Law Firm Closes Bank Account From Pirate Bay DDo$

[JMcEntegart]

Looks like Danowsky, the firm representing the IFPI in the Pirate Bay trial got spooked by the threat of thousands of donations.

Law Firm Closes Bank Account From Pirate Bay DDo$ : Read more

 

[matt2k]

Haha, looks like they got spooked.

 

[pcwlai]

If TPB think they are not helping or facilitating the priacy or really against piracy, they should defense themselves in the legal mannor.

So sad to have the feeling, only the thiefs cannot stand in front of the court saying they are not guilty.

 

[tweak13]

[citation][nom]pcwlai[/nom]If TPB think they are not helping or facilitating the priacy or really against piracy, they should defense themselves in the legal mannor.So sad to have the feeling, only the thiefs cannot stand in front of the court saying they are not guilty.[/citation]

uh...what?

 

[Ciuy]

hahahhahahahahhahahahahhaaa thats epic )))

 

[fyrenight]

[citation][nom]tweak13[/nom]uh...what?[/citation]

They are responcible for piracy the same way the company that owns a flea market is responcible if someone opens a stand and sells knock-offs.... they aren't. the person selling the knock-offs(the torrent creator if the anaolgy is missed by the slow) is the one who gets arrested/fined.

get over it

 

[solymnar]

Getting people to "donate" $.13 may be petty but I can understand where they are coming from. I honestly wouldn't have a shread of respect left for some company that decided they wanted to send me to jail and fine me some absurd amount of money for hosting a server but never actually breaking any laws. This whole facade shouldn't have even made it to trial.

It "may" hinder them in court, or it may paint the defendants as rebellious goofballs (which they are) vs. some hardcore "organized crime unit".

 

[fyrenight]

dammit.... wrong quote, but you get the pictue

 

[-unknown-]

[citation][nom]pcwlai[/nom]If TPB think they are not helping or facilitating the priacy or really against piracy, they should defense themselves in the legal mannor.So sad to have the feeling, only the thiefs cannot stand in front of the court saying they are not guilty.[/citation]
1. The article was not about what TPB thinks
2. TPB provides a service/tool that can be used for any purpose. Do they "help" pirate software? No. Do they discourage pirating software? No. Is this a problem? Arguably. Does having a name such as TPB appear incriminating? Yes.
3. Piracy is not 'stealing'. Understand what copyright infringement is: Infringing on the right holders control over the distribution of the subject material (via copies in this case). In other words, COPYing their software. Call it counterfitting, bootlegging, cloning, etc. whatever you like but realize that it is not the same as theft. For example, whether you are for or against abortion, you wouldn't call an abortionist an assassin would you?

 

[seboj]

Hilarious.

 

[NuclearShadow]

$0.13 just 1000 times is only $130 it wouldn't be very hard to achieve that and beyond at all. If I was PB I wouldn't have let this gone widespread however. I would have just collected donations and hinted that the money would go to fight the law firm. Then send as many money transfers as possible. Then after reveal what was done.

 

[norbs]

I don't know how good of an idea it is to start something like this going into an appeal... just gives them more of the bad guy image. On top of this he wrote what his intent was, if he did this and not post his intent all over the internet it might of actually had some kind of effect rather then those lawyers building a stronger case.

 

[jerreece]

[citation][nom]-unknown-[/nom]For example, whether you are for or against abortion, you wouldn't call an abortionist an assassin would you?[/citation]

I don't agree with your analogy frankly. An assassin is someone who is generally hired to kill a particular individual. An abortionist, is paid a fee generally, to kill the particular individual living within the mother's womb. It's murder, just like assassinations are murder. It's a targeted attack on one's life (abortion & assassinations).

I got your point though.

 

[maldar]

[citation]For example, whether you are for or against abortion, you wouldn't call an abortionist an assassin would you?[/citation]

Only because nobody uses the word assassin in that context. People against abortion use the word murderer when talking about abortionists.

 

[theramman]

Dang there smart! If I could have thought of that and been popualr enough to do that I would have done the same thing! I hope the appel works out for them.

 

[-unknown-]

[citation][nom]jerreece[/nom]I don't agree with your analogy frankly. An assassin is someone who is generally hired to kill a particular individual. An abortionist, is paid a fee generally, to kill the particular individual living within the mother's womb. It's murder, just like assassinations are murder. It's a targeted attack on one's life (abortion & assassinations).I got your point though.[/citation]
[citation][nom]maldar[/nom][citation]For example, whether you are for or against abortion, you wouldn't call an abortionist an assassin would you?[/citation]Only because nobody uses the word assassin in that context. People against abortion use the word murderer when talking about abortionists.[/citation]
I'm surprised this is being contested but I'll respond at any rate.

Anyone who wants to constructively debate abortions (for or against) won't acknowledge an abortion as murder for the very same reasons that jerreece pointed out.

Abortions and murders consitute the taking of a life but under very different contexts.

The same applies to someone who performs suicide, they didn't 'murder' themselves, they took their own life. Is it wrong? Well, that's what's debated but at the end of the day a distinction is made between the two (or more) acts.

Applying this logic to copyright infringement, the same point is being pressed forward. Obtaining something for free (ie copying it with your own resources) is not the same as stealing (and hence obtaining something for free). Don't get me wrong, you can still be against 'copying' or 'downloading' and point out the risks and consequences involved but it needs to be clear that nothing is taken away in the process of producing a copy (the opposite is true) unlike stealing which removes something from one owner and passes it on to another.

 

[-unknown-]

Sorry for the double-post, just corrected the quote caps. Corrected post below (I wish there was an edit button)

[citation][nom]jerreece[/nom]I don't agree with your analogy frankly. An assassin is someone who is generally hired to kill a particular individual. An abortionist, is paid a fee generally, to kill the particular individual living within the mother's womb. It's murder, just like assassinations are murder. It's a targeted attack on one's life (abortion & assassinations).I got your point though.[/citation]
[citation][nom]maldar[/nom]Only because nobody uses the word assassin in that context. People against abortion use the word murderer when talking about abortionists.[/citation]
I'm surprised this is being contested but I'll respond at any rate.

Anyone who wants to constructively debate abortions (for or against) won't acknowledge an abortion as murder for the very same reasons that jerreece pointed out.

Abortions and murders consitute the taking of a life but under very different contexts.

The same applies to someone who performs suicide, they didn't 'murder' themselves, they took their own life. Is it wrong? Well, that's what's debated but at the end of the day a distinction is made between the two (or more) acts.Applying this logic to copyright infringement, the same point is being pressed forward. Obtaining something for free (ie copying it with your own resources) is not the same as stealing (and hence obtaining something for free). Don't get me wrong, you can still be against 'copying' or 'downloading' and point out the risks and consequences involved but it needs to be clear that nothing is taken away in the process of producing a copy (the opposite is true) unlike stealing which removes something from one owner and passes it on to another.

 

[Regected]

I don't think the idea behind the thought of a DDo$ attack was to cause great financial harm, but to show the amount the public supports TPB. Look at it as a mob rule mentality.

 

[jrnyfan]

Murder and Pirates aside, what I really want to know is how the related articles links get populated. On my screen we have the following related links to this story:

Attack: Duron 1200 Takes On the Pentium 4
GeForce3 Under Attack: ATi's Radeon 8500 Previewed
Attack Out Of The Blind Spot: Matrox Parhelia-512

Lol..it doesn't bug me, I'm just wondering the logic.

Oh...and more on topic...TPB FTW.

 

[sleepflower]

[citation][nom]fyrenight[/nom]They are responcible for piracy the same way the company that owns a flea market is responcible if someone opens a stand and sells knock-offs.... they aren't. the person selling the knock-offs(the torrent creator if the anaolgy is missed by the slow) is the one who gets arrested/fined.get over it[/citation]

The thing with the pirate bay is they knowingly let illegal torrents run on their servers, and bragged about it as if some kind of crusade. If the flea market owner knowingly let a stall sell pirate DVD's, he too would be in court.

Pirate Bay act like whiney teenagers looking to for adoration from people on the internet. Sharing is good, but piracy hurts those that create content. We are heading into a culture where people think it is right and normal to steal music and not pay for it. People are growing up with this and while I can see the argument that the big companies have enough money, if this is considered normal culture, the smaller artists will also get pirated.

In the age of internet media it is all well and good saying people can earn from gig for music and also advertising for all media, but as the recession has shown, it is not a sound business plan. People want things for free and will use whatever argument they can use to feel goo about doing it. TPB acts as if it is Robin Hood or something, they are just looking for money and fame. If they actually were against large corporations and DRM there are far better ways of being pro active than smirking and saying 'hey look at us, damn the man'. It is a little like protesters smashing things up, it just makes people see them as idiots and ignore the point they had to say.

 

[Guest]

HEY ~ I'm filing INTERNATIONAL BANK FRAUD charges in the Hague World Court, against the Danowsky Law Firm. I gave them $0.26 by mistake when I only wanted to send Danowsky $0.13, but now they have closed their bank account, so I can't get my funds back and I have been DEFRAUDED by these crooks.
.
I'm suing for my $0.13 back and another $400 Million for emotional distress and consequential damages.
.
OH WAIT ~ My Attorneys get 50% so I better make that $0.26 plus another $800 Million

 

[starryman]

Lawyers = corruption of mankind.

 

[cruiseoveride]

[citation][nom]starryman[/nom]Lawyers = corruption of mankind.[/citation]
No. Mankind's corruption.

 

[-unknown-]

[citation][nom]sleepflower[/nom]The thing with the pirate bay is they knowingly let illegal torrents run on their servers, and bragged about it as if some kind of crusade. If the flea market owner knowingly let a stall sell pirate DVD's, he too would be in court.[/citation]
You're half-way there. TPB didn't necessarily know 100% that a specific torrent contained copyrighted but they wouldn't investigate it either. (Its closer to negligence than willfully doing something). Bottom line, TPB is arguing that it is not their responsibility to monitor the content on their servers. To reflect your example, the flea market owner could have received complaints about a booth selling drugs but not investigated it, they didn't necessarily know if the complaint was legitimate but decided to ignore it (and this is part of case, is TPB responsible for monitoring content).

[citation][nom]sleepflower[/nom]
Pirate Bay act like whiney teenagers looking to for adoration from people on the internet.[/citation]
What value does this add to the argument? Focus on your premises without demeaning your target.

[citation][nom]sleepflower[/nom]
Sharing is good, but piracy hurts those that create content.[/citation]
Here's where a lot of people disagree and why people are upset. Its not clear whether piracy (or copying) results in a positive or negative outcome for the content creators. I know many will automatically assume that anyone who copies or downloads media won't support the creator but that is just a hasty judgement. The effects of piracy have not been studied beyond assuming (by corporations) that each copy would have resulted in a sale but ultimately you hear of a lot of people only seeking out certain material because they were exposed to it (via copy/download). I don't want to go too far off topic but just wanted to highlight the fact that piracy has not been studied thoroughly to make a conclusion as to whether its bad or good (ie. its a similar judgement to assume violence in video games is bad for society, except there are some studies now on that topic).

[citation][nom]sleepflower[/nom]
We are heading into a culture where people think it is right and normal to steal music and not pay for it.[/citation]
I think this has been beaten to death. Please separate theft from copyright infringement as they are two separate distinct acts.

[citation][nom]sleepflower[/nom]
People are growing up with this and while I can see the argument that the big companies have enough money, if this is considered normal culture, the smaller artists will also get pirated.[/citation]
Smaller artists actually don't mind piracy as it grants them greater exposure for their work. Artists as a whole are actually not that concerned with piracy, its the distributors that are concerned as that is the bread and butter of their business model (vs artists who depend on concerts, signing, etc)

[citation][nom]sleepflower[/nom]
In the age of internet media it is all well and good saying people can earn from gig for music and also advertising for all media, but as the recession has shown, it is not a sound business plan.[/citation]
So you're implying that if piracy didn't exist artists wouldn't be affected by the recession?

[citation][nom]sleepflower[/nom]
People want things for free and will use whatever argument they can use to feel goo about doing it.[/citation]
Please, I beg you to listen to other arguments other than "Oh, I have a right to download" and etc. There are people out there with strong arguments for a sharing community. Think about it as someone trying to push for free OTA broadcasts or radio but no corporation wanting to take the risk. There is a potential to make money but there is a tremendous hesitation to stray from the traditional distribution model.

[citation][nom]sleepflower[/nom]
TPB acts as if it is Robin Hood or something, they are just looking for money and fame. If they actually were against large corporations and DRM there are far better ways of being pro active than smirking and saying 'hey look at us, damn the man'. It is a little like protesters smashing things up, it just makes people see them as idiots and ignore the point they had to say.[/citation]
Your strongest premise (losing all the insults to TPB) is that TPB could be pushing for reform in more productive ways. I think a lot of people might agree if you elaborate on that point further.

 

[gorehound]

I am an artist and have been playing in rock bands since 1972.Believe me when I say these big labels are way worse than any of you ever were in downloading your music.I personally know of guys who were totally screwed over by bigwigs.Artists forced to sign the type of contracts that enable a label to still dictate to them even after they are booted from said label and many other types of ripoff stories.I have never and would never sign my band with any large label.And I would never have anything to do with the RIAA.
I do hope TPB wins in the end and I am perfectly willing to stick it to the man just like they do.