duplicated. Counterfeit is a different crime than theft for a reason.

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Victimless acts like should not even be crimes to begin with like online file distribution of petty drug offenses?

 

I am absolutely and positively saying that, yes.

 

Whenever you want to believe publishers at face value on their claims of lost revenue is a different subject altogether, but by definition online piracy is not theft because the original product is not replaced or taken away and it's just duplicated. Counterfeit is a different crime than theft for a reason.

Protecting IP/copyright has farther reaching implications than just labeling piracy a victimless crime.  There is a crossover between civil and criminal and it is a massive grey area because it is massively  open to opinion and ideals.  But like most laws and civil cases like this,  there is a built in ambiguity that affords judges and lawyers the ability to argue/conclude the severity of the case and apply actions accordingly.    This is why some people get a slap on the wrist while others get  huge penalties. 

 

This concept that we can just forget about small crime because we believe it is "victimless" is fine until we understand that each law and precedent is just another in a chain and ultimately when you break on link the whole chain becomes loose.  

[Sniperfox47]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

How is my point moot?  You haven't actually addressed the issue, just talked about other crimes being worse.

 

So next time someone steals your car or or if you are the victim of digital crime (ID theft and someone racks up a bill in your name), and the Police don't even bother to show up because they have more serious crimes to deal with you won't be upset?   What if your business faces a civil threat and the lawyers all told you you had no hope of justice because the legal system doesn't want to be "clogged down" with "inane junk"?

 

 

I'll definitely be upset, but at the end of the day my minor issue is irrelevant in the face of larger threats. You can be upset and be frustrated that people aren't helping you, and still acknowledge that they shouldn't...

[Notional]

This entire case is quite odd. I have yet to find anything that describes the paragraphs he's been sentenced by. Not even the official justice department announcement of it states so. To be clear, the fine he got was the exact amount of money he made on ads on his site. But that still doesn't make any sense.

 

I hope he appeals the case because this does indeed set a precedent that is very problematic for the personal rights of people.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I'll definitely be upset, but at the end of the day my minor issue is irrelevant in the face of larger threats. You can be upset and be frustrated that people aren't helping you, and still acknowledge that they shouldn't...

Such an altruistic outlook. 

 

Just now, Notional said:

 To be clear, the fine he got was the exact amount of money he made on ads on his site. But that still doesn't make any sense.

 

 

As I said earlier, laws surrounding cases like this tend to be intentionally vague.  In this case it would appear the judge wanted to see the law upheld while acknowledging this isn't a crime against humanity.  thus he got the school equivalent of "give it back and say sorry", rather than an actual punishment intended to "correct" behaviour. 

[jagdtigger]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

How is my point moot?  You haven't actually addressed the issue, just talked about other crimes being worse.

Its moot because none of us can address it, only the industry. But not by dragging every single ""pirate"" to court, it was proven several time it wont accomplish anything...

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

Its moot because none of us can address it, only the industry. But not by dragging every single ""pirate"" to court, it was proven several time it wont accomplish anything...

That doesn't even make sense.  Are you trying to suggest that such laws are only legitimate if "every" pirate was successfully taken to court? 

 

Does that mean that speeding laws should also not be enforced because you can't always catch "every" speeder?    What proof are you even talking about?

[jagdtigger]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

That doesn't even make sense.  Are you trying to suggest that such laws are only legitimate if "every" pirate was successfully taken to court? 

 

Does that mean that speeding laws should also not be enforced because you can't always catch "every" speeder?    What proof are you even talking about?

Are you deliberately misread my comment or what? I said these pointless lawsuits wont solve anything, not when you take one thing down, then several others will take its place. And if you need proof there is TPB. How many lawsuits started against it but its still here.  This bone was chewed down several times. Go and look it up why they still loosing this battle no matter how many lives they ruin with their outdated thinking.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

Are you deliberately misread my comment or what? I said these pointless lawsuits wont solve anything, not when you take one thing down, then several others will take its place. And if you need proof there is TPB. How many lawsuits started against it but its still here.  This bone was chewed down several times. Go and look it up why they still loosing this battle no matter how many lives they ruin with their outdated thinking.

I did not deliberately misread your post, It honestly didn't make any sense.

 

So are you now arguing that the seemingly futile nature of dealing with pirates means people should just give up their right to protect their own IP/copyright? 

 

 

 

 

[Volbet]

On 2/8/2018 at 10:29 PM, Notional said:

This entire case is quite odd. I have yet to find anything that describes the paragraphs he's been sentenced by. Not even the official justice department announcement of it states so. To be clear, the fine he got was the exact amount of money he made on ads on his site. But that still doesn't make any sense.

 

I hope he appeals the case because this does indeed set a precedent that is very problematic for the personal rights of people.

While I can't know for certain, I would suspect he was convicted of breaking § 299b of the Danish penal code via § 23. § 299b prohibits the illegal sharing of copyrighted material and § 23 prohibts assisting in commiting a crime.  

[RagnarokDel]

That is some retarded shit right there. By that logic, any gun instructor that taught someone how to shoot which later ended up committing a murder is an accomplice.

[LAwLz]

13 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

That is some retarded shit right there. By that logic, any gun instructor that taught someone how to shoot which later ended up committing a murder is an accomplice.

Like I said earlier, it depends on context and wording. 

A shooting instructor just teaching people to do it for fun is OK. A shooting instructor who encourages people to do school shooting for example should not be OK according to me. 

 

"Learn how to shoot a gun!" = OK

"Learn how to shoot the bully at school!" = not OK

[Zodiark1593]

Don't copy that Flash? 2018

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, RagnarokDel said:

That is some retarded shit right there. By that logic, any gun instructor that taught someone how to shoot which later ended up committing a murder is an accomplice.

In this case it would not be just teaching them how to shoot, but specifically how to shoot another person and avoid getting caught whilst knowing full well that a certain percentage of their clients/viewers will actually do it.