Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy

TPB Files Police Complaint Against CPIAC for Copying Website 268

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the this-is-gonna-be-good dept.
Last week, a Finnish anti-piracy agency copied the CSS and HTML of The Pirate Bay. Today, TPB announced that they have filed a police report and are preparing to sue for copyright infringement: "The Pirate Bay, the world’s largest site for cultural diversity and file sharing, has today (Monday 2013-02-18) reported a suspected crime to the Finnish police. The suspected criminals are the Finnish anti-piracy organization CIAPC (locally known as TTVK). The reason is that CIAPC have copied files from which The Pirate Bay is built, to produce a fraudulent parody site. While The Pirate Bay may have a positive view on copying, it will not stand by and watch copyright enforcing organizations disrespect copyright." The Pirate Bay is also arguing that parody laws do not apply thanks to recent legal precedent.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TPB Files Police Complaint Against CPIAC for Copying Website

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18, 2013 @08:12PM (#42940121)

    Hopefully commentors will understand it isn't TPB which is being hypocritical here.

    "Well did you hit her first?"

  • Re:Pirate a pirate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18, 2013 @08:14PM (#42940147)

    You are an idiot if you don't understand the whole statement they are making by this. In particular, it's important to note that the webcode in question IS copyrighted by TPB. Furthermore, TPB does not host anything which they do not have the copyright for.

    It is not like TPB is suing to make money - it is simply a political statement, and a very good one at that. I hope they go far with this, because it really is completely legit and fair.

  • Win-Win (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Niterios (2700835) on Monday February 18, 2013 @08:16PM (#42940155)
    If they lose, they prove a point: copyright laws are only in favor of a few. If they win, they expand their list of successful trolling.
  • Re:Hah. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18, 2013 @08:17PM (#42940157)

    Glad someone gets it. Do people really not understand that this is intentional irony? TPB is making a mockery of the system, not protecting IP...

  • Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18, 2013 @08:21PM (#42940177)

    How? One side is hosting copyrighted content and the other is not. Furthermore, one is a commercial entity, and the other is only making a hilarious political statement. Sorry, but I only see hypocrisy from one side.

  • Re:Win-Win (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fluffeh (1273756) on Monday February 18, 2013 @08:23PM (#42940189)

    Either way, it makes for an interesting play. It will be interesting to see how this plays out - is it really the same set of rules that everyone has to play by, or do those rules only apply if a big corp says they do...

  • Couldn't be better (Score:5, Insightful)

    by folderol (1965326) on Monday February 18, 2013 @08:24PM (#42940205) Homepage
    I'm astonished at how many people right across the technology forums don't seem to get what an amazing opportunity has been handed to The Pirate Bay... on a plate! They would be absolute fools to not make the most of this, and really rub the copyright lobby's noses in their own poo.

    Talking about them being hypocritical is nonsense. They are rolling on the floor laughing while they poke at CPIAC with the very laws that were being used against them. I reckon this will just run and run, and I'll thoroughly enjoy it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18, 2013 @08:31PM (#42940259)

    That statement would have had no effect whatsoever except amongst the minority of readers of sites like slashdot. The CPIAC would simply have ignored them and gone on with business as usual.

    Filing a formal police complaint forces the organisation to show up to court and explain themselves in front of a judge. There are now legal consequences to their ignoring the statement; up to and including jail. Their responses will be on public court records where they can be used against them in future cases; their hypocrisy will be on display for all to see.

    Moreover, a potential court case draws more widespread attention as it will be covered by a much greater spread of media outlets.

    They are taking this opportunity to publicly embaress the organisation and expose the hypocrisy they represent. They are grabbing this opportunity with both hands and running with it. Releasing a smug, toothless statement that makes nerds feel good but does nothing to advance their cause would have been the real missed opportunity here.

  • Re:Pirate a pirate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18, 2013 @09:04PM (#42940417)

    From http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130218/10364722017/pirate-bays-lawsuit-against-anti-piracy-group-more-about-exposing-double-standards-enforcement.shtml

    TPB has now said that it has reported the parody CIAPC site to the Economic Crime Unit. Why? Well, it appears the whole thing is really about exposing the double standard by Finnish law enforcement. You see, recently, Finnish prosecutors went after a parody site by Finnish "software developer, researcher and internet activist" Matti Nikki. So, TPB, is noting that it just wants to see the law applied equally (by which it means, showing how farcical the law is, knowing that law enforcement will never prosecute this):

            “In a similar case, the prosecution and the Helsinki Court of Appeals have found that a parody site can violate the moral rights of the original author. Changing the logo or making slight edits to the text are not enough to remove this liability,” they informed the police.

    The Finnish EFF supported this claim, explaining to TorrentFreak (in the link above) that seeing how prosecutors reacted would be quite telling:

            “It’s interesting to see, how the police reacts to Pirate Bay’s demands. On facts the case is indeed very similar to Matti Nikki’s case, in which the prosecutor decided to bring the charges on behalf of Save the Children.

            “The law should be the same for everyone so now the objectivity of the Finnish police is going to be tested. Anyway as others have already pointed out, even if Pirate Bay loses the case, it’s a victory for their cause.”

    So, while others were mocking, it appears there was a much more serious thought process going on here. One of the following possibilities are likely to occur:

            Finnish prosecutors do absolutely nothing, thus exposing their complete double standard in enforcing the law.
            A lawsuit happens, and TPB "loses" the case, as it's an obvious parody situation which should be allowed -- and thus, TPB reinforces the protections for parody.
            A lawsuit happens TPB actually wins the case, which most people would equally recognize as preposterous after seeing the initial press coverage of the story.

    It's looking like this was, yet again, a more clever move than many gave them credit for initially.

  • Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fredprado (2569351) on Monday February 18, 2013 @09:21PM (#42940537)
    They "facilitate" copyright infringement, which is not a crime in most countries unless it is done for money, about as much as Google or any search engine. The fact is copyright is an obsolete system that has to go, and it will go because people don't want it any more, and that is not Piratebay's fault or any entity's fault. The blame is on the system that cannot possibly work anymore.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18, 2013 @09:40PM (#42940659)

    Actually, the joy here is that, off hand, I can't think of any argument that CPIAC could raise in their defense which will not later weaken their own efforts/assertions.

    Furthemore, should the try to defend themselves against this, it will provide AMPLE opportunity to use the things that they've already said in court against them, which is pretty substantially amusing from a purely kharmic perspective.

    Short of CPIAC saying, "you're absolutely right, we're guilty as hell, please fine the ever-living-shit out of us!", any statement/argument that they make can only weaken them when they attempt to prosecute their agenda against others down the road.

    -AC

  • Re:Lose-Lose (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fustakrakich (1673220) on Monday February 18, 2013 @10:04PM (#42940803) Journal

    I find it personally hypocritical for a slashdotter to pirate software while getting paid writting software from paying customers and then getting angry at GPL copyright violations.

    GPL deserves equal treatment under the law. If and when the law goes away, GPL will no longer need to exist.

  • Re:Hypocrisy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mark-t (151149) <markt@nOSPam.lynx.bc.ca> on Monday February 18, 2013 @10:06PM (#42940817) Journal
    And who do you think will publish content in this idealist future copyright-free world? Or do you think that the general public will be truly satisfied with unending ads, unwanted porn popups, spam, and amateur cat videos?
  • by fustakrakich (1673220) on Monday February 18, 2013 @10:15PM (#42940867) Journal

    Copyright was invented to control distribution and restrict "unauthorized" use of the printing press. The issue of plagiarism was the bait and hook. Some copyright laws of the past ignored the issue of authorship entirely. The law is designed to protect publishers, not the creators.

  • Re:Pirate a pirate (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18, 2013 @10:33PM (#42940961)

    'Stolen'? Nonsense.

    Reality requires a transfer of possession for theft to have occurred. Copying a site design is not theft. It is simply a copy of an idea which is something that does not exist in reality and thus is not property, but instead is an abstraction that describes something in reality(in this case an arrangement of data on a server). To steal the design of a site, they would have to deprive the owner of the actual thing which the idea of the site design describes. This would require taking actual property(be it the server itself or somehow messing with the data arrangement on the server but then it wouldn't be so much a matter of transfer of property so much as destruction of it).

    Whatever the moral implications, let us at least speak correctly and precisely about the immediate actions, the facts. In doing so, perhaps it will help us draw more truthful conclusions. I would never defend government institutions(all of which by definition steal and worse on a daily basis) but I do not tolerate misidentification and conflation of ethical actions; that leads to acceptance of evil(or condemnation of virtue).

  • Re:Kopimi... no? (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18, 2013 @10:48PM (#42941023)

    Nice job weakly supporting a position, almost as an attempt to discredit it...o wait, try again lolololololol

  • Re:Pirate a pirate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NotQuiteReal (608241) on Monday February 18, 2013 @11:42PM (#42941301) Journal
    Calling yourself a pirate does not make you a pirate.

    Pirating from one who calls themselves a pirate, does make you a pirate.
  • Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bzipitidoo (647217) <bzipitidoo@yahoo.com> on Tuesday February 19, 2013 @12:15AM (#42941457) Journal

    Ah, I thought you would pull that one. When you say:

    an assurance that nobody else is going to take credit for what they did (or do you think that plagiarism would even have any meaning without copyright?)

    You confuse 2 separate issues. Plagiarism has meaning independent of copyright, and can be stopped just fine without it. Or do you think teachers use copyright law to detect cheating on essay assignments? Search engines are great at instantly discovering plagiarism, no need for copyright.

  • Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mark-t (151149) <markt@nOSPam.lynx.bc.ca> on Tuesday February 19, 2013 @12:28AM (#42941519) Journal

    Actually, it's not copyright that has been the only way to achieve that... it's exclusivity.

    There has *ALWAYS* been exclusivity on content distribution... even before copyright.

    Exclusivity used to be implicit because copying works was so difficult and error prone that it was typically not worth anyone's time or effort to try to copy somebody else's work without authorization.

    Copyright is supposed to be the modern equivalent... except it doesn't work when people disrespect it. When publishers lose confidence in copyright to protect their interests of exclusivity, they can and will resort to other means, which will ultimately reduce the availability of content for the general public.

  • Re:Pirate a pirate (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19, 2013 @01:07AM (#42941675)

    They want to hit anti piracy group where it hurts.
    How can antipiracy group look good when THEY break laws they are supposed to protect on behalf of their clients.
    WIn/Win TPB, good job!

  • Re:Win-Win (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Omnifarious (11933) <eric-slashNO@SPAMomnifarious.org> on Tuesday February 19, 2013 @02:29AM (#42942121) Homepage Journal

    If TPB wins, the copyright maximalists end up with egg on their face over a law even they can't seem to follow. I will admit that the TPB winning this case is actually the worst outcome. Though the hay they can make while it's going on is almost worth it. I'm imagining the copyright maximalists are going to have some pretty interesting defenses.

    But, if they lose, it's really clear that this is all about making sure the rules apply to the 'right' people. And it will done in a really public way that tells the people who vote that they don't count. And, of course, the people who vote still do count in Finland, and maybe they'll get off their collective behinds and do something about it.

  • Re:Pirate a pirate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Engeekneer (1564917) on Tuesday February 19, 2013 @03:15AM (#42942309)

    WHat do they want to prove? That copying copyrighted material is illegal? Do they really want to go there?

    I don't thing that's even a question? Isn't intellectual property infriction pretty conclusively illegal without having to prove it

    Very silly idea, and not at all thought through. Unless they did think it through and still determine that this was something worth pretending to pursue.

    I disagee. They are calling out the hypocricy of the copyright group when they do the one thing they are agaist. It's like PETA having an annual moose hunt. In addition I think this calls into attention the state of currect copyright law. If the group claims it was a mistake, it clearly shows that even the "experts" have no clue how to stay withing the law.

  • Re:Pirate a pirate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjames (1099) on Tuesday February 19, 2013 @03:35AM (#42942373) Homepage

    TPB doesn't copy copyrighted material that doesn't belong to them. Apparently, CPIAC does though.

  • Re:Pirate a pirate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjames (1099) on Tuesday February 19, 2013 @04:00AM (#42942443) Homepage

    Exactly. And now it is up to prosecutors to either charge CPIAC like they have done to others and show CPAIC to be hypocrites OR ignore the matter and prove that not all are equal under the law as implemented.

  • Re:Pirate a pirate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sirlark (1676276) on Tuesday February 19, 2013 @07:03AM (#42943081)
    No! This is win-win for TPB. If they win the case they get to publically point out the hypocracy of the anti-piracy lobby, as well as solidly discredit their 'expertise' (as pointed out by engeekner below). If they lose, presumably because of fair use/parody being used as a defense, they have a precedent set that is actually supportive of their larger goals, i.e. that parody and fair use are applicable defences in cases of copyright infringement. The only other ways it could go are, in the worst case the case is thrown out, and TPB get to say "We aren't even given fair access to the justice system anymore", or they lose because the situation isn't considered infringement, i.e. that their claims are false. If this is the case, then there's a precedent that a direct digital copy does not constitute infrigment.

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Working...