i.justrealized

The four men connected with The Pirate Bay were found guilty of being accessories to copyright infringement by a Swedish court on Friday, delivering a symbolic victory in the entertainment industry’s efforts to put a stop to the sharing of copyrighted material on the internet. The four defendants in the case, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde and Carl Lundström, were each sentenced to one year in prison and ordered to pay 30 million kronor ($3.56 million) in damages. Does this spells the end of The Pirate Bay?

Pirate Bay guilty

The four men connected with The Pirate Bay were found guilty of being accessories to copyright infringement by a Swedish court on Friday, delivering a symbolic victory in the entertainment industry’s efforts to put a stop to the sharing of copyrighted material on the internet.

“The Stockholm district court has today convicted the four people charged with promoting other people’s infringement of copyright laws,” the court said in a statement.

The four defendants in the case, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde and Carl Lundström, were each sentenced to one year in prison and ordered to pay 30 million kronor ($3.56 million) in damages.

The trial attracted wide international attention, with file sharers and copyright holders around the world wondering what sort or precedent may be set by the Stockholm court as it assessed arguments by the entertainment industry that the four men behind The Pirate Bay had been accessories to copyright infringement.

The Stockholm District Court printed up 250 copies of the judgment to meet the expected interest from media outlets.

“By providing a website with … well-developed search functions, easy uploading and storage possibilities, and with a tracker linked to the website, the accused have incited the crimes that the filesharers have committed,” the court said in a statement to the media.

The court added that the four “knew that copyrighted material was being fileshared.”

The one-year jail sentences were motivated by the “extensive accessibility of others’ (copy)rights and the fact that the operation was conducted commercially and in an organized fashion.” (Source: The Local)

Oh, you can’t sing a cover of “Winter Wonderland”. Apparently YouTube took down a video of teenagers singing “Winter Wonderland” due to copyright infringement. Warner probably owns the rights to the song.

Deleted Video?! Warner Music Group?! Copyright Infringement?! WINTER WONDERLAND?!

Well… I am just wondering why Youtube or whichever company did that. These Christmas jingles would sell better if more people spread it, wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t it be in their commercial interest to not remove these videos? Unless of course the song would hurt the sales of the song, perhaps like a parody or change of lyrics or even a horribly-rendition.

YouTube’s January Fair Use Massacre

This is what it’s come to. Teenagers singing “Winter Wonderland” being censored off YouTube.

Fair use has always been at risk on YouTube, thanks to abusive DMCA takedown notices sent by copyright owners (sometimes carelessly, sometimes not). But in the past several weeks, two things have made things much worse for those who want to sing a song, post an a capella tribute, or set machinima to music.

First, it appears that more and more copyright owners are using YouTube’s automated copyright filtering system (known as the Content ID system), which tests all videos looking for a “match” with “fingerprints” provided by copyright owners.

Second, thanks to a recent spat between YouTube and Warner Music Group, YouTube’s Content ID tool is now being used to censor lots and lots of videos (previously, Warner just silently shared in the advertising revenue for the videos that included a “match” to its music). (Source: EFF)

I’ll leave you to judge if this has gone too far.