Slashdot Log In
Prince, Village People to Sue The Pirate Bay
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sun Feb 17, 2008 05:38 PM
from the artist-formerly-known-as-arrrr dept.
from the artist-formerly-known-as-arrrr dept.
castrox writes to tell us that The Pirate Bay's legal concerns are continuing to grow. Prince and the Village People are planning to sue the popular torrent site with the help of the Web Sheriff law firm. John Giacobbi of Web Sheriff has also asked Swedish band ABBA to join the cause. The suit is seeking "millions of dollars" in damages, although it's still uncertain to whom the charges will be directed. The likely targets are the four Pirate Bay founders who were indicted a few weeks ago on charges of breaking copyright law. Prince has taken investigative action against The Pirate Bay in the past.
Related Stories
[+]
News: The Pirate Bay Facing "Old Fashioned" Pressure 415 comments
Jety writes "Ars Technica has an article reporting that The Pirate Bay is facing legal pressure from a new front. A wealthy musician with a track record for going head-to-head with record labels and little kids is now joining the queue to take a legal swing at TPB. What I find particularly interesting about this article is the description of the 'camera-toting investigators following [The Pirate Bay admins] around in cars marked with Danish plates.' One TPB admin asks, '"What do they think they can find out by following us around? Everything we do is digital.'"
[+]
Four Indicted in Pirate Bay Case 709 comments
paulraps writes "Suddenly the founders of the Pirate Bay are not so hearty. The four men behind the popular file-sharing site were indicted in Sweden on Thursday on charges of being accessories to breaking copyright law. And this is more than just a shot across the bows. The prosecutor reckons that they can be hooked for 'promoting other people's copyright breaches' but there will be no walking the plank: instead, they face fines of up to $200,000 and the confiscation of all their hardware. 'The Swedish prosecutor listed dozens of works that had been downloaded through The Pirate Bay site, including The Beatles' Let It Be, Robbie Williams' Intensive Care and the movie Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire. Plaintiffs in the case include Warner, MGM, Columbia Pictures, 20th Century Fox Films, Sony BMG, Universal and EMI.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
yeah (Score:5, Funny)
Correction: They're seeking "millions of dollars" in fabulous damages.
Re:yeah (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
YMCA (Score:5, Funny)
What gives?
Parent
Re:yeah (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Young man! (Score:5, Funny)
I said, I was.. downloading torrent files too,
But it's stealing, and there is licensing due,
So you've got.. to.. know.. this.. one thing:
DUN DUN DUN DUNNUN
It's fun to sue with the D.M.C.A.,
It's fun to sue with the D.M.C.A.,
They have everything there for lawyers to enjoy,
Ain't no safe harbor for Pirate Bay, boys!
P.S. Sorry, I had to..
Parent
Re:Young man! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Young man! (Score:5, Funny)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=220588&cid=17886098 [slashdot.org]
Parent
Re:Young man! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
I have a plan (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I have a plan (Score:5, Informative)
But in the end, it doesn't surprise me. After all, his fight has always been not about money but control. If it weren't for performance rights being protected, he would have been successful in preventing Tom Jones and Art Of Noise from recording "Kiss". Thus it is only logical that he would hate file sharing, a medium that he cannot control.
Parent
Re:I have a plan (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Guess I was wrong about him (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Guess I was wrong about him (Score:5, Informative)
I remember when I was kid (40 years ago), people who sneaked onto trains, buses, ski lifts, etc. without a ticket could be convicted of "theft of service". In fact, in law, "theft" just means obtaining something illegally, regardless of whether you are depriving someone else of it. What you are calling "theft" (i.e. taking something away from someone else) is actually called "larceny". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft [wikipedia.org].
It's like the term "assault": in common usage, it means "to strike someone". But in legal jargon, that's called "battery", while "assault" just means to threaten.
Parent
Re:Guess I was wrong about him (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer - I too dislike the RIAA and MPAA. I too loathe DRM. I too torrent - specifically "Avatar" season episodes for my Kids that are no available in the country I'm in. I also feel that people should be compensated for their work and when I can finally order the season 3 compilation on DVD, I will. A lot of this moral posturing of Pirate Bay and its supporters is simply a cover for "I'm a cheap bastard and don't want to pay for my entertainment".
Parent
Re:Hoist them swabies up by their own peter (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Hoist them swabies up by their own peter (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Civil vs. Criminal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Civil vs. Criminal (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Civil vs. Criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
Even though they are at a very early (and sometimes chaotic) stage I like to compare them to the green movement in Europe. In the early 80's many green parties formed in various countries because none of the existing parties served the aims of environmentalists. Nowadays they are well represented (check seats in the EU parliament) and their biggest enemies are the other parties picking up their cause. I'd love to see a similar development for all the pirate parties (especially regarding privacy).
Parent
Re:Civil vs. Criminal (Score:5, Informative)
The bigger difference though, is that Swedish law has no concept of using fines as a form of punishment in it self, just as compensation for losses or emotional/physical suffering.
Since a business entity can't claim to be "hurt" TPB can only be made to reimburse the losses suffered through their actions, and these losses has to be substantiated.
Parent
Remember "A New Hope" (Score:4, Funny)
Obi-Wan: You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Re:Remember "A New Hope" (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Remember "A New Hope" (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
In Soviet Russia..... (Score:5, Funny)
Pointless (Score:4, Insightful)
Downloaders are scared... (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Prince (Score:4, Insightful)
I imagine you don't sell many records these days and receive little royalties. But that has less likely to do with piracy and more to do with the fact that you haven't been relevant in the music world in over 15 years. My 17 year old daughter probably has heard of you, but then, she's heard of the battle of hastings, too. The same is true of ABBA, but even more so.
As for the village people, they were a comedy/novelty act. They had 3 hits, which were basically the same song, but delving into other aspects of man/man sex and it's various cliched incarnations in society. How much longer did you think that would be making money?
Somebody like Jay-Z might have a point do this, but he's actually making music that people listen to.
Mr. Prince, my little prince. Is is possible the record companies have put you up to this? I thought you split from the RIAA a couple years ago?
Re:Dear Prince (Score:5, Funny)
I think you're thinking of ABBA here.
Parent
Web Sheriff already tryed to sue... (Score:5, Informative)
White Stripes / WEB SHERIFF: email [thepiratebay.org] our response [thepiratebay.org] 2nd mail and response [thepiratebay.org] our fax (invoice) [thepiratebay.org] 3rd mail [thepiratebay.org] attached document [thepiratebay.org] We tell Faxxsheriff about our new site [thepiratebay.org] 4th mail [thepiratebay.org] our response [thepiratebay.org].
Has beens... (Score:4, Insightful)
Web hotels? (Score:5, Interesting)
I totally agree. Weve said for years that web hotels who are making millions, even billions, by renting out web space to file-sharing websites should take more responsibility and control these websites, Giacobbi said.
What the? This firm is called web sherrif, you would think they would have a slightly better grasp of the terms of the trade. It makes me almost instantly classify this suit as totally without merit and just a case of some stupid musicians being conned by a lawyer who smells a fat check (and not coming from the direction the musicians think).
Claims of millions of whatever currency are already laughable enough, does this guy really think that thepiratebay its isp or in fact anyone even remotely connected to P2P makes billions? Does he even understand how much money that is wether you measure it in dollars, euro's or kronen?
It's a civil case. (Score:5, Insightful)
Web sherrif? Hahaha :D (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure thepiratebay is getting scared [thepiratebay.org] now - see the links about halfway on that page to read the fine letters mailed between "the white stripes/Web sherrif" and thepiratebay admins.
The interesting thing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This really brings out the real trouble with the system. Somehow music is a perpetual machine in terms of money making. Now, I get that if someone uses your songs in order to MAKE MONEY, then they should give some back to you (since you're alive), since your work is obviously making money.
But going after file sharers just seems rather absurd to me especially since the artists considered haven't produced anything new in quite a while and so just wants free lunch. It DOES seem very greedy to me.
I mean.. Get to work like everybody else?
Sue for what? (Score:5, Insightful)
They can at most sue them for some sort of grey area "contributory copyright infringement"...
Prince sue? (Score:5, Interesting)
Prince? (Score:5, Funny)
Macho, macho man... (Score:5, Funny)
Torrent sites should be able to defend themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
If all someone is doing is using information from a torrent site to find another party, and is not actively connecting the two copyright infringers Napster-style, then surely they can defend the accusations.
Re:Torrent sites should be able to defend themselv (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Added to my list of artists to avoid (Score:4, Insightful)
They're hoping for a big payday - but once the lawyers get paid there won't be anything left. The lawyers are just using these people to support another attack against their customers.
A message for Prince, ABBA, and the Village People: your race has been run, get used to sitting in the sun. If you need more money, consider picking up trash and recycling the aluminum cans...
Re:Added to my list of artists to avoid (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also worth noting that Prince gave away copies [guardian.co.uk] of his last album in a paper, which was extremely unpopular with the music industry - so it's not as if he doesn't want his work distributed.
Parent
Village People suing the Pirate Bay (Score:4, Funny)
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Established acts (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see this as bands vs. the pirate bay, but as old distribution model vs. new distribution model. The new music business model is emerging and trying to mold itself to what consumers, who use the internet, want. The old business model swats down the new business model where ever it emerges and will attempt to change laws and the very nature of the internet to do it.
The by-product of the music industries attempts to do this have two consequences if allowed to continue. 1) Banal crappy sounding music with very little originality and fewer bands (and they are made to an accountants recipe of what sells) and more seriously 2) The ability for business to innovate better business models using the internet will be hampered by the legal framework left over from the music industries legal maneuvering.
How do acts like Prince and The Village People know that their music isn't reaching a new audience *because* of places like the pirate bay? As a whole I think because the music industry is not prepared/able to adapt (it lacks the imagination) eventually it will be replaced, hopefully soon, and that their main fear is that the artists themselves will be able to have a direct relationship with the people who want to listen to their music and yield an income from that direct relationship.
Sensationalist Headline? (Score:5, Funny)
I thought for a minute there that the Prince of Sweden had teamed up with a random Swedish village to sue The Pirate Bay.
My train of thought went from anger at the demeaning and archaic reference to the Swedish populous as "village people", to puzzlement about what possible copyrights the prince and villagers could hold in common, to loss of what little respect I have left for those groups.
Actually.... (Score:5, Funny)
/. can't see (beyond) its own prejudice... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll leave out the silliness of suing TPB for contributory copyright infringement, as I'm pretty sure we all agree that this isn't sane.
However, looking at the comments above, I see a horrible pattern: people excoriating ABBA, Prince, and TVP as "old timers" and "not producing anything recently" and therefore somehow immediately irrelevant and undeserving of receiving some compensation for their work.
Now, I realize that /. is heavily 20-somethings (which means, you weren't conscious before about 1990), but I think enough of us here are a bit older that we can recognize that music produced in the 80s and (gasp) even the 70s might still have some worth. Now, the 95+ year copyright is a bit ludicrous, but even ABBA and TVP's songs are still in their mid-30s as to date from creation. And Prince's stuff is a rather young 25 at the oldest. I think it's entirely reasonable that someone have the ability to own a copyright for 25 years. TPB may not be (rationally) responsible, but the people filesharing ABBA haven't got a legal, moral, or ethical leg to stand on.
And, to shove something back at this audience that it often trumpets: teenieboppers aren't the only music consumers! If the music industry is to survive, it has to realize that continuing to sell to 30/40/50 year olds is a viable market. And, let's face it, much of that market is interested in nostalgia. I certainly haven't finished filling out my collection of favorites from the 70s. So, (gasp) there should still be substantial value in selling music a couple of decades old to 30+ people.
So, the attitude of "what have you done for me lately" is bullshit. Nirvana hasn't produced anything in 15 years. They don't (i.e. can't) make money from touring. Does that mean I can pirate their stuff with impunity, since obviously, Kurt doesn't need any of the royalties.
It's attitudes like that that mean we're not taken seriously.
Moderate copyright, rigorously enforced, is a boon to society. Our problem is that copyright is approaching a perpetuity. The reaction to that may be widespread piracy, but let's not kid ourselves that we're somehow "better" than the opposition. Rioting for change is still rioting, even if you manage to get something changed. Vote with your dollars, as its by far the best way (ethically, morally, and socially) to effect change - support those artists willing to embrace new business models, and shun those who prop up the old channels.
One last thing. Here's a question for everyone:
Under the current copyright system, if an artist (formerly popular), who hasn't produced anything in a decade or more, and won't (or can't) tour, decides to make their catalog available digitally (as MP3, at some reasonable X per song), yet absolutely abhors filesharing, and sues everyone they can which shares their songs, asking for several thousand dollars (mostly as a deterent) per song in penalties, would you support them?
-Erik
Re:/. can't see (beyond) its own prejudice... (Score:5, Insightful)
In most lines of work, you do your work that you're paid to do, get your paycheck and that's all the compensation you'll ever get or should get. You don't expect to be paid throughout the endurance of said work. Imagine turning up at a former place of work in say 10 years and telling them, "hey, I see you're still using that data center I designed for you 10 years ago, give me more money", you'd be laughed out of there.
Now, the current model of selling music recordings doesn't quite work like that. You record your music, then you sell it hoping to get some or all of that money back. Even make a profit if you're lucky.
Finally, just because there's a market for nostalgia doesn't mean that copyrights should automatically span so that artists can cash in on it. What you'd call nostalgia, I'd call history, or cultural heritage, and should not be locked up to be only sold on the whim of the copyright holder.
I guess the difference between us is not one of principle, but of degree. You want something like 25 years. I want something closer to 5 years, and to make clear that copyright protection preventing duplication should only cover *commercial* duplication of said work. Older works are valuable, yes. That's precisely why commercial distribution of such works shouldn't be bottled up longer than neccessary. 5 years is plenty of time to have a monopoly on a work, to have an opportunity to turn a profit on it.
Parent
Re:what do they all have in common? (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, it should be noted that this guy has *tried* to involve ABBA in this. I don't see anything indicating that they have even responded yet, let alone confirmed their agreement with him. I suspect that he wins either way (even if they don't get involved, having their name connected still gets him more attention).
Potential basis of ABBA legal action against the Pirate Bay: "I've been cheated by you since I don't know when" (thrown out due to vagueness surrounding the dates of the alleged infringments).
Parent