If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slashdot)   The Pirate Bay to sue anti-piracy organization for copyright infringement   (yro.slashdot.org) divider line 38
    More: Ironic, The Pirate Bay, Save the Children, Infraction, Microsoft Word, TorrentFreak, equal justice under law, objectivity, CSS  
•       •       •

3194 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Feb 2013 at 9:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-19 08:27:02 AM
www.mathsisfun.com
 
2013-02-19 08:46:15 AM
People still read Slashdot?
 
2013-02-19 09:30:30 AM

cmunic8r99: People still read Slashdot?


More people read slashdot than fark.
 
2013-02-19 09:35:14 AM
The flip-side of this coin would read "Finnish anti-piracy agency caught plagiarizing from TPB".  It all depends on your prospective.  They probably figured those assholes were giving them enough grief that they might as well sue them right back.
 
2013-02-19 09:57:40 AM
Yeah, I figured it was one of those "How would you like a taste of your own medicine?" deals.
 
2013-02-19 10:08:51 AM

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Yeah, I figured it was one of those "How would you like a taste of your own medicine?" deals.


Except that it can be a double-edged sword... I'm sure TPB people expect the full wrath of the law brought down on the anti-pirate asshats, as it was on them. Of course, there will be a double-standard applied, where the anti-pirate idiots will not be punished, even though their 'crime' is far more egregious, from a legal standpoint, then TPB hosting torrents.
 
2013-02-19 10:19:26 AM

Nickninja: The flip-side of this coin would read "Finnish anti-piracy agency caught plagiarizing from TPB".  It all depends on your prospective.  They probably figured those assholes were giving them enough grief that they might as well sue them right back.


Although, it's a bit tough to call it plagiarizing, when it's clearly a parody. Consider the sinking-ship version of the logo:
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.compiraattilahti.fi.
 
2013-02-19 10:22:34 AM

Theaetetus: Although, it's a bit tough to call it plagiarizing, when it's clearly a parody. Consider the sinking-ship version of the logo:


The anti-pirate folks copied HTML and CSS verbatim from TPB's site, down to the source-code comments.
 
2013-02-19 10:25:56 AM

cmunic8r99: People still read Slashdot?


People still read Fark?
 
2013-02-19 10:26:11 AM
LesserEvil:
Except that it can be a double-edged sword... I'm sure TPB people expect the full wrath of the law brought down on the anti-pirate asshats, as it was on them. Of course, there will be a double-standard applied, where the anti-pirate idiots will not be punished, even though their 'crime' is far more egregious, from a legal standpoint, then TPB hosting torrents.

I'm not sure that I agree with TPB expecting the full wrate of the law to be brought down on the anti-pirate asshats. I'm betting the expected some bureaucratic bungling, and calls to appear before a judge. It's a harassment move, one they're well within their rights to do (according to the Anti-Pirates) so they'll give it to them with both barrels, as it were.
 
2013-02-19 10:29:14 AM
This whole story was a joke comment that has begun the circular track around media outlets, each boosting the story to new levels of drama.
 
2013-02-19 10:29:27 AM

Fubini: Theaetetus: Although, it's a bit tough to call it plagiarizing, when it's clearly a parody. Consider the sinking-ship version of the logo:

The anti-pirate folks copied HTML and CSS verbatim from TPB's site, down to the source-code comments.


CSS, yes, but the HTML is different. Notice that the link names are in Finnish, for one thing. But, so what? As I said, this is a parody of Pirate Bay. It's like saying that Weird Al plagiarized Lady Gaga when he wrote "I Perform This Way". No, he didn't, and it's not copyright infringement.

I certainly understand why TPB is upset, but to try to use copyright laws to go after Piraattilahti is not just hypocritical, it shows a significant misunderstanding of what copyright  does actually protect.
 
2013-02-19 10:31:40 AM

LesserEvil: Of course, there will be a double-standard applied, where the anti-pirate idiots will not be punished, even though their 'crime' is far more egregious, from a legal standpoint, then TPB hosting torrents.


Parody is far more egregious than commercial infringement?

When you said "from a legal standpoint," I think you really meant "in my non-legal opinion".
 
2013-02-19 10:42:37 AM
I'm gonna sue Marvel Comics for stealing my username.
 
2013-02-19 10:47:15 AM

Theaetetus: Fubini: Theaetetus: Although, it's a bit tough to call it plagiarizing, when it's clearly a parody. Consider the sinking-ship version of the logo:

The anti-pirate folks copied HTML and CSS verbatim from TPB's site, down to the source-code comments.

CSS, yes, but the HTML is different. Notice that the link names are in Finnish, for one thing. But, so what? As I said, this is a parody of Pirate Bay. It's like saying that Weird Al plagiarized Lady Gaga when he wrote "I Perform This Way". No, he didn't, and it's not copyright infringement.

I certainly understand why TPB is upset, but to try to use copyright laws to go after Piraattilahti is not just hypocritical, it shows a significant misunderstanding of what copyright  does actually protect.


Question, what is the status of the parody defense under Finnish law?  I mean i an fairly sure they don't have the robustness of first amendment fair use, given that most European nations think our free speech protections are ridiculously broad.  I know the EU rules have a parody exception, but i also know it is much tighter than ours, and as far as i know Finland doesn't have a tradition of fair use as an exemption for liability.

Of course my knowledge of Scandinavian adjacent IP law is somewhat . . . thin.
 
2013-02-19 10:47:38 AM

HappyTheDog: cmunic8r99: People still read Slashdot?

People still read Fark?


Reddit had this story 20 years ago.
 
rpm
2013-02-19 11:03:57 AM

Teiritzamna: Question, what is the status of the parody defense under Finnish law?


There isn't one. There was a recent case where parody got slammed.

No matter what, Pirate Bay wins.

(a) Case doesn't get brought, double standard is brought to light very publicly
(b) Case gets brought, Pirate Bay loses - Parody defense is now a precedent
(c) Case gets brought, Pirate Bay wins
 
2013-02-19 11:06:22 AM

Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: Fubini: Theaetetus: Although, it's a bit tough to call it plagiarizing, when it's clearly a parody. Consider the sinking-ship version of the logo:

The anti-pirate folks copied HTML and CSS verbatim from TPB's site, down to the source-code comments.

CSS, yes, but the HTML is different. Notice that the link names are in Finnish, for one thing. But, so what? As I said, this is a parody of Pirate Bay. It's like saying that Weird Al plagiarized Lady Gaga when he wrote "I Perform This Way". No, he didn't, and it's not copyright infringement.

I certainly understand why TPB is upset, but to try to use copyright laws to go after Piraattilahti is not just hypocritical, it shows a significant misunderstanding of what copyright  does actually protect.

Question, what is the status of the parody defense under Finnish law?  I mean i an fairly sure they don't have the robustness of first amendment fair use, given that most European nations think our free speech protections are ridiculously broad.  I know the EU rules have a parody exception, but i also know it is much tighter than ours, and as far as i know Finland doesn't have a tradition of fair use as an exemption for liability.

Of course my knowledge of Scandinavian adjacent IP law is somewhat . . . thin.


It's true, although they are a signatory to Berne so that hampers them somewhat. They do have some fair use exceptions, and I bet you could shoehorn it under the educational exception.
 
2013-02-19 11:07:15 AM

rpm: No matter what, Pirate Bay wins.

(b) Case gets brought, Pirate Bay loses - Parody defense is now a precedent


I don't see how that counts as a win for TPB.
 
2013-02-19 11:13:37 AM

Theaetetus: rpm: No matter what, Pirate Bay wins.

(b) Case gets brought, Pirate Bay loses - Parody defense is now a precedent

I don't see how that counts as a win for TPB.


Ah - it looks like the anti-piracy organization oppose a proposed copyright reform act that includes a parody exception, although it's not clear that they specifically oppose the parody exception part of it, as opposed to many of the other proposed changes.
 
2013-02-19 11:22:20 AM

Theaetetus: Theaetetus: rpm: No matter what, Pirate Bay wins.

(b) Case gets brought, Pirate Bay loses - Parody defense is now a precedent

I don't see how that counts as a win for TPB.

Ah - it looks like the anti-piracy organization oppose a proposed copyright reform act that includes a parody exception, although it's not clear that they specifically oppose the parody exception part of it, as opposed to many of the other proposed changes.


Basically the anti-piracy asshats are just that, asshats. These are the same people behind a tax levied on all external hard drives using the logic that anyone needing extra storage space was using it for illegal downloads. Except the government doesn't call it a tax, it's a support the starving artists whose livelihoods are being impacted by illegal downloading fund or some such bullshiat. This is on top of a law passed a while ago that basically outlaws MP3 players, if strictly interpreted, and guess who thought that one up?
 
2013-02-19 11:24:47 AM

rpm: No matter what, Pirate Bay wins.


How many years has the Pirate Bay been operating? How many record labels have folded in the interim? How much time, effort and money has the MAFIAA expended trying to exterminate the Pirate Bay?

The Pirate Bay has already won, merely by remaining in existence for this long. They outlasted EMI.
 
2013-02-19 11:31:54 AM

HappyTheDog: cmunic8r99: People still read Slashdot?

People still read Fark?


I know I don't
 
2013-02-19 11:59:42 AM
The whole idea with this, if I'm understanding what's going on, is that TPB is now making a pro-recording industry group defend itself in the same lawsuit it normally prosecutes.  So, now the PRIG is forced to make the same arguments that TPB and others have had to bring to court so many times over the years on similarly trumped-up bullshiat.  The point isn't whether TPB wins or loses this case - the point is to get the PRIG to state, in court, that TPB and others are basically right.  And, of course, to be just as huge of a harassing bully to the PRIG as they were in all of their lawsuits.

If TPB isn't able to accomplish these goals, then they'll just be highlighting the hypocrisy of the justice system along with the hypocrisy of the PRIG.
 
2013-02-19 12:19:34 PM

HappyTheDog: cmunic8r99: People still read Slashdot?

People still read Fark?


People still read?.
 
2013-02-19 12:25:19 PM

HappyTheDog: cmunic8r99: People still read Slashdot?

People still read Fark?


I read a website written on a clay tablet written in sumerian cuneiform, it's pretty obscure, you've probably never heard of it.
 
2013-02-19 12:30:10 PM

CygnusDarius: HappyTheDog: cmunic8r99: People still read Slashdot?

People still read Fark?

People still read?.


Not me.

Wait.
 
2013-02-19 01:54:55 PM

Fubini: Theaetetus: Although, it's a bit tough to call it plagiarizing, when it's clearly a parody. Consider the sinking-ship version of the logo:

The anti-pirate folks copied HTML and CSS verbatim from TPB's site, down to the source-code comments.


If that were true, it would be hotlinking all its content from TPB. As the image is changed, I can guarantee the HTML isn't "verbatim."
 
2013-02-19 02:09:24 PM

ProfessorOhki: Fubini: Theaetetus: Although, it's a bit tough to call it plagiarizing, when it's clearly a parody. Consider the sinking-ship version of the logo:

The anti-pirate folks copied HTML and CSS verbatim from TPB's site, down to the source-code comments.

If that were true, it would be hotlinking all its content from TPB. As the image is changed, I can guarantee the HTML isn't "verbatim."


You can copy verbatim, then slightly modify the content, and the result is still plagiarism.
 
2013-02-19 02:20:53 PM

Fubini: ProfessorOhki: Fubini: Theaetetus: Although, it's a bit tough to call it plagiarizing, when it's clearly a parody. Consider the sinking-ship version of the logo:

The anti-pirate folks copied HTML and CSS verbatim from TPB's site, down to the source-code comments.

If that were true, it would be hotlinking all its content from TPB. As the image is changed, I can guarantee the HTML isn't "verbatim."

You can copy verbatim, then slightly modify the content, and the result is still plagiarism.


Yes. However, that plagiarized work will not be a verbatim copy. Words mean things.
 
2013-02-19 09:04:13 PM

ProfessorOhki: Fubini: ProfessorOhki: Fubini: Theaetetus: Although, it's a bit tough to call it plagiarizing, when it's clearly a parody. Consider the sinking-ship version of the logo:

The anti-pirate folks copied HTML and CSS verbatim from TPB's site, down to the source-code comments.

If that were true, it would be hotlinking all its content from TPB. As the image is changed, I can guarantee the HTML isn't "verbatim."

You can copy verbatim, then slightly modify the content, and the result is still plagiarism.

Yes. However, that plagiarized work will not be a verbatim copy. Words mean things.


What if the paths were indirect and not absolute?
 
2013-02-19 11:05:41 PM

ProfessorOhki: If that were true, it would be hotlinking all its content from TPB. As the image is changed, I can guarantee the HTML isn't "verbatim."


Much HTML does not use a full path of image sources, just a directory structure of the current file.  Any subdirectories could be identical and be using an identically named image (which is different than the original image), but could still be using the exact same HTML.
 
2013-02-19 11:54:49 PM

ProfessorOhki: Fubini: ProfessorOhki: Fubini: Theaetetus: Although, it's a bit tough to call it plagiarizing, when it's clearly a parody. Consider the sinking-ship version of the logo:

The anti-pirate folks copied HTML and CSS verbatim from TPB's site, down to the source-code comments.

...

Yes. However, that plagiarized work will not be a verbatim copy. Words mean things.


Yes they do. However, so does the sentence those individual words make up.

"Copied HTML and CSS verbatim." does not mean "Copied the entire HTML and CSS verbatim."

If you copy three paragraphs from a book but change the middle one you have still copied text from the book verbatim. Your work is not a verbatim copy but that is something different and not what was implied by the statement.
 
2013-02-20 01:17:46 AM

The6502Man: What if the paths were indirect and not absolute?


mjbok: Much HTML does not use a full path of image sources, just a directory structure of the current file. Any subdirectories could be identical and be using an identically named image (which is different than the original image), but could still be using the exact same HTML.


...obviously. Now try looking at the source of TBP's front page and notice the liberal use of absolute references including the reference to the stylesheet.

ParanoidAgnostic: "Copied HTML and CSS verbatim." does not mean "Copied the entire HTML and CSS verbatim."

If you copy three paragraphs from a book but change the middle one you have still copied text from the book verbatim. Your work is not a verbatim copy but that is something different and not what was implied by the statement.


Alright, sure. But wouldn't that suggest there's no such thing as a copy that's not verbatim, meaning there's no reason to bother saying "verbatim" in the first place?
 
2013-02-20 10:30:56 AM

ProfessorOhki: The6502Man: What if the paths were indirect and not absolute?

mjbok: Much HTML does not use a full path of image sources, just a directory structure of the current file. Any subdirectories could be identical and be using an identically named image (which is different than the original image), but could still be using the exact same HTML.

...obviously. Now try looking at the source of TBP's front page and notice the liberal use of absolute references including the reference to the stylesheet.

ParanoidAgnostic: "Copied HTML and CSS verbatim." does not mean "Copied the entire HTML and CSS verbatim."

If you copy three paragraphs from a book but change the middle one you have still copied text from the book verbatim. Your work is not a verbatim copy but that is something different and not what was implied by the statement.

Alright, sure. But wouldn't that suggest there's no such thing as a copy that's not verbatim, meaning there's no reason to bother saying "verbatim" in the first place?


That would depend entirely on your meaning of copy, but in general a verbatim copy is implied to be exact, while a general copy isn't. For example, I could be working on a C++ program, find a python analog, and just translate it to work for me. In that situation I could say that I copied the program, but it's clear from context that I didn't verbatim copy it, I just adapted one program to suit my own needs by copying the structure. In contrast, I could copy from one C++ to another C++ program, and I could do a verbatim copy, or I could do a non-verbatim copy (such as just changing variable identifiers).

I used the term "verbatim" above to imply complete plagiarism
 
2013-02-20 02:44:14 PM

Fubini: Theaetetus: Although, it's a bit tough to call it plagiarizing, when it's clearly a parody. Consider the sinking-ship version of the logo:

The anti-pirate folks copied HTML and CSS verbatim from TPB's site, down to the source-code comments.


It's not stealing though. There are still two sites.
 
2013-02-21 12:06:29 AM

Nemo's Brother: It's not stealing though. There are still two sites.


Thread over.
 
2013-02-21 08:31:34 AM

JonZoidberg: Nemo's Brother: It's not stealing though. There are still two sites.

Thread over.


this is true, if you stole the site then TPB wouldn`t have a site anymore as it would have been stolen.

As it is, there is just an issue over the right to copy.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report