AfterDawn: Tech news

Movie studios sue The Pirate Bay

Written by Petteri Pyyny (Google+) @ 28 Jul 2009 8:56 User comments (47)

Movie studios sue The Pirate Bay Ten major movie studios have joined the Swedish legal-threat frenzy and have sued The Pirate Bay. The studios, including Disney, Warner Bros, Sony Pictures and Columbia Pictures have demanded a court order in Stockholm, Sweden for TPB to cease and desist helping its users to share movies whose copyrights are owned by the studios in question.
"We've been forced to seek a court order demanding that they stop the spreading of these roughly 100 films and television programmes", the studios' attorney in Sweden told to The Local, Swedish online news service. Studios' request for injuction involves TV shows such as House and Grey's Anatomy and movies including Matrix and Harry Potter series.

Studios name the TPB admins as the defendants, including Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg and Peter Sunde, as well Black Internet AB.

"They’ve been sentenced to prison for criminal activities but haven’t stopped carrying out those activities", studios' attorney told in an interview.

Studios join a legion of other content owners who have previously sued the company.

Previous Next  

47 user comments

128.7.2009 11:33

Pat hand on back of neck.

228.7.2009 13:15

wow forget that tpb is stopping what they do best lets get them quick before its to late to ruin peoples lives stupid movie companys

328.7.2009 13:20

Lol, but TPB doesn't -share- the content.

428.7.2009 13:36

silly vultures your too late the bones have been bleached dry!

528.7.2009 14:00

Hey guys let make sure that the prison sentences these guys are serving are still filled with a bunch of court room drama. The had to go to jail, the site is being sold, let it go already.

628.7.2009 14:01

Hasn't TPB sold to recover the court cost from the last round of unfair shark attack? if its under new owner ship isn't it the new owner problem? and after the new lawsuits no one speaks of the leak of the Wolverine movie... like they wont go after their own... sad very sad....

728.7.2009 14:17

The Wolverine leak I believe actually helped the studios generate revenue in that there was so much free publicity. It still remains to be seen if the leak was intentional.

828.7.2009 15:56

Usenet for the win. AGAIN!

928.7.2009 15:58

Originally posted by Run4two:
The Wolverine leak I believe actually helped the studios generate revenue in that there was so much free publicity. It still remains to be seen if the leak was intentional.
even mroe so since it was a unfinished screener.

1028.7.2009 16:37

I actually still have that Wolverine screener still; I found it somewhat more enjoyable then seeing it in theater as I was more laughing at all the unfilled blocks of cg.

Ah well, let them sue; good luck trying to prove the people in jail are still responsible for the continued uploads/downloads of the media they suing for.

1128.7.2009 17:07

Well, if that's the way they want it...

No more Disney, Warner Bros, Sony Pictures and Columbia Pictures DVDs for me. In truth though, it's pretty sad that the only thing the movie industry has left is beating a dead horse - that and making lame sequels.

1228.7.2009 18:03

TPB is not to blame, its the uploaders. Even if they sue them, it wont stop the uploading, there are other sites to go to.

1328.7.2009 18:18

Originally posted by LordRaxa:
TPB is not to blame, its the uploaders. Even if they sue them, it wont stop the uploading, there are other sites to go to.
That's not really the case, its like saying drug sellers are not to blame since they don't grow it. Of course out of the 4 things it has in similarity (profit,distribution,real crime, real possible harm to society ) it has maybe 2, profit and distribution.

But these can be further diluted. Profit is the main thorn in torrents side to many sites are making money off of running a track and that IMO is wrong unless you shift to a true free market with those with the best way to make and sell on others ideas are the ones to make profit, such anarchy could be stabilized by people sing contracts with each other to not produce X for a fee, basically bribing off all non main outlets for the IP.

But there I go rambling like a maniac....

The 2nd is distribution of course but unlike physical or "premium" content it dose not do any direct damage to the market whats being traded amounts to nothing more than thought we can digitally edit.

So in the end follow the money, TPB existed on profit via donations and as such is liable for what they made off of someone else's stuff.

My point

If they were not making money off it they would not been a huge lumbering target.

1428.7.2009 18:54

Shouldn't something like this fall under double jeopardy?

1528.7.2009 18:56

Originally posted by canuckerz:
Shouldn't something like this fall under double jeopardy?
the difference of civil V criminal I think, I wonder if they even have double jeopardy....

1628.7.2009 21:58
smallsnow
Inactive

spam edited by ddp

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 28 Jul 2009 @ 22:52

1729.7.2009 0:39

The studio's are filing a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one; therefor double jeopardy does not take play. If these companies were filing criminal charges then yes it would fall into play.

1829.7.2009 1:25

Quote:
That's not really the case, its like saying drug sellers are not to blame since they don't grow it. Of course out of the 4 things it has in similarity (profit,distribution,real crime, real possible harm to society ) it has maybe 2, profit and distribution.

But these can be further diluted. Profit is the main thorn in torrents side to many sites are making money off of running a track and that IMO is wrong unless you shift to a true free market with those with the best way to make and sell on others ideas are the ones to make profit, such anarchy could be stabilized by people sing contracts with each other to not produce X for a fee, basically bribing off all non main outlets for the IP.

But there I go rambling like a maniac....

The 2nd is distribution of course but unlike physical or "premium" content it dose not do any direct damage to the market whats being traded amounts to nothing more than thought we can digitally edit.

So in the end follow the money, TPB existed on profit via donations and as such is liable for what they made off of someone else's stuff.

My point

If they were not making money off it they would not been a huge lumbering target.
To soon do people forget that hosts cost money zippy. there servers where no walk in the park we are talking petabytes of data moving in and out being updated and indexed constantly.

and while there are other sites out there pirate bay had 10x more content then all the others. i see nothing wrong with donating to keep your servers going.


i bet if Google came out with its own torrent engine called Gorrent no body would bitch and sue Google. there are probably 5 laws Google has broken since i've come to afterdawn.

1929.7.2009 1:52

Quote:
i bet if Google came out with its own torrent engine called Gorrent no body would bitch and sue Google. there are probably 5 laws Google has broken since i've come to afterdawn.
I think the argument here was that was all the Pirate Bay did. ie. Promote the pirating and illegal sharing of IP.
Google might even be able to get away with having a torrent related site because they could successfully argue that their core business model is indexing and searching; not the promotion of piracy. The torrent protocol is not illegal.

Google (Youtube) have been sued many times for IP violations. That's why it scans your music tracks on youtube and removes your audio.
The pirate bay simply sent a sarcastic email back to whoever asked them to remove their entry.

Now I'm not holier than thou, but i don't believe TBP went the right way to affect change to fair use IP law.
Establishing the torrent protocol as a force for good and not just for piracy would go along way to legitimising trackers and torrent indexing sites.

Demonoid for example has a lot of 'legal' material available.

Homosexuality used to be illegal. It didn't become legal by bumming people then sending them a sarcastic letters afterwards saying "so what, you probably liked it" It became legal because enough people said "hey that guy is alright, hes not sending sarcastic letters everywhere, so what if he likes bumming?"

I think torrents are a lot like homosexuals.

obviously, i have issues.

2030.7.2009 7:03

Originally posted by IcyCool:
Lol, but TPB doesn't -share- the content.
They are not accusing them of sharing the content - read it again - they are accusing them of encouraging their users to share the content and that is undoubtedly true.

2130.7.2009 12:12

Quote:
Quote:
i bet if Google came out with its own torrent engine called Gorrent no body would bitch and sue Google. there are probably 5 laws Google has broken since i've come to afterdawn.
I think the argument here was that was all the Pirate Bay did. ie. Promote the pirating and illegal sharing of IP.
Google might even be able to get away with having a torrent related site because they could successfully argue that their core business model is indexing and searching; not the promotion of piracy. The torrent protocol is not illegal.

Google (Youtube) have been sued many times for IP violations. That's why it scans your music tracks on youtube and removes your audio.
The pirate bay simply sent a sarcastic email back to whoever asked them to remove their entry.

Now I'm not holier than thou, but i don't believe TBP went the right way to affect change to fair use IP law.
Establishing the torrent protocol as a force for good and not just for piracy would go along way to legitimising trackers and torrent indexing sites.

Demonoid for example has a lot of 'legal' material available.

Homosexuality used to be illegal. It didn't become legal by bumming people then sending them a sarcastic letters afterwards saying "so what, you probably liked it" It became legal because enough people said "hey that guy is alright, hes not sending sarcastic letters everywhere, so what if he likes bumming?"

I think torrents are a lot like homosexuals.

obviously, i have issues.

I see wut u did thar.

The real question will it become a normal part of life or will the IP nazis force people to be ashamed of themselves again. :P

2230.7.2009 12:24
varnull
Inactive

That all happened when the lawyers and judges and more importantly the law makers realised what consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own homes can't possibly be a crime if it harms nobody.. See the similarity? I can't be a criminal for sharing or having something or doing something as long as I do no harm... i.e- selling it..

There is a better analogy here. I am given a dvd screener by a friend who works in a shop. It isn't technically their property but the owner has told them to "dispose" of it. They give it to me as a gift, but it's something I have no use for so after watching it I hand it on to somebody else.. maybe after taking a copy for myself. Perhaps I keep that copy, perhaps not.. that's my business. The stranger gets caught with it and accused of theft. Myself and the person in the shop go to their defence and let it be known where it came from and that it was for disposal by whatever means. Being environmentalists we didn't want to send a perfectly usable item to the dump and into a landfill so we handed it on to somebody who may enjoy it. Case dismissed..

There is filesharing for no profit or gain.. except a gain to the planet. Remewmber kids.. every day millions of unsold dvd's and cd's in nice oil product packaging hits landfills everywhere because people refuse to pay even £1 for them in bargain bins.. moral of the story.. Overproduction is the crime.. compounded with greed it's immoral...

Pirates pay for nothing.. never have and never will. Try to force us and we will either make our own or find other ways to take.. simple as.

2330.7.2009 12:26

Originally posted by varnull:
That all happened when the lawyers and judges and more importantly the law makers realised what consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own homes can't possibly be a crime if it harms nobody.. See the similarity? I can't be a criminal for sharing or having something or doing something as long as I do no harm... i.e- selling it..

There is a better analogy here. I am given a dvd screener by a friend who works in a shop. It isn't technically their property but the owner has told them to "dispose" of it. They give it to me as a gift, but it's something I have no use for so after watching it I hand it on to somebody else.. maybe after taking a copy for myself. Perhaps I keep that copy, perhaps not.. that's my business. The stranger gets caught with it and accused of theft. Myself and the person in the shop go to their defence and let it be known where it came from and that it was for disposal by whatever means. Being environmentalists we didn't want to send a perfectly usable item to the dump and into a landfill so we handed it on to somebody who may enjoy it. Case dismissed..

There is filesharing for no profit or gain.. except a gain to the planet. Remewmber kids.. every day millions of unsold dvd's and cd's in nice oil product packaging hits landfills everywhere because people refuse to pay even £1 for them in bargain bins.. moral of the story.. Overproduction is the crime.. compounded with greed it's immoral...

Pirates pay for nothing.. never have and never will. Try to force us and we will either make our own or find other ways to take.. simple as.
Meh trackers that rake in thousands a year over maintenance costs will be the undoing of torrents.

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

2430.7.2009 12:44
varnull
Inactive

I have only twice donated to a tracker. That was for initial setup costs not day to day running. Is it wrong to make money from google ads and pay per click? Afterdawn does...

2530.7.2009 12:51

Originally posted by varnull:
I have only twice donated to a tracker. That was for initial setup costs not day to day running. Is it wrong to make money from google ads and pay per click? Afterdawn does...
If you are a tracker that's sharing works illicitly yes it is wrong, however if you are not making any money from the "project" then its not wrong.

A fine line there is. ^^

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

2630.7.2009 12:55
varnull
Inactive

But people who run a website which hosts no content except some user and staff generated text files? .. aren't they allowed to make a living?

I'm using drD's arguments here see?

I found a press shot of some mpFIaa lawyers.. wanna see?



This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 30 Jul 2009 @ 13:03

2730.7.2009 13:08

the IP nazis only have one goal zippy the complete and utter destruction of the free exchange of information on the internet. they are control freaks, hoarders and complete morons.

2830.7.2009 13:12

Originally posted by varnull:
But people who run a website which hosts no content except some user and staff generated text files? .. aren't they allowed to make a living?

I'm using drD's arguments here see?
Again if the sites main, 2nd or even 3rd goal/service is torrents then no not off other peoples stuff.

I don't see AD supporting torrents directly as in hosting trackers and what not, what I see it indirectly supporting it via information and news, and indirect support via software loopholes.

There is a difference in direct and indirect, cracks might use some IP directly in tiny bits and pieces so much so that's its "indirect".

Sharing the whole disc image would be "direct".

Shearing a freeware program to rip or mount is "indirect".

Shearing the whole medium/medium is "direct".

Profit is something that only the IP owners should have exclusivity to but distribution itself should always be in the whims of the public.

This is something neither side rarely bothers with because it tends to be an all or nothing argument, I don't see it in such contrast. We could easily have both (think legal sharing host services where donations taken directly through them for cost the one who starts up and pays for some of the hosting cost runs the site normally but the donations are funneled directly to cost when costs are met there is an allowed 25% overflow and costs are caped and will not take more donations until it drops under 90% from 125%, the service takes 3-5% for operating fees and of that as much as 60% is funneled into organized media this way the people get their free stuff and the monoliftic god of old gets passfied with some tributes that can get back tot eh artists if they are tinatous enough) we could have a system that would allow for free shearing either by the system I mentioned or via a type of non profit where both gov and corp can go over excess revenue(25-50% over maintenance cost) but its an all or nothing illogical world of dog eat dog, why would the corporate empire share when it can walk upon the masses and still make money.

My point, even anarchy requires order and limits, without it its just another dog eat dog world no better than the last.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 30 Jul 2009 @ 13:14

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

292.8.2009 3:55

its 0s and 1s, data, viewable art. why shouldnt we all have free access to as much as that as possible.

like much of the law, it supports private property and the right to ownership of property, so unless something within the law changes that, the studios will 'defend' their legal right to property as long as the system allows it.

302.8.2009 4:26

Originally posted by krohm:
its 0s and 1s, data, viewable art. why shouldnt we all have free access to as much as that as possible.

like much of the law, it supports private property and the right to ownership of property, so unless something within the law changes that, the studios will 'defend' their legal right to property as long as the system allows it.
Actually no taxes make it so one dose not really own property, also with eminent domain the government or business dose not need to even pay for the property they steal.

eminent domain would not be so bad if whomever shelled out 100 to 1 ratio on current value there of. In other words while you may steal someones land you make it so they have a worry free life nearly any place else.


Tho I see where you are going IP=physical property.

312.8.2009 4:36

what are you talking about, eminent domain according to wikipedia is
'inherent power of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property'...

'The term "condemnation" is used to describe the formal act of the exercise of the power of eminent domain to transfer title to the property from its private owner to the government.'

whats that got to do with a private company defending their right to property.

322.8.2009 4:44

Originally posted by krohm:
what are you talking about, eminent domain according to wikipedia is
'inherent power of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property'...

'The term "condemnation" is used to describe the formal act of the exercise of the power of eminent domain to transfer title to the property from its private owner to the government.'

whats that got to do with a private company defending their right to property.
In this day of corporate rule its used far more by business kneadleing local government to put up condominiums and other high end swag over putting up damns and running highways.


And IP/CP is nothing more than thought, an idea and no better than a patent a short term exclusive right to profit off the idea. The trouble is you have conglomerated power who seeks out to ensure that it remains exclusive forever. Because of that mere distribution should be the right of the public. But distribution and profit are two entirely separate things. If you do not make money from it there is no crime, its that simple IMO.

332.8.2009 7:57

'distribution should be the right of the public'

what? why shouldnt the distribution be up to the owner of the property.

'But distribution and profit are two entirely separate things. If you do not make money from it there is no crime, its that simple IMO.'

what?
so if i decide to steal a painting you have created, from your house, but i dont make money off it, i instead hang it in my outside toilet, then it isnt a crime, because i havent made money off it?

are you talking about the abolition of the right to property. obviously there are a lot of problems with this. principally, the one that comes to mind for me, is that humans tend to want things

342.8.2009 15:33

krohm
Ok it seems I have carelessly fragmented the conversation 3 ways, let me try and deal with each question.

Originally posted by krohm:
'distribution should be the right of the public'

what? why shouldnt the distribution be up to the owner of the property.

What I am getting at its bad to block media/information from the populace on grounds of if they can afford it or not, it smacks of the aristocratic era where everything was "protected" from the masses and nobility were treated as gods, corporate is treated as gods in this age, the distribution of it should be unrestricted up to what is illegal(child porn,ect) and selling it without a license even to the point you may not make a profit off it even to pay for maintenance.


Quote:

'But distribution and profit are two entirely separate things. If you do not make money from it there is no crime, its that simple IMO.'

what?
so if i decide to steal a painting you have created, from your house, but i dont make money off it, i instead hang it in my outside toilet, then it isnt a crime, because i havent made money off it?

Tell me how many tracker/file shearing sites could make it without getting money from advertisement,direct profit off unlicensed goods or
donations?

You see what you do is make so people can share all they want but organizing it is imposable without joining with the media industry selling legit stuff to fund the sever cost of shearing stuff.


Quote:
are you talking about the abolition of the right to property. obviously there are a lot of problems with this. principally, the one that comes to mind for me, is that humans tend to want things.
This is a 2 part drool fest on my part, first off we do not really own property(land/building) we are essentially renting it from government, and even if we pay tributes regularly business through government can take your land away to put up high rent/vaule property. Government taking your land for real infrastructure needs is at least worthy of further discussion but putting up a high rise or some BS..not so much.


Now abolishing Copy right has some merit you would decimate conglomerated media and push media back to being local for a time(because everyone locally will rush to make money off it somehow) from the ashes you'll have more smaller business, guilds if you will, that produce media from music to writing to anything else. Because they can balance cost and profit better than most smaller outfits.

Would it make for a better world..maybe maybe not you'd have more copying but you'd have more refining of media, someone makes a story someone else takes it and makes it better,ect but would things be better, probably not, more of the same but different.


IMO CP/IP even patents should focus on profit, if it's not makeing money then there is nothing you can do about it because nothing is truly being violated. The more restrict everything with inane rules the less innovation and quality information is made and spread.

353.8.2009 2:49

you're an idiot

363.8.2009 14:29

Originally posted by krohm:
you're an idiot
Dare to be one, its a rather eye opening experience. =^^=

373.8.2009 22:13

dare not to be one, its a longer more arduous journey; and a lot more eye opening

383.8.2009 22:25

Originally posted by krohm:
dare not to be one, its a longer more arduous journey; and a lot more eye opening
No really , its normal not to be one. It's normal to be "smart" and not think, to not break the mold, follow the leader and be part of the supposed greater good.

Sorry but I am a moronic fool who sees more justice and truth in things the rules say are illegal and wrong, after all societies supposed truth and order live and die upon its whims and nothing is more petty and fickle than man..... but perhaps those who claim to be "normal". Fools at least admit they are foolish and flawed.

393.8.2009 23:28

'nothing is more petty and fickle than man'

do you compose verse and keep it under your pillow?

sounds like what an angst ridden teenager who hasnt thought through anything would say. aka 'shit sucks'

how bout you look into some of what you talk about instead of touting off like a crack pot ranting fool. which is what you sound like. in
mid sentance you change what you are talking about. doesnt seem like you know what you are talking about just that you see the world as having structures and systems in place you dont like. ie. a first year conspiracy theorist

404.8.2009 0:20

Originally posted by krohm:
'nothing is more petty and fickle than man'

do you compose verse and keep it under your pillow?

sounds like what an angst ridden teenager who hasnt thought through anything would say. aka 'shit sucks'

how bout you look into some of what you talk about instead of touting off like a crack pot ranting fool. which is what you sound like. in
mid sentance you change what you are talking about. doesnt seem like you know what you are talking about just that you see the world as having structures and systems in place you dont like. ie. a first year conspiracy theorist
Only the willing bother to think for themselves and comprehend things difficult to understand. You don't want to think, rather you would play the easy role the normal role, bash someone on how they say things rather than taking the time to read what is said.

I can answer your questions, with answers I believe, in if you bother to ask them, rather than trolling for the lulz.

Edit
While I am at it, thinking the world should only allow "normal", "contributing" members of society should be the only ones to have anything is a Utopian draconia.

Really if people no longer have the right to share anything then we should just make it everything is copy righted or patented indefinably so that CP owners can rape the CP creators and public in general...

And before you start is dose not matter if the creators are are not paid for shearing as sharing in itself drives interest for the works in question if the CP owners can not sale it or sale it poorly through collusion and rackets at least the works in question become well known and not forgotten because no one liked the price/quality issue.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 04 Aug 2009 @ 2:06

414.8.2009 0:25

im not bashing you on how you've said things but what you've said, reread.

424.8.2009 0:40

Originally posted by krohm:
im not bashing you on how you've said things but what you've said, reread.
oh really?
Let me get out my zippy speak translator
Quote:

No really , its normal not to be one. It's normal to be "smart" and not think, to not break the mold, follow the leader and be part of the supposed greater good.

This should be rather easy to digest, people are to busy with their day to day lives to care about anything this is why Hitler came to power this is why dictatorships happen, we lose our rights when we do nothing because the current order of things is "not so bad"....
Quote:

Sorry but I am a moronic fool

Stupid is as stupid dose after all =>>=
Quote:

who sees more justice and truth in things the rules say are illegal and wrong,

See above, and not the stupid is/dose comment above that dangit!!!! :P

Quote:
after all societies supposed truth and order live and die upon its whims and nothing is more petty and fickle than man.

"Truth" and law is what society says it be, even if it is wrong and unjust.

Man is a fickle creature that changes his mind,then changes it again, forgets his own honor and moral center for whatever the easy road may be.In this case taking lobbying money from the media mafia and restricting our rights more.
There's more to it than that, as gov gets bigger it has to have more rules to sustain itself, everything has to be regulated and controlled so revenue can be bleed from it so that our nobles in office(politicians) can make more money off the people.

Quote:

.... but perhaps those who claim to be "normal". Fools at least admit they are foolish and flawed.

This is an obvious dig at those that think they are normal or better than others, IE you. :P

I dun mind playing the fool as long as I can take others out with me.....its the only way I get dates don't'cha know. :P

---
Zippy speak(incoherent at times,nonsensical word "fun") brought to you by Dyslexia, Dysphasia and ADD.

434.8.2009 1:07

im far from normal and there is nothing inheritantly better about me than anyone else. nor do i think im better than anyone else. however, i do think many people are idiots and make statements that are unthoughtout drivel, ie practically everything you say.

'forgets his own honor and moral center'

sounds like a subjective perspective on morality. GREAT. just what the world needs. maybe you should start a religion that can take a stranglehold over humanity for thousands of years with that perspective. oh wait thats been done all over the world already. does that make you with the power structures or against them? who knows these days, guess i havent really thought that far.

less complaining about the systems of oppression and go and try and determine why they are in place in the first place. some would argue they are in place on the basis of this 'moral centre' you espouse.

444.8.2009 1:20

you're quoting yourself constantly rather than replying to what ive said. seems to be a running trend

454.8.2009 1:54

Originally posted by krohm:
you're quoting yourself constantly rather than replying to what ive said. seems to be a running trend
I believe your first question was, you could not understand what I said. Ergo I have broken down the context of what I said into easier to digest bits.

Its up to you to ignore them or not.

464.8.2009 1:57

i understood very clearly. see above statement

the end

474.8.2009 2:00

Originally posted by krohm:
i understood very clearly. see above statement

the end
Well played!

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive