The Pirate Bay Trial

[Maelstrom]

Sweden jails four over file-sharing

Four men behind The Pirate Bay, a popular file-sharing website, have been convicted of breaking Sweden's copyright law and sentenced to one year in prison.

Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, and Carl Lundstrom were also ordered by a Swedish court on Friday to pay damages of $3.6m to entertainment companies including Warner Bros, Sony Music, EMI and Columbia Pictures.

The four defendants were accused of helping internet users to illegally download music, movies and computer games.

The Pirate Bay is one of the world's most popular file-sharing websites, providing a forum for an estimated 22 million users.

Sunde, speaking in a video clip posted on the internet after the verdict was delivered, said: "We can't pay and we won't pay.

He held up a hand-scribbled "I owe U" note , saying: "This is as close as you will get to having money from us".

'Legal loophole'

Defence lawyers had argued that the four men were innocent because The Pirate Bay does not actually host copyright-protected material.

Instead, it provides a forum for users to download content through "torrent files", which allow people to transfer files from several different users.

Ross Anderson, professor of security engineering at Cambridge University, told Al Jazeera the quartet had found what they believed was a "legal loophole, because they simply pointed to the content, they didn't upload it".

He said the defendants could potentially take their case to the European Court of Justice, which has said the law must be predictable.

"Why should they be sent to prison for talking about the existence of illegal content when [some] journalists point to books that are banned?"

"We see more and more of these surprises, because the law is increasingly out of date with technology."

Copyright violation

But the Stockholm district court said the defendants were guilty of helping users breach copyright law by "providing a website with ... sophisticated search functions, simple download and storage capabilities, and through the tracker linked to the website".

John Kennedy, head of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, said the verdict was "good news for everyone ... who is making a living or a business from creative activity and who needs to know their rights will be protected by law".

But Mark Mulligan, a music analyst from Forrester, a research company, was doubtful the verdict would act as a strong deterrent.

"Every time you get rid of one, another bigger one pops up. Napster went, and then up came a whole host of others.

"The problem of file-sharing just keeps growing year on year, and it's increasingly difficult for the industry to do anything about it," he said.

The case was opened in May 2006, after police raided the website's locations in Sweden, seizing servers and computer equipment and temporarily shutting down the site.

It triggered debate about file-sharing in Sweden, where many defend the right to swap songs and movies freely on the internet.

The defendants previously said they would appeal if they were found guilty.

I see this as a great injustice and shall be taking action. Obviously there are many other ways to get files that you're after and users of The Pirate Bay tend to not be that computer-savvy in my experience.

This is bigger than TPB, it's about the government regulating out internet. And I for one will not be putting up with it ;)

[Skandi]

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/04/pirate-bay-04-15-09.jpg

The Pirate Bay itself may now be entangled in a high-profile court battle, but it looks like Sweden's National Museum of Science and Technology figured that was the perfect time to grab a piece of the site's controversial history and put it on display. While it may not look like much, that server above is in fact one of the original servers that was used by the Pirate Bay and confiscated by the police in January, 2008. Despite that storied past, however, the museum was apparently able to acquire the server for just 2,000 kronor (or about $240), and it's now found a home alongside a 1970s-era cassette tape recorder in an exhibit that's intended to "stimulate interest in finding out more about the area of intellectual property rights" -- which, unfortunately, is not called "Steal this Exhibit."

[Electronic God-Man]

I'm a big fan of the Pirate Bay and other such sites. The way I see it, the record companies are screwing both the artists and the consumers. I'm willing to give money to artists that I appreciate, but I don't feel like handing over tons of money to middle-men.

The "music industry" has only been in existence for maybe 50 years. Before that artists depended on people who liked their music to give them money personally, more or less. Recording music took this to a whole different level.

In my view, this is all within the ongoing evolution of music. There is no way that anybody can stop this now. People can get all music for free. You don't have to spend a damn penny if you don't want to. So now it is more like if I were to see some musicians in the street or in a bar. If I really like them I will personally support them. I'll reach into my pocket and give them money. Plus, there is still the very strong allure of the live show. If you demand money to be able to see your live performances and I think it is worthwhile I will give you the money.

So Pirate Bay is kaput?

Another site will come along and replace it...it's a futile battle on the part of the music industry.

[Maelstrom]

So Pirate Bay is kaput?

Another site will come along and replace it...it's a futile battle on the part of the music industry.

The Pirate Bay is still very much alive and running ;) That's the other weird thing as well!

[Tabiti]

Here they tried to ban and judge the biggest torrent sites as well, but that didn't happen.

Noone can make me pay money to watch movies, use software produced by such people.
As for my music I buy what can I find or use peertopeer programs since it is from the so called "underground". Recently, I see blogs with lots of links to share sites and wonder when are they about to notice that and persecute their owners.

[Rainraven]

In my view, this is all within the ongoing evolution of music. There is no way that anybody can stop this now. People can get all music for free. You don't have to spend a damn penny if you don't want to. So now it is more like if I were to see some musicians in the street or in a bar. If I really like them I will personally support them. I'll reach into my pocket and give them money. Plus, there is still the very strong allure of the live show. If you demand money to be able to see your live performances and I think it is worthwhile I will give you the money.

This is true, and I wish I had more money to support the artists I enjoy and to be able to go see them live. I think it is still important that we support the music industry in some way. If I like an artist I'm more likely to go buy the song from iTunes, if it's just the latest pop rubbish thats fuelled plenty by hordes of screaming, wealthy americans (huge generalisation I know ;)) then I don't feel at all bad getting it for free.

This is just scare tactics and it's guaranteed to fail. They do not have enough control over the internet and hosting a torrent browsing site is, ofcourse, not illegal. The poor guys are being made an example of and all that's going to happen is millions more into the pockets of the corporates.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I agree with the idea of copyright protection in general, but throwing people in jail for aiding in copyright violation is too extreme.

Also, the movie & music industries are controlled by jews, so this way I can avoid giving them money.

[Hilding]

I agree with the idea of copyright protection in general, but throwing people in jail for aiding in copyright violation is too extreme.

Also, the movie & music industries are controlled by jews, so this way I can avoid giving them money.

Still you download "jewish" controlled films and listen to "jewish controlled" music? That should say something about you... Stealing is stealing. I occationally download but what I like, I buy if I can get hold of the product! That music and movies should be free for all is something I'd expect from a weed-smoking hippie to be honest, why don't you work for free yourself? I don't have the time right now to further explore my views but I'll be back ;)

[Vargtand]

Still you download "jewish" controlled films and listen to "jewish controlled" music? That should say something about you... Stealing is stealing. I occationally download but what I like, I buy if I can get hold of the product! That music and movies should be free for all is something I'd expect from a weed-smoking hippie to be honest, why don't you work for free yourself? I don't have the time right now to further explore my views but I'll be back ;)

But we are Scandinavians.. we must honour our forefathers and follow in their footsteps, it is in our blood! ;)

[Hilding]

But we are Scandinavians.. we must honour our forefathers and follow in their footsteps, it is in our blood! ;)

Haha yeah to take what we want and not look back, kind of like what to be expected by a gypsy, are they the modern day vikings perhaps? :rolleyes:

[Vargtand]

Haha yeah to take what we want and not look back, kind of like what to be expected by a gypsy, are they the modern day vikings perhaps? :rolleyes:

No they steal without honour and live as outcasts while we live perfectly in the center of our society doing exactly what comes natural to us :)

[RoyBatty]

I blame the record companies and filmmakers for tempting and taunting the public into consumption by flaunting warez in our faces. If somebody were to wave money around eventually they'd get mugged by some needier individual.

Why would it be any different for consumer "art"? :D :p

[Hilding]

I blame the record companies and filmmakers for tempting and taunting the public into consumption by flaunting warez in our faces. If somebody were to wave money around eventually they'd get mugged by some needier individual.

Why would it be any different for consumer "art"? :D :p

Yeah, the same goes for all the cardealers of grocery shops, they're BEGGING to get robbed! "Too bad you have this nice posters, now I think I can steal your products"...

[Rainraven]

Yeah, the same goes for all the cardealers of grocery shops, they're BEGGING to get robbed! "Too bad you have this nice posters, now I think I can steal your products"...

How about if you then found a place online that offered them to you for free?

[Hilding]

How about if you then found a place online that offered them to you for free?

I'd classify that as "receiving stolen goods" unless somebody actually bought the product in large quantities and for some strange reason send them away to unknown people for free.

[Skandi]

Would you consider the loan of an album to a friend as a crime then? If I give my friend a copy of some music is that theft? If so then I expect we are all guilty of it, all sites like this do is make it easier, you can do it on messenger if you really want to.

[Beorn]

Piracy isn't stealing. All this talk of people being thieves for downloading music, films or whatever from independent sites is absolute nonsense.

When I download an album, it is through the kindness of someone who has physically gone out and bought the item and placed it upon the internet for others to enjoy.

I have cost the company no money and they have lost no revenue as I am not a potential customer.

[Ulf]

http://i33.tinypic.com/2yor21y.jpg

Though I like this one:

http://7.media.tumblr.com/4nZBASoSAd79pgh9yEG2ZCPi_500.png

[Skandi]

Yes sharing music does not take anything from anybody, I certainly would not have bought any of the albums I have downloaded or copied from friends, but music that I have been given by friends has encouraged me to go and buy other albums by the same artist. So in this case all the "piracy" was was free advertising.

[Hilding]

Yeah it is called bootlegging, they offer a less good product without even having the brains to get paid for it. They steal for free, hooray, they're f*ck*ng Robin Hood! I think it is a big snotty spit in the face of the artists people claim to support.

[Ulf]

Yeah it is called bootlegging, they offer a less good product without even having the brains to get paid for it. They steal for free, hooray, they're f*ck*ng Robin Hood! I think it is a big snotty spit in the face of the artists people claim to support.

Record companies are fucking the artists over more than any amount of file sharing could ever accomplish.

Trent Reznor:

"One of the biggest wake-up calls of my career was when I saw a record contract. I said, 'Wait - you sell it for $18.98 and I make 80 cents? And I have to pay you back the money you lent me to make it and then you own it? Who the f**k made that rule? Oh! The record labels made it because artists are dumb and they'll sign anything' - like I did. When we found out we'd been released (from their recording contract) it was like, 'Thank God!'. But 20 minutes later it was, 'Uh-oh, now what are we going to do?' It was incredibly liberating, and it was terrifying."
And Reznor adds that musicians should be exploring other ways to sell their own music, rather than relying on labels: "As an artist, you are now the marketer."

[Beorn]

Yeah it is called bootlegging, they offer a less good product without even having the brains to get paid for it. They steal for free, hooray, they're f*ck*ng Robin Hood! I think it is a big snotty spit in the face of the artists people claim to support.

You're under the illusion that artists get the lions share of the profits, if at all, and that there is simply hundreds of millions of people "illegally" downloading music.

Each new number one record in the UK has had the same consistent record sales as every other year and decade.

Piracy does not affect sales revenue.

[Hilding]

Record companies are fucking the artists over more than any amount of file sharing could ever accomplish.

Trent Reznor:

Yes but that's the artists decision, they can also go independent.



You're under the illusion that artists get the lions share of the profits, if at all, and that there is simply hundreds of millions of people "illegally" downloading music.

Each new number one record in the UK has had the same consistent record sales as every other year and decade.

Piracy does not affect sales revenue.

And that makes it ok because?

The "big" labels do have a lesson to learn, I agree on that that BUT that doesn't IMHO justify illegal bootlegging/violaton of copyright. The big issue here is that the smaller labels and also the underground labels suffer from this. There is no need to buy their new albums with artists unknown when they can download pretty much whatever they want for free and just delete if they don't like it. I KNOW this because I KNOW people with smaller labels or distros. The CD sales are crappy as hell these days.

[Rainraven]

I don't think it effects sales because if I did not download the music I would not go out and buy it. I would simply go with out. If anything it is a positive because after downloading the music I am more likely to become interested in the artist and invest in them in the future :)

[Hilding]

I don't think it effects sales because if I did not download the music I would not go out and buy it. I would simply go with out.

Are you ABSOLUTELY, seriously sure about that?

[Rainraven]

Are you ABSOLUTELY, seriously sure about that?

Yes, I am.

[Skandi]

I am exactly the same, I don't buy albums I can't afford too unless I know I like the artist.

[Vulpix]

I support The Pirate Bay. If The Pirate Bay is guilty, so is Google. Sue Google now :thumb001:.

[Beorn]

And that makes it ok because?

Where did I say it was?


The "big" labels do have a lesson to learn, I agree on that that BUT that doesn't IMHO justify illegal bootlegging/violaton of copyright.

Ah, copyright! I take it you don't listen to records you have bought with other people; lend albums to friends; insert plugs in your ears lest you should accidently hear a tune emanating from a passing car, etc...

[Hilding]

Where did I say it was?

Ah, copyright! I take it you don't listen to records you have bought with other people; lend albums to friends; insert plugs in your ears lest you should accidently hear a tune emanating from a passing car, etc...

You can't seriously be comparing copying a friends CD to a cassette (like in the 90's, remember?) with making an album avaliable to all persons with an internet connection?

[stormlord]

I do think people are being slightly dishonest when they try to rationalise to themselves copyright infringement to themselves. No it isn't theft, but it is using the hard work of someone else for your own enjoyment against their will, which I'd say is not morally right.

Personally I don't mind copyright infringement against large film studios etc because I generally despise the values they promote and what they are doing to people, but when it comes to small independent musicians, game developers etc it is wrong, and noone can ever prove their "well if i had to pay for it I wouldn't have downloaded it" argument.


Anyway the bigger issue here is the legal precedent that has been set by a bunch of old men who don't understand the fundamental way the internet works. If linking to content is illegal, then technically google is also facilitating copyright infringement by showing results that link to filesharing sites, how come they haven't been shut down? Thus we end up in a situation in which the law will be selectively applied; "proper" websites like google and youtube will be able to facilitate copyright infringement whilst "bad" sites like piratebay are shut down for doing precisely the same thing.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Still you download "jewish" controlled films and listen to "jewish controlled" music? That should say something about you... Stealing is stealing. I occationally download but what I like, I buy if I can get hold of the product! That music and movies should be free for all is something I'd expect from a weed-smoking hippie to be honest, why don't you work for free yourself? I don't have the time right now to further explore my views but I'll be back ;)


Haha yeah to take what we want and not look back, kind of like what to be expected by a gypsy, are they the modern day vikings perhaps? :rolleyes:

Well, this is one instance in which my nationalist tendencies trump my capitalist tendencies (along with restricting immigration). Games come from other/better sources, so I tend to actually buy those.


You can't seriously be comparing copying a friends CD to a cassette (like in the 90's, remember?) with making an album avaliable to all persons with an internet connection?

That's actually illegal too


Anyway the bigger issue here is the legal precedent that has been set by a bunch of old men who don't understand the fundamental way the internet works. If linking to content is illegal, then technically google is also facilitating copyright infringement by showing results that link to filesharing sites, how come they haven't been shut down? Thus we end up in a situation in which the law will be selectively applied; "proper" websites like google and youtube will be able to facilitate copyright infringement whilst "bad" sites like piratebay are shut down for doing precisely the same thing.

Youtube has been targeted for copyright violations also. Some copyrighted videos sit up there for a while because nobody cares apparently, others get pulled rather quickly, Viacom for one has been rather aggressive in making sure Youtube pulls content that they own.

Some American newspapers are trying to get google to pay for linking to their news articles. I think the difference with google is that it links to third party websites.

In the US, they have 'contributory infringement' which requires proving that infringement occurred and that the 'contributor' "knew or should have known" about the infringement, alternatively "vicarious liability" (which applies even if they didn't know about the infringement), if they had the ability to control or monitor users and derived financial benefit (including advertising revenues on the site). The UK has something similar, outlawing "making, importing into the United Kingdom, possessing in the course of a business or selling for hire or offering or exposing for sale or hire an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a copyright work knowing or having reason to believe that it is to be used to make such infringing copies without the licence of the copyright owner." which might apply to such websites. AFAIK there is no way in either country to end up in jail for such actions.

[Beorn]

You can't seriously be comparing copying a friends CD to a cassette (like in the 90's, remember?) with making an album avaliable to all persons with an internet connection?

Why not? Copying an album onto a cassette is a copyright infringement.

What's the difference between a kid buying a new Slayer album and letting his mates copy the album onto their cassettes, and a server providing the album online?

[chap]

Intellectual property, copyright & patent monopolies are the enemy of progress and contrary to the free market.

These are an attempt by the state to create artifical scarcities of non-scarce goods.

Also, Madonna can still earn money through live performance.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Intellectual property, copyright & patent monopolies are the enemy of progress and contrary to the free market.

These are an attempt by the state to create artifical scarcities of non-scarce goods.

The concept is to encourage innovation by offering a temporary monopoly to the inventors. The problem, especially in copyright, is that it is no longer 'temporary' as it now lasts for life of author +70 years (in the US and EU, minimum life+50 for other countries), as opposed to 20 years from the date of filing for patents (in the US) which tend to require more effort to create.


Also, Madonna can still earn money through live performance.

Yeah, that's what it will have to come to. The methods needed to stop it are too intrusive, and most of the people doing it are 'judgment proof' anyways. So the musicians will just have to rely on live performances, selling shirts with the band logo, licensing fees from using songs in tv/movies/commercials, etc. We probably won't see as many multimillionaire performers, but oh well. The only problem might be that musicians will put out one album and then play live shows instead of working on new material, but compared to allowing violations of privacy and jailing people for what should be covered by civil lawsuits, that's a fair trade off.

[Skandi]

I feel that the "pop star" is a recent phenomenon anyway, and are certainly not a thing that needs to be encouraged. Perhaps a slower moving music market, with more emphasis on actually being able to sing and less on who is shagging who, would stimulate higher quality music and less rehashes of old material.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I feel that the "pop star" is a recent phenomenon anyway, and are certainly not a thing that needs to be encouraged. Perhaps a slower moving music market, with more emphasis on actually being able to sing and less on who is shagging who, would stimulate higher quality music and less rehashes of old material.

Yeah, that's also why the performers get such a small portion of the revenues compared to the distribution companies: the actual skill difference between the 'pop stars' and many quasi-amateurs is not that great, it's mainly the marketing and hype which decides who is going to be a 'mega-star'.

[Hilding]

Why not? Copying an album onto a cassette is a copyright infringement.

What's the difference between a kid buying a new Slayer album and letting his mates copy the album onto their cassettes, and a server providing the album online?

In Sweden that is legal actually (as long as you dont create massive amounts of course). We have a "cassettecompensating" tax about that that mean that you pay every time you buy a cassette or a CD-R.


You keep talking about record label bosses and the mainstream music business to kind of justify downloading. I must ask you how many of you that actually listen to and download the music that is played on the mainstream radio? Is it really the biggest bands with the meanest record label bosses albums you download? Is that even relevant at all?

All artists and bands don't enjoy / have no possibility to play live, so they shouldn't be able to live off the music? And what about the songwriters that write all these songs that the artists record and perform. Not all songwriters are artists.

And about films again, if the film companies are so mean and bad, WHY would you even want to see the films they produce at all? It's kind of like claiming that you are not christian, yet sneak in through the back door of the church to listen to the preacher.

[Vulpix]

TPB FTW

So the first verdict finally came, almost 3 years after the raid. You might have heard about it in the news...
You, our beloved users, know that this little speedbump on the information super highway is nothing more than just, a little bump. Todays verdict has already been appealed by us and will be taken to the next level of court (and that will take another 2 or 3 years!)
The site will live on! We are more determined than ever that what we do is right. Millions of users are a good proof of that.
We have seen that some people that we dont know have started collecting donations for us, so we can pay those silly fines. We firmly ask you NOT to do this. Do not gather or send any money. We do not want them since we will not pay any fines!
If you really want to help out, here is a list:
* Seed those torrents a little bit more than you usually do!
* Buy a t-shirt and show the world where your sympathy is.
* If you live in Europe, vote in the election for the EU parliament in June.
* Continue to build the internets! Start more bittorrent sites, blog more, start your own lobby group, create, remix, mash up and continue to grow more heads on this amazing hydra that we know as the internets!
* Do not be afraid of using the network. Invite your friends to this and other file sharing systems. Calm people down if they're upset. We need to stay united.
And say it loud say it proud! We are all The Pirate Bay!
http://thepiratebay.org/blog/151

[Ulex]

In Sweden that is legal actually (as long as you dont create massive amounts of course). We have a "cassettecompensating" tax about that that mean that you pay every time you buy a cassette or a CD-R.
Interesting. The state makes money on the copy activity? Then they should shut up and stop moralize.

[Rainraven]

In Sweden that is legal actually (as long as you dont create massive amounts of course). We have a "cassettecompensating" tax about that that mean that you pay every time you buy a cassette or a CD-R.


Who does the money go to? I can't really see this being a good or fair system at all. How does it get back to the artist being copied? :confused:

[Brynhild]

I grew up in a time when it was not only rampant to borrow someone's album and record it to a cassette - because mainly you couldn't afford it or else it was hard to find - it was good fun and a great way to network!

The only thing that was illegal about it really was if you attempted to sell them as bootlegs, which was a common practice. I never bought bootlegs, as I was quite fussy about the quality of my music and I still am. I never sold anything to anyone either.

Bartering is technically illegal but it's still a great way to trade as far as I'm concerned.

[SwordoftheVistula]

The judge has been accused of a conflict of interest. It appears he has some connection to the recording industry. In the US he would have been expected to have recused himself, not sure how the law works in Sweden though:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10226167-93.html

The judge who ruled against The Pirate Bay defendants on Friday is a member of two copyright organizations, an alleged conflict of interest that could require the case to be tried again, Swedish press reported Thursday morning.

If the judge is formally found to have a conflict of interest, the case would have to be sent back to the district court. The issue is to be evaluated by the high court of justice, Svea Hovrätt (in Swedish), which is now also looking at appeals from the defendants on other grounds.

"In my appeal, I will urge that the verdict of the district court will be obviated due to conflict of interest," attorney Peter Althin, who is defending Pirate Bay spokesman Peter Sunde, told the Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter.

Sunde, along with Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Fredrik Neij, and Carl Lundström, were convicted Friday of having assisted in making 33 copyright-protected files accessible for illegal file sharing, and sentenced to one year in prison.

Norström is a member of the Swedish Copyright Association and the Swedish Association for Industrial Legal Protection. Both organizations say their goal is to educate about copyright issues. Among the members of the first organization are also Henrik Pontén, Peter Danowsky, and Monique Wadsted, all three of whom are lawyers who represented the plaintiffs during The Pirate Bay trial.

Norström denies accusations that the memberships would make him biased.

"Every time I take a case, I evaluate if I consider myself having a conflict of interest. In this case I didn't find to have one," Norström told Sveriges Radio, the national Swedish radio network that first exposed the issue on Thursday morning.

Norström also denies that he met privately with Wadsted, who represents several American media giants in the case. Both are also members of a separate professional group of a dozen law experts helping to resolve disputes on domain names under Sweden's top domain, .se.

Norström was asked to compare his situation to one with a potential jury member who declined to participate in the case because of a membership in a composers' association. In response, Norström told Dagens Nyheter that the Swedish Copyright Association only promotes knowledge about copyright, and that he is a member so he can follow related debate and development.

Wadsted also said that all jurists in Stockholm who deal with intellectual property are members of the The Swedish Copyright Association.

Still, Eric Bylander, a procedural law instructor at the University of Gothenburg finds the judge's situation questionable. "A membership here and a working community there would each maybe not be enough to constitute conflict of interest, but together they can," he told the Swedish national news agency, TT.


In Sweden that is legal actually (as long as you dont create massive amounts of course). We have a "cassettecompensating" tax about that that mean that you pay every time you buy a cassette or a CD-R.


Who does the money go to? I can't really see this being a good or fair system at all. How does it get back to the artist being copied? :confused:

It does in fact get back into the music industry:

http://scienceblogs.com/omnibrain/2007/06/heavy_metal_disability.php

A Swedish man has been granted disability benefits due to an "addiction" to heavy metal music. Playing in two bands, including Silverland, he also attended nearly 300 concerts last year.

Tullgren says he has always had difficulty holding down a job, mainly because he is absent most of the time

[Rainraven]

I grew up in a time when it was not only rampant to borrow someone's album and record it to a cassette - because mainly you couldn't afford it or else it was hard to find - it was good fun and a great way to network!

Yup! I recorded songs I wanted off the radio just missing the first and last bits where there'd be talking. My friends and I also went through a phase of making mix tapes for each other with different songs that we liked as a way to share music. Pirating was always there. Technology has just made it that wee bit easier :rolleyes:

[Rainraven]

It does in fact get back into the music industry:

http://scienceblogs.com/omnibrain/2007/06/heavy_metal_disability.php

A Swedish man has been granted disability benefits due to an "addiction" to heavy metal music. Playing in two bands, including Silverland, he also attended nearly 300 concerts last year.

Tullgren says he has always had difficulty holding down a job, mainly because he is absent most of the time

But not to the artist in the way that buying an album does.

[Ulex]

Yup! I recorded songs I wanted off the radio just missing the first and last bits where there'd be talking. My friends and I also went through a phase of making mix tapes for each other with different songs that we liked as a way to share music. Pirating was always there. Technology has just made it that wee bit easier :rolleyes:
If you want, you can become the youngest member of a new social group, I want to create: Primitive Bootleggers. :D

I did exactly the same thing in my younger days, and I quickly found out which radio hosts were the most quiet ones, so I could record from their shows.

The Days of the Casette were so full of joy and innocence.

[Beorn]

Study finds pirates 10 times more likely to buy music (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-more-music)

Piracy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/piracy) may be the bane of the music industry but according to a new study, it may also be its engine. A report from the BI Norwegian School of Management has found that those who download music illegally are also 10 times more likely to pay for songs than those who don't.
Everybody knows that music sales have continued to fall in recent years, and that filesharing is usually blamed. We are made to imagine legions of internet criminals, their fingers on track-pads, downloading songs via BitTorrent (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/bittorrent) and never paying for anything. One of the only bits of good news amid this doom and gloom is the steady rise in digital music sales. Millions of internet do-gooders, their fingers on track-pads, who pay for songs they like – purchasing them from Amazon or iTunes Music Store. And yet according to Professor Anne-Britt Gran's new research, these two groups may be the same.

The Norwegian study looked at almost 2,000 online music users, all over the age of 15. Researchers found that those who downloaded "free" music – whether from lawful or seedy sources – were also 10 times more likely to pay for music. This would make music pirates the industry's largest audience for digital sales.
Wisely, the study did not rely on music pirates' honesty. Researchers asked music buyers to prove that they had proof of purchase.
The paper's conclusions emerge just as Sweden's Pirate Bay trial comes to a close. Pirate Bay's four defendants, who helped operate the notorious BitTorrent tracker, were sentenced to a year in jail and fined 30m SEK (£2,500,000) in damages.

[Brännvin]

http://www.corren.se/Ekonomi/?articleId=4925967&date=&menuids=
Swedish Software company Global Gaming Factory X, it is in the the process of acquiring The Pirate Bay for (SEK 60 million). The acquisition is scheduled to be completed by August and will see the site launch new business models to compensate content providers and copyright owners. :eek: :D

Wow… ! I can see this as the death of The Pirate Bay.

[DeusEx]

Probably he will become commercial...