Comments (160)

101. Not Stupid
     January 28th, 2008 | 23:17

     I am with #2… F*ck em

     Corporations think they own us but they better start think different. They may own the company but they don’t own me.

     On the other hand, U.S. Congress voted to give themselves another raise. But this one increases annually. I am fed up and really frustrated that others (many more in fact) are still “asleep” or still buying into the corporate lies.

     Has “America: Freedom to Fascism” been brought out on here yet? I know it’s old, but so was “Zeitgeist”.

     -NS- Death to Secret Societies. I AM Sovereign.

102. dionisus
     January 28th, 2008 | 23:45

     @32 Ponny re: it stands that I man in 45 years of age got 15 days “conditional inprisonment” and a fine of 50k KR in Norway for sharing a film(Pittbullterje) on piratebay, 2770 dl on it deturment the fine, loss of sales because of the dl.

     Here is the link to the case. (Norwegian sorry)
     http://lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc=/usr/www/lovdata/lr/lrb/lb-2007-069411.html&emne=pitbul*&&

103. Roflcer of the Lawl
     January 28th, 2008 | 23:57

     Long live the pirate bay.

104. anonymous
     January 28th, 2008 | 23:57

     if they did somehow close the site down, one thing is for sure – the biggest DNS attack in the history of the internet will occur shortly afterwards and some major corporations will wish they hadn’t picked a fight with the wrong people

105. corporate america is the PROBLEM
     January 29th, 2008 | 00:01

     @102 ………… exactly, a corporation without people well it would be NOTHING and corporation need to realize that without the people buying their garbage, they would be nothing……

106. esa888
     January 29th, 2008 | 00:07

     download all you can,
     if you like buy it,
     or dont ,
     it’s up 2 your conscience,
     it’s all data- easy replicated
     information.

     copyright is just a bussines
     ideal, it is nothing set in stone,
     the big money companies and Elite
     of this world , do not like the fact that it’s a level playing field for people with
     and without money,
     if you use something , it is a good idea to help the creators in some way, it is like using something without saying thankyou.

     it is good to say thankyou and be courteous.
     that is all, we are all people but the world is now different, I expect the moneymen of this world to fight back with EU legislation and take power back.

     until then it will continue,
     but there is a price to pay,
     as the people who create content are people
     too and deserve respect, but i dont like lawyers
     and opression in whatever form it is applied, this
     makes people less likely to pay.

     But something must be done, this problem where
     nobody gets paid for anything cannot go on forever,
     maybe free content with ads that pay the creators of content?

     peace and love.

107. al bundy
     January 29th, 2008 | 00:09

     argh maitee! a pirates life it should be! long live tpb!

108. iNSANiA
     January 29th, 2008 | 00:28

     They can’t bring us down.

109. EMPiRE
     January 29th, 2008 | 00:31

     OMG!! PLEASE NOT TPB!!! This is almost the best site!! We’ve already lost Demonoid!! PLEASE NOT TPB!!!! please TPB i know u will win once again!! :D:D:D

110. Dave
     January 29th, 2008 | 00:31

     pirate bay rocks!

111. Parker
     January 29th, 2008 | 00:40

     Dj Music Setup Great Dj Mixer

     http://rapidshare.com/files/87417159/DJMusicSetup.exe

     And y yall dl that check out this awsome song

     http://rapidshare.com/files/86951910/Drowning_Pool_-_Let_the_bodies_hit_the_floor_.mp3

112. Cruze97
     January 29th, 2008 | 00:41

     Why does every comment section include people saying they hate America? Surly people are bright enough to know that the actions of the government don’t speak for all the people. I am American and I don’t agree with hardly anything my government does, so does that mean you hate me too? Before you start saying you hate America perhaps you should ask yourself this question: Are you in total agreement with everything your goverment does? The swede Government bowed to pressure from the U.S which was stupid, but how come no one is filling up the comments with I hate Sweden? It is because to take a mistake on the Swedish government’s part and turn that into: “I hate Sweden or I hate Swedish people” is completly stupid. But people do it all the time with America. Bush does something stupid and then here come the chants “I hate america and I hate americans. To think all Aermicans are on the same page and agree on everything shows a very simple mind and a lack of nuance and complex thought.

113. Bnutz
     January 29th, 2008 | 01:02

     I think the MPAA and RIAA are nothing but a bunch of greedy pigs who just want to fill there over flowing pockets of money with even more money and get a kick of screwing the little guys. What percentage of the world use TPB? not as much as the people who go openong night to see a movie. They make milions on these movies and music and sitll want the pennies from the few that use these sites. I have actually gone to the theatres to watch a movies after seeing it from a download because I know it was good and I am not wasting my money for some crap that wins awards these days. with the money they spend going after poeple would be spent feeding the hungry the world would be a better place.

114. FooMan
     January 29th, 2008 | 01:04

     It is a shame but I truly believe P2P will never die. There is money to be made from this and someone somewhere will be making it. Just like drugs are illegal but it is still a billion dollar bizness.

115. Anonymous
     January 29th, 2008 | 01:21

     @113 – well said… and very proper.

116. creampop
     January 29th, 2008 | 01:28

     F*ck Sweden and its people!

117. Anonymous Too
     January 29th, 2008 | 01:33

     Per Wikipedia…

     The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), originally the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), is a non-profit business and trade association based in the United States, which was formed to advance the business interests of movie studios.

     The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is a trade group that represents the recording industry in the United States. Its members consist of a large number of private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, which the RIAA claims “create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.”

     As you can clearly see, neither of these organizations represent the Americian government or its people.

118. Onyx
     January 29th, 2008 | 02:19

     Anyone else find it ironic that we are reading this news of a release website HAHAHA

     RLSLOG !

119. OrthodoxAthiest
     January 29th, 2008 | 02:22

     @113. Agreed, and well said. I’m not surprised at the American government’s ineptitude, but I’m quite shocked that Sweden bent over and took one for the team. I’ll see how the court case turns out before forming a complete opinion. If the case gets thrown out, and the Justice Department / MPAA ends up paying TPB’s legal bill, then I’ll wish we had their justice system.

     As for perceptions of America… if 60 million people vote for an idiot, what are ‘outsiders’ supposed to think? I’m from England. I like America… its a great country and despite some gun-totting idiot rednecks, this country’s people show more love, gratitude, compassion and alturism than most in this world. The idiots here spoil America’s reputation for the masses. Just like the football hooligans (not football fans, note I distinguished), neo-nazis and drunks in England.

     America has a chance to redeem itself in ‘08. Get it right this time.

     I’m with Wesley Snipes on this one… always bet on black.

120. OrthodoxAthiest
     January 29th, 2008 | 02:24

     @120… what I meant to say is “allegedly vote” for an idiot. uhum… ::cough:: ::splutter:: anyone got a screwdriver and a flash drive. ;|

121. Juan Carlos
     January 29th, 2008 | 02:33

     oh my, you’re all conducting in illegal activity!

     YOU ARE A PIRATE!

122. g00nsqw4d
     January 29th, 2008 | 02:42

     this may well be the end folks, if the swedes are gonna pull a do-over after the raid in 06 chances are they wont want to re live the shame that the previous loss dealt them. With this in mind lets put our hopes in the freedom of our friends @ TPB [and many others] that they are not subjected to criminal prosecution and subsequent jail terms. there’s thunder in the distance folks

123. Timmy
     January 29th, 2008 | 04:37

     Its no wonder half the world hates America. My country can’t seem to get it through its thick skull that we have no business in the politics of other countries. I have said for years that we should mind our own business and only get involved in instances of genocide. I think we are on a self destructive path. I can only hope to get out of this country before the world turns on it for good.

124. Fem
     January 29th, 2008 | 04:48

     “Corporations rule the world, worse than Commies”

     Grow up. Corporations don’t control where you can live, what you can read, study, or think.

     We download illegally copied movies helped by Swedish servers. Don’t lose sight of the fact that this is stealing. We do it and happily, but it’s still wrong.

     Goodness sakes.

     Oh and Timmy, get out of America. That country doesn’t need traitors like you.

125. BlackPlastic
     January 29th, 2008 | 04:58

     Hm, prosecuting torrent sites is pointless.. for every one of those, there are 100 blogs & forums sporting rapidshare links to the same content.

     And face it, people don’t really CARE about downloading. It doesn’t FEEL unethical, not like dropping your trash on the sidewalk. I mean, it’s just BITS AND BYTES – there’s much more serious crime out there, so spend those millions on child trafficking you d1ckwads. In the scale of world problems, it’s amazing how much money is being sunk into this, mainly filling the pockets of lawyers.

     Basically, if movies and music were marketed at reasonable prices in an accessible way, people wouldn’t pirate so much. It’s also because there’s so much CR4P music and hollywood trash out there, it makes the art itself seem cheap. So again, people could care less, because we KNOW what we’re sold is rubbish.

     It’s the Nike problem – shoes cost $5 to make, and we pay $100 for them. Nobody would think that fair of anyone, especially the poor workers on the bottom rung. (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Boycotts/NikeThird_facts.html)

     If we could pirate Nike over torrent, don’t you think we would? In fact people do, by making clones. So the problem is quality and greed, not downloading. The big companies don’t respect us, or anyone else, so we don’t respect them. Simple.

     Pirating has become a cultural movement – an expression of dissatisfaction and protest against the staus quo.

     Or I’m talking cr4p and it’s done just because it can be done. Maybe both.

126. gavrielle
     January 29th, 2008 | 06:04

     @120

     “if 60 million people vote for an idiot, what are ‘outsiders’ supposed to think?”

     That the other 220 million citizens of this country, including me, are much much smarter than they are.

127. dammit
     January 29th, 2008 | 07:00

     I think it’s time for TPB to move to somewhere the **AA can’t touch, such as Sealand.

     http://torrentfreak.com/possible-locations-for-the-new-the-pirate-bay-hq/

128. miftah
     January 29th, 2008 | 07:41

     are there any resistance group to balance this capitalist sheet?

129. dent
     January 29th, 2008 | 07:54

     I live in sweden and we run one of the biggest filesharing networks in the world and we am not going to stop whatever happens, we have servers all over the world not just in sweden and if they think dragging people to court is going to stop our revolution against fat american dollar hungy politicians and lobbyists they are wrong.

     Dont get scraed people, its in times like this we need to doubble our effords to share as much as possible and fight back with all means possible.

     Its not about sharing files its about cooperations controlling our lives and setting irrational prices on goods that should be available for everybody as a human right.

     We do not live in 1820 now and its time our politicians and the big multinational companies realizes they cant suck our blood forever without us fighting back

     I support TPB and filesharing in general and I will do so whatever it takes even if it means I have to die doing it

     Dent

130. Plastic Passion
     January 29th, 2008 | 09:36

     Arrr mateys, ramming speed and load yar cannons.

     Good luck TPB

131. spellcheck
     January 29th, 2008 | 09:55

     Maybe they need this.
     http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3781058/Merriam-Webster__s_Dictionary

132. Why
     January 29th, 2008 | 10:36

     Who else thinks that michelle mclaughlin looks like katherine heigl?

133. Rekrul
     January 29th, 2008 | 14:23

     @94 Math,

     Using P2P networks is inherently unsafe. Blocklists can help, but keep in mind that IP ranges aren’t put on the block list until someone knows that the anti-P2P companies are using them and by then it’s usually too late.

     @118 Anonymous Too,

     “As you can clearly see, neither of these organizations represent the Americian government or its people.”

     No, but unfortunately, the American government represents these organizations. I don’t mean in the sense that the government represents everyone in the country, I mean that the American government has basically become an extension of these organizations, bending over backward to do their bidding.

     @126 Fem,

     “Grow up. Corporations don’t control where you can live, what you can read, study, or think.”

     Thanks to some recent, stupid court decisions, corporations in the USA CAN control where you live. If a big corporation decides that it wants your land, you can be forced to sell, supposedly to help the greater good (commercial use of your property would help the economy).

     There was also a recent court case where a farmer got in trouble for saving some of the seed from his harvest to use next year. You see, the seeds he originally bought were patented and came with an EULA that stated you weren’t allowed to use any of your harvest for seed the following year. The same corporation also recently claimed a patent on pigs raised a certain way, which basically says that they own any pigs raised this way.

     The media corporations have basically destroyed the concept of public domain. You won’t live long to see anything created during your lifetime pass into the public domain. And they ARE telling people what to think. The MPAA and RIAA have gotten schools to insitute propaganda campaigns brainwashing kids into thinking that ANY copying, for ANY reason is wrong. I’ve actually met people online who had no clue that copyrights eventually expire. They thought (because it’s what they’ve been told by the content industry) that everything is owned by someone, somewhere and it’s NEVER ok to copy it. The entire idea of “public domain” was completely alien to them. They actually thought that Disney owned not only movies like Cinderella and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, but that they owned the STORIES as well!

     Anyone who wants to see where copyright madness is headed should read this;

     http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

134. Sep0h
     January 29th, 2008 | 14:42

     It’s only a matter of time. But hay How much Fcken Fun did you have going to TPB. Seriously that sites it just amazing other then the haters posting trojans and fakes but all the people who posted the truth about files. Just like the quote from HACKERS Emmanuel Goldstein / ‘Cereal Killer’ U stop one but u cant stop us ALL~!.

135. ­­­ ­­
     January 29th, 2008 | 16:10

     @ 5
     the direct link is here http://www.jamendo.com/en/download/album/15374

     █▄ Pirate Bay ▄█
     Meanwhile about Pirate Bay the whole Sweden and guys from other countries are with you in any ways..

136. Bard
     January 29th, 2008 | 16:23

     @Paul – What TPB is doing is not illegal IN SWEDEN.

     Since those running TPB live IN SWEDEN they are not doing anything illegal.

     It’s time asshats realized that the US is a country that has NO authority outside of it’s own borders – despite the US penchant for invading sovereign nations and committing the same warcrimes that got nazi’s hung.

137. me
     January 29th, 2008 | 16:31

     Is this true about pirate bay? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg1S9n81ras

138. Duh
     January 29th, 2008 | 17:36

     Ok, a few random things

     Taking down the internet would not stop piracy. It may slow it down but before the internet there was disk trading through the mail, BBS’s (try using a 300bps modem to xfer todays files),etc. People will find a way.

     If you think Switzerland is some island in world that can do what they want with copyrighted material go look at the Berne Convention.

     How come nobody has sued the movie companies for false advertising or defective workmanship? 90% of the crap they put out I should be paid to watch!

139. math
     January 29th, 2008 | 18:15

     @drklrd

     I don’t think it’s off-topic to ask about protective beahviour not to get a lawsuit when reading about TPB getting a lawsuit. And I know there’s no 100% protection, that’s why I asked for advice to see if I can optimize mine.

     If you know a better site where I can ask or read something relyable about that you’re welcome to inform me. But since we’re the community in that area I thought it might be helpful to know, and not just for me.

140. thizz
     January 29th, 2008 | 20:19

     maybe people wouldnt have to download if we werent forced to pay 30 bucks for a movie. give me a regular cheap dvd and cheap case for 5 bucks then ill buy it

141. Nazz
     January 29th, 2008 | 20:20

     I think it’s a crime for police and government to “fight” the mighty torrent sites, especially TPB, because there are many people out there who download software, music, etc. first before they consider buying it. So even IF they managed to shut down all those torrent sites, it would be a loss for the industry.

142. Someone
     January 29th, 2008 | 22:38

     > This sucks but we all know that we download illegal
     > copyrighted videos/software/music. Some of us cannot
     > afford to buy their high priced DVD’s, CD’s and Softwares
     > in developing countries.

     Then you have no right to watch/listen/use it. Just because you’re poor doesn’t give you the right to steal.

     Don’t get me wrong, I download illegally often, I just don’t try to convince myself I’m not a criminal.

143. Someone
     January 29th, 2008 | 22:53

     > The same corporation also recently claimed a patent on
     > pigs raised a certain way, which basically says that they
     > own any pigs raised this way.

     That one statement shows how little you actually know about patents.

144. Snow
     January 29th, 2008 | 22:54

     Is it safe to visit TPB? I need to check a torrent but am afraid.

145. loltron2001
     January 30th, 2008 | 09:18

     Long live the pirate bay

     I live in NZ and here to buy a dvd it costs $75-$100, and once you get it home and go to watch it you have to sit through unskippable anti piracy trash. screw that noise, i’ll just download stuff i want to watch now.

     Untill the price comes down and i dont get content i dont want to see when i buy a disc, i’ll keep using TPB

146. grimpr
     January 30th, 2008 | 09:24

     After the p2p holocaust,only TPB and Edonkey will prevail.

147. tangent
     January 30th, 2008 | 11:32

     Attacking The Pirate Bay is a fruitless endeavor when considering the huge amount of sites offering torrents or one-click links. This is a cheap MPAA sponsored Shock and Awe tactic targeting the most high-profile site in a vain attempt to intimidate all the others, by way of its ties to US (corporate) Government. Please, don’t wound what you can’t kill.

     For individual file-sharers in Europe, there is fantastic news to sleep far more soundly in the arms of Morpheus at night. Since file-sharing of copyrighted material is considered a civil and NOT criminal offense, anti-piracy data-harvesting companies that cull IPs are illegally breaching your privacy, inadmissible in court. As such, ISPs acquiescing to reveal personal addresses are also in breach.

     Here are a couple of articles from TorrentFreak:

     http://torrentfreak.com/european-filesharers-anonymous-080129/

     http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-company-breaches-privacy-080123/#comment-275802

148. Rekrul
     January 30th, 2008 | 13:05

     @144 Someone,

     “That one statement shows how little you actually know about patents.”

     You’re right, I don’t know much about patents, which is why I was relying on information provided by other sources;

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Pig_Controversy
     http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/monsanto-pig-patent-111
     http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/morepigs101405.cfm

149. drklrd
     January 30th, 2008 | 15:29

     @145 Snow

     quote
     “Is it safe to visit TPB? I need to check a torrent but am afraid.”

     Generally visiting a site(any site) isn’t a crime. The download/distribution of the said copyrighted data w/o ownership or right to distribute is illegal(in some countries). So if your downloading something it pretty much depends on your countries copyright/anti-piracy laws. If you are afraid that TPB will give out any information regarding what you dl and what you visit then take a cold shower and wake up, TPB does not keep logs and even if they did keep logs they would probably not give them to anyone.

     @134 Rekrul

     True i saw a lot of people that pretty much are ignorant of their own rights mostly due to brainwashing.

     @148 tangent

     quote
     “This is a cheap MPAA sponsored Shock and Awe tactic targeting the most high-profile site in a vain attempt to intimidate all the others, by way of its ties to US (corporate) Government.”

     Agreed

     quote
     “For individual file-sharers in Europe, there is fantastic news to sleep far more soundly in the arms of Morpheus at night.”

     I live in Europe… why would i sleep more soundly? didn’t quite get that part.

150. Living Pharaoh
     January 30th, 2008 | 16:21

     Upon conference with the leading members of State of the eGyptian empire we have come to the proceeding conclusion:

     If upon the forced closure of The Pirate Bay, the eGyptian people’s declare WAR on the Rogue State of America (from now on known as RSA) as it is agreed upon this will clarify their willingness and subjugation with EVIL.

     An embargo will be imposed that will limit personal connections with eGyptians and American citizens who are employed by the RSA or pay taxes to it. Our servers will reject all access from RSA IPs (proxies are welcome)and all RSA presences within our sovereign countries seen as hostiles presences and individuals.
     Continues on colex.org/daily/

151. tangent
     January 30th, 2008 | 18:38

     @150 drklrd

     Here’s why: This is the lead paragraph of the 1st link I posted.

     European file-sharers were given a huge legal boost today, as the European Court of Justice declared that EU law does not allow Internet Service Providers to be forced to reveal the personal details of people accused of file sharing.

     Ergo, sleep more soundly alludes to feeling less fearful of the repercussions of, ahem, digital duplication.

152. James Phredrick
     January 30th, 2008 | 20:58

     Of course here in USA we have the Constitutuion and are government of laws
     so I’m of the belief that these DVD’s, CD’s etc. are subject to the following:
     ————————–

     If You Use A Shrinkwrap License It May Not Be Enforceable: Mass Market Software & The Shrinkwrap License

     By Lloyd L. Rich of The Law Office of Lloyd L. Rich

     Ever since mass market computer software has been developed computer software companies have relied upon the shrinkwrap license for protection of their intellectual property rights. A shrinkwrap license is an unsigned agreement between the purchaser of a mass market computer software program and the computer software company that developed the software. This license purports to define the terms of the transaction as well as placing contractural conditions on the purchaser’s use of the software. Computer software companies rely heavily upon the shrinkwrap license agreement to protect their perceived interests in the mass market distribution of their software by retaining title to the copy of the software – the software is licensed and not sold to the purchaser. By retaining title to the software the computer software company theoretically attempts to impose conditions upon the licensee, the purchaser, that are not otherwise permissible under federal copyright law. The principal terms of the shrinkwrap license are (1) prohibits making unauthorized copies of the software, (2) prohibits rental of the software, (3) prohibits reverse engineering and modifications to the software, (4) limits use of the software to one central processing unit, (5) disclaims warranties, and (6) limits liability.

     Since the purchaser of the software normally does not deal directly with the computer software company, but instead purchases the software through mass market distribution channels – retail and wholesale stores, direct mail – the sale is usually accompanied by a document known as a shrinkwrap license. The license is normally connected to the software in such a manner that the purchaser should notice and read the license prior to using the software. Acceptance of the license terms and conditions is acknowledged by the purchaser when the purchaser opens the software shrinkwrap or other packaging, or by using the software.

     The enforceability of the shrinkwrap license has been the subject of much discussion and debate. Commentators and the courts have analyzed the enforceability issue from the following perspectives: (1) The Nature of the Transaction: Is the computer software a “good”?, Is the transaction a sale or a lease?, Is the transaction governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)?; (2) Contract Creation: Is the shrinkwrap license included in the contract entered into by the purchaser and computer software company?; (3) Enforceability: Is the shrinkwrap license a contract of adhesion?, and (4) Preemption: Is the shrinkwrap license preempted by federal copyright law?

     State Validating Statutes

     State legislatures in two states, Louisiana and Illinois, attempted to improve the computer software company’s position as a licensor by reinforcing by statute the validity of the shrinkwrap license. These statutes have not proven to be effective as the Illinois statute was repealed and the Louisiana statute was determined by the court to be unenforceable.

     The Nature of the Transaction

     The prevailing view treats mass market prepackaged software as goods, since the software is analogous to any other general market product that is covered under the UCC, even though intellectual property rights are regarded as intangibles. Although the UCC does not govern aspects of a transaction that deal with the disclosure of information, the rights to use the technology, the rights to reproduce copies of the software, and the transaction involves goods that contain intangible intellectual property rights, does not absolve the computer software company from delivering to the purchaser a product that meets UCC standards.

     To determine whether an agreement is a license or a sale the courts have generally looked to the terms of the license; does the licensee make periodic payments in addition to the purchase price, does the licensor retain title as a security interest, does the license expire at a specific time. Since the shrinkwrap license does not meet these criteria – the software is purchased at a fixed price with no additional payment required, title is not retained for securing payment of the purchase price as the total payment is made at the time of purchase, the license is not for a specified period of time – the prevailing view is that the transaction is a sale of goods and not a true license agreement.

     Contract Creation

     The principle issue is whether the license document is part of an enforceable contract. One perspective holds that if the transaction is viewed as having induced the purchaser to have agreed to the terms of the shrinkwrap license that the terms of the agreement should be enforced by the traditional doctrine of contract law which upholds the written terms of a contract. A difficulty with this viewpoint is with the manner in which the transaction takes place; the sale occurs, the purchaser pays for the software, and the license is included with the materials the purchaser acquires. In most transactions the purchaser does not become aware of the terms of the license until after the sale is consummated, even though most software purchasers are aware of the existence of a shrinkwrap license. Since the purchaser fails to sign the shrinkwrap license agreement, or otherwise expressly agree to the terms of the shrinkwrap license, acceptance of the agreement by the purchaser is inferred by opening the package or using the software even without the license terms being read.

     A recent decision, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, focused on the issue of contract creation and whether a shrinkwrap license governed the transaction at all. Although the Step-Saver decision involved a transaction between a computer software company and a reseller which attempted to impose significant contractural limitations on the rights and remedies of the purchaser the analysis of UCC rules and their applicability to this transaction have much broader significance for mass market transactions involving shrinkwrap licenses. In summary the Third Circuit held that the shrinkwrap license did not become part of the contract and therefore was not a valid modification to a previously existing contractural relationship for the sale of prepackaged computer software. The court concluded that UCC $ 2-207 controlled the transaction and that a contract existed between the parties prior to the opening of the package. Furthermore, the license terms were an offer of new terms by the computer software company, that materially altered the contract, and were not expressly accepted by the purchaser. Although Step-Saver did not deal with a typical mass market transaction of software the use of UCC $ 2-207 and the subsequent invalidation of the shrinkwrap license should apply equally well for a mass market transaction where the sale is made based upon agreement of price and quantity. This sale and the contractural relationship between the parties cannot subsequently be materially altered by a license document that was not part of the original transaction.

     Enforceability & Preemption

     The Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd., decision specifically addressed the issues of shrinkwrap license enforceability and preemption raised by federal copyright law. The district court stated that the shrinkwrap license was a contract of adhesion that was only enforceable if the Louisiana statute, explicitly validating the shrinkwrap license, was valid and not preempted by federal copyright law. The court then concluded that the Louisiana statute was not valid at least to the extent that its provisions were contrary to federal copyright policy, i.e. prohibition on copying for any purpose, prohibition on reverse engineering, et.al. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the Louisiana shrinkwrap license statute was unenforceable for attempting to expand federal intellectual property rights and therefore was preempted, at least in part, by federal law considerations including copyright and patent law.

     Conclusion

     Recent court decisions have concluded that mass market computer software transactions will be treated as the sale of goods under the UCC. Furthermore, the shrinkwrap license will not be enforceable because it is not a part of the contract creation between the parties. Finally, state laws that expand upon federal intellectual property rights are preempted by federal law.
     This article is not legal advice. You should consult an attorney if you have legal questions that relate to specific publishing issues and projects.

153. James Phredrick
     January 30th, 2008 | 21:00

     Of course here in USA we have the Constitutuion and are government of laws
     so I’m of the belief that these DVD’s, CD’s etc. are subject to the following:
     —————
     If You Use A Shrinkwrap License It May Not Be Enforceable: Mass Market Software & The Shrinkwrap License

     By Lloyd L. Rich of The Law Office of Lloyd L. Rich

     Ever since mass market computer software has been developed computer software companies have relied upon the shrinkwrap license for protection of their intellectual property rights. A shrinkwrap license is an unsigned agreement between the purchaser of a mass market computer software program and the computer software company that developed the software. This license purports to define the terms of the transaction as well as placing contractural conditions on the purchaser’s use of the software. Computer software companies rely heavily upon the shrinkwrap license agreement to protect their perceived interests in the mass market distribution of their software by retaining title to the copy of the software – the software is licensed and not sold to the purchaser. By retaining title to the software the computer software company theoretically attempts to impose conditions upon the licensee, the purchaser, that are not otherwise permissible under federal copyright law. The principal terms of the shrinkwrap license are (1) prohibits making unauthorized copies of the software, (2) prohibits rental of the software, (3) prohibits reverse engineering and modifications to the software, (4) limits use of the software to one central processing unit, (5) disclaims warranties, and (6) limits liability.

     Since the purchaser of the software normally does not deal directly with the computer software company, but instead purchases the software through mass market distribution channels – retail and wholesale stores, direct mail – the sale is usually accompanied by a document known as a shrinkwrap license. The license is normally connected to the software in such a manner that the purchaser should notice and read the license prior to using the software. Acceptance of the license terms and conditions is acknowledged by the purchaser when the purchaser opens the software shrinkwrap or other packaging, or by using the software.

     The enforceability of the shrinkwrap license has been the subject of much discussion and debate. Commentators and the courts have analyzed the enforceability issue from the following perspectives: (1) The Nature of the Transaction: Is the computer software a “good”?, Is the transaction a sale or a lease?, Is the transaction governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)?; (2) Contract Creation: Is the shrinkwrap license included in the contract entered into by the purchaser and computer software company?; (3) Enforceability: Is the shrinkwrap license a contract of adhesion?, and (4) Preemption: Is the shrinkwrap license preempted by federal copyright law?

     State Validating Statutes

     State legislatures in two states, Louisiana and Illinois, attempted to improve the computer software company’s position as a licensor by reinforcing by statute the validity of the shrinkwrap license. These statutes have not proven to be effective as the Illinois statute was repealed and the Louisiana statute was determined by the court to be unenforceable.

     The Nature of the Transaction

     The prevailing view treats mass market prepackaged software as goods, since the software is analogous to any other general market product that is covered under the UCC, even though intellectual property rights are regarded as intangibles. Although the UCC does not govern aspects of a transaction that deal with the disclosure of information, the rights to use the technology, the rights to reproduce copies of the software, and the transaction involves goods that contain intangible intellectual property rights, does not absolve the computer software company from delivering to the purchaser a product that meets UCC standards.

     To determine whether an agreement is a license or a sale the courts have generally looked to the terms of the license; does the licensee make periodic payments in addition to the purchase price, does the licensor retain title as a security interest, does the license expire at a specific time. Since the shrinkwrap license does not meet these criteria – the software is purchased at a fixed price with no additional payment required, title is not retained for securing payment of the purchase price as the total payment is made at the time of purchase, the license is not for a specified period of time – the prevailing view is that the transaction is a sale of goods and not a true license agreement.

     Contract Creation

     The principle issue is whether the license document is part of an enforceable contract. One perspective holds that if the transaction is viewed as having induced the purchaser to have agreed to the terms of the shrinkwrap license that the terms of the agreement should be enforced by the traditional doctrine of contract law which upholds the written terms of a contract. A difficulty with this viewpoint is with the manner in which the transaction takes place; the sale occurs, the purchaser pays for the software, and the license is included with the materials the purchaser acquires. In most transactions the purchaser does not become aware of the terms of the license until after the sale is consummated, even though most software purchasers are aware of the existence of a shrinkwrap license. Since the purchaser fails to sign the shrinkwrap license agreement, or otherwise expressly agree to the terms of the shrinkwrap license, acceptance of the agreement by the purchaser is inferred by opening the package or using the software even without the license terms being read.

     A recent decision, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, focused on the issue of contract creation and whether a shrinkwrap license governed the transaction at all. Although the Step-Saver decision involved a transaction between a computer software company and a reseller which attempted to impose significant contractural limitations on the rights and remedies of the purchaser the analysis of UCC rules and their applicability to this transaction have much broader significance for mass market transactions involving shrinkwrap licenses. In summary the Third Circuit held that the shrinkwrap license did not become part of the contract and therefore was not a valid modification to a previously existing contractural relationship for the sale of prepackaged computer software. The court concluded that UCC $ 2-207 controlled the transaction and that a contract existed between the parties prior to the opening of the package. Furthermore, the license terms were an offer of new terms by the computer software company, that materially altered the contract, and were not expressly accepted by the purchaser. Although Step-Saver did not deal with a typical mass market transaction of software the use of UCC $ 2-207 and the subsequent invalidation of the shrinkwrap license should apply equally well for a mass market transaction where the sale is made based upon agreement of price and quantity. This sale and the contractural relationship between the parties cannot subsequently be materially altered by a license document that was not part of the original transaction.

     Enforceability & Preemption

     The Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd., decision specifically addressed the issues of shrinkwrap license enforceability and preemption raised by federal copyright law. The district court stated that the shrinkwrap license was a contract of adhesion that was only enforceable if the Louisiana statute, explicitly validating the shrinkwrap license, was valid and not preempted by federal copyright law. The court then concluded that the Louisiana statute was not valid at least to the extent that its provisions were contrary to federal copyright policy, i.e. prohibition on copying for any purpose, prohibition on reverse engineering, et.al. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the Louisiana shrinkwrap license statute was unenforceable for attempting to expand federal intellectual property rights and therefore was preempted, at least in part, by federal law considerations including copyright and patent law.

     Conclusion

     Recent court decisions have concluded that mass market computer software transactions will be treated as the sale of goods under the UCC. Furthermore, the shrinkwrap license will not be enforceable because it is not a part of the contract creation between the parties. Finally, state laws that expand upon federal intellectual property rights are preempted by federal law.
     This article is not legal advice. You should consult an attorney if you have legal questions that relate to specific publishing issues and projects.

154. James Phredrick
     January 30th, 2008 | 21:03

     Of course here in USA we have the Constitutuion and are government of laws
     so I’m of the belief that the download of the torrents for these DVD’s, CD’s etc. are subject to the following as well: [part 1]
     ——————–
     If You Use A Shrinkwrap License It May Not Be Enforceable: Mass Market Software & The Shrinkwrap License
     By Lloyd L. Rich of The Law Office of Lloyd L. Rich
     ——————–
     Ever since mass market computer software has been developed computer software companies have relied upon the shrinkwrap license for protection of their intellectual property rights. A shrinkwrap license is an unsigned agreement between the purchaser of a mass market computer software program and the computer software company that developed the software. This license purports to define the terms of the transaction as well as placing contractural conditions on the purchaser’s use of the software. Computer software companies rely heavily upon the shrinkwrap license agreement to protect their perceived interests in the mass market distribution of their software by retaining title to the copy of the software – the software is licensed and not sold to the purchaser. By retaining title to the software the computer software company theoretically attempts to impose conditions upon the licensee, the purchaser, that are not otherwise permissible under federal copyright law. The principal terms of the shrinkwrap license are (1) prohibits making unauthorized copies of the software, (2) prohibits rental of the software, (3) prohibits reverse engineering and modifications to the software, (4) limits use of the software to one central processing unit, (5) disclaims warranties, and (6) limits liability.

     Since the purchaser of the software normally does not deal directly with the computer software company, but instead purchases the software through mass market distribution channels – retail and wholesale stores, direct mail – the sale is usually accompanied by a document known as a shrinkwrap license. The license is normally connected to the software in such a manner that the purchaser should notice and read the license prior to using the software. Acceptance of the license terms and conditions is acknowledged by the purchaser when the purchaser opens the software shrinkwrap or other packaging, or by using the software.

     The enforceability of the shrinkwrap license has been the subject of much discussion and debate. Commentators and the courts have analyzed the enforceability issue from the following perspectives: (1) The Nature of the Transaction: Is the computer software a “good”?, Is the transaction a sale or a lease?, Is the transaction governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)?; (2) Contract Creation: Is the shrinkwrap license included in the contract entered into by the purchaser and computer software company?; (3) Enforceability: Is the shrinkwrap license a contract of adhesion?, and (4) Preemption: Is the shrinkwrap license preempted by federal copyright law?

     State Validating Statutes

     State legislatures in two states, Louisiana and Illinois, attempted to improve the computer software company’s position as a licensor by reinforcing by statute the validity of the shrinkwrap license. These statutes have not proven to be effective as the Illinois statute was repealed and the Louisiana statute was determined by the court to be unenforceable.

155. James Phredrick
     January 30th, 2008 | 21:06

     Of course here in USA we have the Constitutuion and are government of laws so I’m of the belief that D/L of the torrents for these DVD’s, CD’s etc. are subject to the following as well: [part 1]
     ——————-
     If You Use A Shrinkwrap License It May Not Be Enforceable: Mass Market Software & The Shrinkwrap License
     By Lloyd L. Rich of The Law Office of Lloyd L. Rich
     ——————
     Ever since mass market computer software has been developed computer software companies have relied upon the shrinkwrap license for protection of their intellectual property rights. A shrinkwrap license is an unsigned agreement between the purchaser of a mass market computer software program and the computer software company that developed the software. This license purports to define the terms of the transaction as well as placing contractural conditions on the purchaser’s use of the software. Computer software companies rely heavily upon the shrinkwrap license agreement to protect their perceived interests in the mass market distribution of their software by retaining title to the copy of the software – the software is licensed and not sold to the purchaser. By retaining title to the software the computer software company theoretically attempts to impose conditions upon the licensee, the purchaser, that are not otherwise permissible under federal copyright law. The principal terms of the shrinkwrap license are (1) prohibits making unauthorized copies of the software, (2) prohibits rental of the software, (3) prohibits reverse engineering and modifications to the software, (4) limits use of the software to one central processing unit, (5) disclaims warranties, and (6) limits liability.

     Since the purchaser of the software normally does not deal directly with the computer software company, but instead purchases the software through mass market distribution channels – retail and wholesale stores, direct mail – the sale is usually accompanied by a document known as a shrinkwrap license. The license is normally connected to the software in such a manner that the purchaser should notice and read the license prior to using the software. Acceptance of the license terms and conditions is acknowledged by the purchaser when the purchaser opens the software shrinkwrap or other packaging, or by using the software.

     The enforceability of the shrinkwrap license has been the subject of much discussion and debate. Commentators and the courts have analyzed the enforceability issue from the following perspectives: (1) The Nature of the Transaction: Is the computer software a “good”?, Is the transaction a sale or a lease?, Is the transaction governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)?; (2) Contract Creation: Is the shrinkwrap license included in the contract entered into by the purchaser and computer software company?; (3) Enforceability: Is the shrinkwrap license a contract of adhesion?, and (4) Preemption: Is the shrinkwrap license preempted by federal copyright law?

156. skele
     January 31st, 2008 | 19:15

     i hope they cant be prosecuted for this matter, its a bit silly to put some1 away in sweden while they cant proof anything at the other side of the world, piracy isnt such a big deal if you see how much money the branch make. and either way, most ppl still gonna buy the software they like(i hope) i know i do. GL for the ppl of TPB

157. Niels
     February 4th, 2008 | 00:42

     I’m not sure wether or not this have been written before, but I just linked on to the swedish article, read it (not easy, but do-able for a dane) and found out that actually all of the evidence found at the raid have been declared null… They can’t use any of it since the raid against the swedish Pirate Bay location was illegal.

     The reason of this is that it was the swedish justice department that ordered the swedish police to raid the location. This is in sweden illegal without proper investigation first.

     All in all it appears as the swedish authorities will be vigilant regarding torrents and torrent webpages, but so far they can’t do squat about TPB unless they investigate properly first.

158. Guido
     February 12th, 2008 | 13:03

     http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/12/npiracy112.xml

159. Madness212
     September 14th, 2008 | 16:16

     If TPB goes down im gonne nuke em

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

Leave a reply