Talk:The Pirate Bay trial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I've removed this paragraph:

"English language reporting on the trial has been faulted as the only English language courtroom reporter, Oscar Schwartz, describes himself as "a leading critic of intellectual property" and an activist. Many articles in blogs and professional publications are based on his reports.(

The cited article doesn't (at least to me) seem too reliable. Until there is at least a second source for the story, it should be out.

Also, if it's going back in again, language like this "reporting on the trial has been faulted" should be avoided! (It's not only wrong but deceiving as well) Floker (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this article to remain a complete whitewash? Is anyone even going to pretend to some balance? How can you say it is "wrong" to say reporting has been faulted when I gave a source faulting it? That same source, The Register, is used four times in the Pirate Bay article and is generally pro-Pirate Bay. Why are they a good source when they same something pro-Pirate Bay and a questionable source when it is not so good? Why in this one case do you demand two sources when two sources are very rare in these articles?Objective3000 (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a difference between sourcing facts and sourcing viewpoints. What Floker is describing is weasel words; using ambiguous or embellished language to describe a point of contention. There's also the weight issue. The question is, is this opinion prominent enough to warrant mention in the article? And is it actually a common enough viewpoint to justify such general language as "has been faulted"? There are editorial sources available that express every conceivable viewpoint on any topic; but we don't include them all in our articles. I don't think this section should remain in the article until more examples of criticism (this particular criticism or others) can be shown. Equazcion /C 13:48, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree that this is ambiguous or embellished language, and unlike weasel words a source was provided. And that source has been used four times in the Pirate Bay article suggesting that the editors on this subject accept the source. I think it is important to point out that many, if not most, of the English-language sources for information on this subject originate from an admittedly biased source with an agenda. I avoided using any of the more inflammatory discussion of skinheads and Nazi's. Having said that, I am OK with the modifications.Objective3000 (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Weasel words refers to the language used in the article, regardless of sources. Of course it's better to provide sources and that does address the issue to a point, but the right language still needs to be used to describe the sourced point. No one's really questioning the publication itself, but the particular article's editorial nature means it gets slightly different treatment than if it were a simple listing of facts. Again not all opinions deserve mention -- even those found in reliable sources. Equazcion /C 14:31, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)
I read the Register daily, and it is a rare article that does NOT include editorial comment.:) It would seem to me that this is a rather important opinion since it relates to sources of information about the subject in this article. In fact, the article appears to question the reliability of their own source.Objective3000 (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

←Well regardless, this particular point is an editorial one, in contrast to other facts sourced with this publication. Anyway, again I'll just say I agree with Floker, that if this is a prominent enough viewpoint to include in the article, more than one source would mention it. I'll let others weigh in now though. Equazcion /C 14:51, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me the subject is more on-topic than how many flowers the wife of a witness received, and the name of the florist.:)Objective3000 (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If how many flowers she received were an opinion, I might agree. Equazcion /C 14:58, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)
The Register article supplies many references. It is an important topic. Flowers received by someone not even in the court and irrelevant to the trial is downright silly. The florist used to buy the flowers sent to a person unrelated to the trial or subject of the trial or any of the defendents in the trial is beyond silly.Objective3000 (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Silly or not, what happened with the flowers is a fact. The English press coverage being at fault is an opinion. Equazcion /C 15:52, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)
And I believe you are missing the point. I did not say English press coverage was at fault. I said it was faulted. It is a criticism in a criticism section. It is a "fact" that it is an opinion. Criticisms are always opinions. These srticles are becoming more and more one-sided. There are people spreading skull and crossbones images and images of a cartoon depicting copyright holders as fat men surrounded by moneybags that hate children and hate human rights. The articles on copyright and piracy have lost all semblence of neutrality. Anyone that attempts to bring some sort of balance has their changes removed. Meanwhile, we have a pointless section on flowers sent to the wife of a witness in a trial. It's not as though the witness experienced any tragedy. It was just the wife of an expert witness unrelated to anyone in the trial.Objective3000 (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

←(ec with comment below)Your argument is circular. It's a fact that any opinion is an opinion. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't go finding out what people's opinions are and report on them. We report on the facts of an issue, not on what someone happens to feel about the issue -- unless his sentiments are more or less shared across other reliable sources. Encyclopedia articles simply don't include the odd editorial. Your opinion on the state of neutrality in the press of this issue may have merit, but it has no bearing on this article. Maybe the press is generally too biased -- but that shouldn't be a motivation to change the Wikipedia article accordingly. We're not here to push viewpoints or balance out the general press a topic has received. Equazcion /C 16:22, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a source used four times in the WP Pirate Bay article is questioning its own sources is highly relevant, particularly when this WP article uses the very source in question. This has nothing to do with general press bias. It releates specifically to sources used by this and related articles. It is a whitewash to pretend this criticism does not exist.Objective3000 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if you didn't accuse people of whitewashing or pretending that things don't exist, just because we may not think they deserve to be in the article. I have no motivation to cover anything up and I don't even have an opinion one way or the other as to the neutrality of the reporting. I doubt your logic that if a Wikipedia article's primary source publication posts an editorial criticizing its own source then said Wikipedia article must mention that criticism (your contention that the publication seems to be criticizing itself seems a bit specious, frankly, and very much original research). However even assuming that were sound logic, the facts of this trial could easily be verified using many other reliable sources. The one that "seems to have published a criticism of itself", as you imply, is not the only choice. Equazcion /C 16:41, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Please do not put words in my mouth. I made no accusations against any specific person. I said nothing about your neutrality. And, I cannot find where I said "seems to have published a criticism of itself" even though you put it in quotes. The fact is that many of the sources used in these articles originate from one point. The neutrality of that one point has been brought into question by a source used four times in the Pirate Bay article. I cannot imagine why that fact would not be considered relevant and important to a fact-based publication.Objective3000 (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I said you implied it. Again, that specific source is replaceable with a source that doesn't carry the issue you describe. By your logic the problem could also be solved by replacing the sources in the article, and then there would be no need for the criticism section. Equazcion /C 17:28, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)
First, I did not imply it - you inferred it. Second, please don't put words in quotes that were not said. The point of the criticism is that there may be a bias in a very large number of sources, not just one, if the only English-language court reporter has admitted a bias and an agenda.Objective3000 (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

←It doesn't matter. The logic is faulty anyway. I brought that as an illustrative example. Yes, there "may be" a bias -- but that's an opinion that bears no significance if it's just been voiced by a single source. The fact is, this is an editorial expressing a lone opinion. It doesn't belong in the article. If you can find more reliable sources saying something similar, then that might be more significant. Equazcion /C 19:02, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

If the source is not reliable enough, why is it used four times in the Pirate Bay article. If the NYTimes was used as a reference, and wrote an article saying that it felt its sources and the sources of most stories carried on a subject were questionable, would it not make sense to mention? I do not understand why anyone would be against a criticism section pointing out possible problems with coverage available on a current event from a source that has been deemed reliable in a closely related article. Particularly since there are very few sources on this current event and many seem to originate from the same point. This appears irresponsible to me.Objective3000 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I never said the source wasn't reliable. Equazcion /C 19:23, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The source is purely an opinion piece. This opinion is not encyclopedically notable unless other sources report about it or present similar criticism. It should certainly not be presented as fact or given its own section in the article. Prolog (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The source is commenting on the sources for almost all English language reports, including its own reports that have been used as sources in WP. Why would you hide a criticism of sources used by WP that originated from the source itself? It would be like sourcing the NYTimes, and then ignoring that the NYTimes later questioned its own sources, but keeping the original references. Criticism of article sources is being hidden.Objective3000 (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You keep answering concerns over the opinion's prominence or credence by repeatedly touting its implications. Yes, it's a major thing to say, and yes, it would have significant implications for the article. We get that. But that still doesn't change the fact that only one guy is saying it. Equazcion /C 01:09, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)
I understand exactly what you are saying. The problem is, that all sources that one can find on a Google search appear to come from one source. And that is exactly the problem described. Numerous websites have reports. But, they all quote three sources. One source is The Register. It gets its quotes from WiRed. One source is the Guardian. They get their info from WiRed. One source is TorrentFreak. They don't believe in copyright and rarely provide their source. So, the only documented source is WiRed. The Register states that even though WiRed is their source, they are now questioning their own source, and they provide a link to the WiRed reporter’s site where he admits to his bias and agenda. How can this not be relevant? It questions most of the sources used by this article. I am not stating anything as fact, other than a major source for information on the information in this article is called into question by a major user of that source and quoted source on related WP articles. It is in a Criticism section. Not labeled as fact, but as a criticism. Can you deny that it is, in fact, a criticism by a source accepted by WP on related articles? If the NYTimes hid the fact that sources of info were questioned, can you imagine the criticism that they would receive? Why would WP hide the fact that criticism of sources exist, when that criticism comes from an accepted WP source?Objective3000 (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Again you're basically making the same argument. It might be a big deal if the source used by all the other sources were being criticized by multiple reliable publications. But that still isn't the case. You could be right that the New York Times might count as prominent mention all its own, but that's because it's the New York Times. The Register is not the New York Times. One just has more clout than the other. Equazcion /C 01:36, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)
My point was that an encylopedia should have at least the same ethics and balance as a newspaper, not the Register. Multiple reliable publications cannot have made any comments at all since there do not exist multiple reliable English-language publications reporting on this and I am talking about criticism of Enlish-language reporting. The only English-language sources I can find at all are The Guardian and the Register, and they both use the same questioned source. This trial has been largely ignored by the English-language press. It is simply not the Earth-shattering event portrayed by the defendents. I do not understand the motive of hiding criticism of the source from a user of that source that has been considered a reliable source by WP on this subject. Do you deny that there is criticism? And please do not tell me to get another source again when I have explained that sources all just copy the same questioned source. the source is in question. Why hide this fact?Objective3000 (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

←There could certainly be multiple reliable publications mentioning a criticism like that. The Register isn't the only one covering this. It doesn't mater that they all use the same source. I will tell you that we do indeed need other sources for this -- meaning other publications that make the same criticism. For example, just as The Register uses one source and criticized it, other publications that use that source could criticize it as well. There's no "motive" to "hide" anything. You really need to get your mind away from that mode of thinking here, because that's not what's going on at all, and it's frankly offensive. I don't hide things. Just because we don't think something merits mention doesn't mean we're trying to hide it. Those are two very different things. I have not denied there is a criticism. Equazcion /C 02:06, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Sources need only pass the reliability and verifiability criteria. The Register and The Guardian seem to qualify on those counts. One other not mentioned above is Ars Technica, example article here, and seems to be making an effort at straight reporting.
An encyclopedia article shouldn't dwell on the veracity of the sources it uses. It should just use reliable and verifiable sources. When an article starts getting into criticizing the sources it uses, it becomes a meta-article. If there's a problem with the English langauge sources, there is nothing to prevent citing a non-English source. Online translators are freely available. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, The Register has been an acccepted reliable source. And yes, I have added a criticism because that accepted reliable source has questioned English-language reporting -- which it itself uses -- and I referenced that accepted reliable source. As I have explained, there is no other source for English-language reporting. The questioned source is that source. This is circular. How can I provide a second source for criticism when the criticism is that there is only one source and that it is questionable? And, how can a source be considered as reliable, except when it questions its own reliability? That seems backwards. Wouldn't that be the one time that it actually should be accepted as a lone source? Meanwhile, what appears to be the one source of English language reporting has admitted an agenda and bias on his own blog, and we are not allowed to mention that.Objective3000 (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The source is considered reliable. That's not in question. But not everything appearing in a reliable source gets thrown in to an article. There are other things to consider, and I've done my best to illustrate them. And again, as for the multiple-sources thing, copying and pasting from my last response: "For example, just as The Register uses one source and criticized it, other publications that use that source could criticize it as well." You're saying it's not possible for multiple publications to criticize Oscar Swartz. I say, yes, it certainly is possible. The Register did it, and others could, just as easily. You keep repeating that it can't happen, but you've yet to explain your reason for thinking that. Equazcion /C 02:47, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Wow, my eyes hurt after reading through all this lot. Now, i'm happy to see that no wars apart from a touch typing competition have broken out because of this, and especially happy that everything stayed reasonable and calm. I agree, the register have given excellent material but:
here's what i like to think of as the killer argument on the matter: the proposed 'fact' may very well be 100% true, but, given the nature of the matter, if it is in the article, it may only be worded very carefully, since it can easily be taken wrongly and what have you. But as i see it, the danger of it being wrong, given the extremely harmful nature of the critique, is enough to reason not to put it in. In other words, the chance of a mistake may not exceed 50%, but the penalty is disproportionate.
If it becomes a very well documented matter after the trial, if there are very many sources and the matter is pretty much considered fact, we should definitely have it in the article, but we should wait for this to happen (or not), and not rush it, just to have critique for the sake of itself.
Floker (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I can see a communication problem occurring in the above discussion and that is the ambiguity of the word "source". One side of the discussion is using the term to refer to the Register itself and arguing that if this source belongs in the article in one instance it belongs in the article in every instance where it has something to say about the trial. The other side of the discussion is using "source" alternately to mean the Register itself, or the specific editorial in the Register (forgive me if I've misunderstood). The "source"(meaning the register) is a perfectly acceptable source, it seems, in it's factual reporting, However, the "source" (meaning the editorial commentary) is not being treated as an acceptable source, not because of what opinion it holds or the implications of it, but rather because it is an opinion piece, rather than a factual reporting. Is this correct? (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, if I'm correct in the above would it reasonable to create a paragraph in which the fact that Oscar Schwartz is a) the only English language courtroom reporter and the fact that he is b) a "critic of intellectual property" by his own identification is mentioned without going into any opinion or biased language in regard to it? That is to say, the article could mention these facts as a neutral reality of the case and its reportage rather then a veiled or overt accusation of bias. Perhaps this could go in a "Media Coverage" section rather than a "Criticism" section. (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point -- one year ago.Objective3000 (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
With respect, if that was your point a year ago I'm afraid you weren't very successful in bringing it across. Admittedly, there might be something I missed in the above, on account of the fact that it was quite lengthy, but it seems that no mention was made of such a "compromise position" (if you understand my meaning).
Rather, what I've read seems to indicate that you were insistent upon including the facts in question as a criticism in a section by that name, with the "faulted" claim included. The argument you used that what is included on the matter is "Not labeled as fact, but as a criticism" seems to be leading in a direction directly opposite to my suggestion.
Please, don't misunderstand this as being a nitpicking over words. Rather, I'm pointing out reasons why your goal and meaning could have been easily misconstrued as a desire for the article to retain the text which begins "English language reporting on the trial has been faulted".
Add to this the sort of posture with which you responded from the beginning of the discussion onwards, that there was a "whitewash" or that things were being "hidden" and it's easy to see why gears might have ground a bit. I'd hazard to suggest you weren't assuming good faith on the part of your fellow editors and that they might, consequently, have reason to think you yourself were not arguing in good faith. Hence the appearance of an agenda on your part, rather than a seeking of a reasonable compromise and consensus.
Considering these points, if you made a suggestion akin to the one I have made above I hope that I and other editors can be forgiven for missing it in the confusion. In either case, if you wish to give support to such a suggestion now I welcome it. (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Then it is I that missed your point. The Register, which has been accepted as a good source above, questioned the bias of its own reporter -- the source used in the majority of the WP article. This is an unusual step for a news source. Your suggestion muffles a rather important admission. Sort of like a very long ad extolling the benefits of a diet drug with tiny text at the end saying the drug will likely cause brain damage. I did not suggest that the article state that the source was wrong. I suggested that a statement be added that the main source of the WP article has been faulted for bias. This is very tame considering that the main source specifically admitted to an agenda in his blog and that the criticism came from the very news source that used the reporter. Had the NY Times written an article saying that the sole source of its reporting on a subject was likely biased, that would have been a major story. As it is, it has been a year now and there is no mention at all in the WP article that the source for the article has been faulted for bias by the very newspaper that "printed" the source articles.Objective3000 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for the clarification. Now that we are mutually understood, I can say that I'm not unsympathetic to a desire for completeness, and the inclusion of dissenting voices. I also understand why you might be frustrated (if I can be forgiven for speculating on your feelings).
On the other hand, having read many of the arguments made on the other side of the issue I have seen excellent points made which have supported the removal of the material. The desire not to write a meta-article, or report on every opinion which has been written (regardless of the publication it appears in) is valid enough. Add to this the desire expressed by the editors supporting the edit to maintain a neutral voice (which I distinguish sharply from a "balanced" presentation of materials from "both sides" as is the mode in much news reporting) and the argument against the material becomes very solid, indeed.
Further, when one considers the communication barriers and occasionally combative tone of the previous debate and it's easy to see why, a year later, the consensus (such as it is) did not favor inclusion.
All the same, there may now be room for a new consensus which, while it may be insufficient for your liking, is closer to what you have sought than what has been achieved by holding fast to a specific desired outcome. To wit, a disclaimer in small print is better than none at all. (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you do not yet understand my position. In no way was I looking for or attempted to turn this into a "balanced article" or to present the presentation of materials from "both sides." In fact, I added nothing at all from another "side" and the Register is hardly a "dissenting voice." I believe they are anything but a dissenting voice. This has nothing to do with completeness. What I added was a disclaimer from the source publication for most of the information in the article. It simply makes no sense to me that a source should be used so heavily in an article when that source has questioned its own material without pointing out the question of bias raised by the source publication itself. I also do not see how the editors have attempted to "maintain a neutral voice." It seems quite the opposite as they wanted questionable material to remain without any disclaimer.Objective3000 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Forgive any misunderstanding, please. And further, be assured I hadn't intended to misrepresent your position, nor even to speculate on that position except insofar as it was necessary in expressing my own.
Further, I do congratulate you for not employing the portions of the article source which discusses Nazis and the like (I hadn't followed the link until recently and was quite surprised at the tone and content).
Nevertheless I shouldn't be surprised that this source article, employing ad hominim attacks, guilt-by-association, inflammatory name calling ("freetards") and even verging on reductio ad hitlerum (if one acknowledges the neologism) provoked the response it did regardless of the admirable restraint you showed in your citation of it. I should like, myself, to see the same facts regarding the reporter Oscar Schwartz from a less biased and inflammatory article. After all, whatever one thinks of Pirate Bay I hope we can agree that Mr. Orlowski has written an article that provokes at least as much as it informs. I digress, in any case, and do not hope to open a debate on the merits of the source article.
That having been said, I'm afraid there seems to be no means of reaching a consensus on this issue. I have made my case for a presentation of facts without accusation of fault and it does not satisfy you. As the editors with whom you've disagreed have been satisfied with the wikipedia article's current form for more than a year, I don't imagine they'll weigh in unilaterally to alter it. This means that unless those dissatisfied with the article demonstrate a good faith effort to compromise, the existing consensus regarding the article will simply stand.
As for me, the whole matter is rather academic from my standpoint. The (wikipedia) article could be improved but is not deeply flawed, if you take my meaning. My position is neither opposed nor in concurrence with those that have already been expressed. So if on the prevailing side of this discussion no compromise is sought and on the other no compromise is acceptable, then there is nothing left to discuss. I hope my suggestion of a third option has not taken up too much of anyone's time. (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I respect your comments. But, I do not think you have looked back at the history of these pages. You criticized the referenced article by taking the worst parts of it in quotes, while ignoring that quotes like this exist in many, if not most, of the articles used as sources here. That is the style of The Register and TorrentFreak, the main sources of this article, and is exactly my point. The sources for this article should embarrass WP editors. In fact, TorrentFreak is used as the most common source in the Pirate Bay articles, despite the fact that it calls the music industry the Mafia, Nazis, baby haters, etc., and virtually never provides its sources. In one TPB Wiki article, editors actually refused to remove a cartoon showing anyone with a copyright as a rich, money-grubber stomping on babies.
Throughout this discussion, editors have not assumed good faith. They “appear” to assume that anyone not posting purely pro-piracy wording must be anti-piracy. As if there was no middle ground and can be no attempt at even suggesting bias. This is not a surprise. The article was written during the trial and the editors attracted to the page during this emotional period are likely to have an agenda. Yes, I assume good faith. Until it is proved otherwise.
The simple fact that the editors have refused to include the main source’s own mea culpa strongly suggests that they have an agenda. How can you heavily use a source, and refuse to include that very source’s comment that they question their source? Once again, I did not ask for the inclusion of an opinion from a different source. I posted the very source’s OWN questioning of their OWN material.
BTW, if you are interested in Oscar Schwartz, you can read his own blog where he uses the very same terminology that you decry. And yet, he is the main source for this WP article. You can also look into the owners of TPB to see why terms like Neo-Nazi were used. One of the owners was the main contributor to the "Sweden for Swede's Party," dedicated to removing all non-Whites from Sweden, and also associated with the Skinheads movement. Which is to say, as much as I dislike throwing around words like neo-Nazi, it may not qualify as an ad hominem in this particular case.
The reason that this discussion is over a year old without added comment until this week, is that it became clear to me that there was no interest in removing bias from this article. In my mind, this is a failure of WP. I moved on. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, kindly. You are quite correct that I wasn't especially well versed in the history of this disagreement, nor had I gone pouring over the article sources employed. That I entered as a casual commenter on the discussion as it exists here on this discussion page (with no other context) is readily admitted now, and I hope not concealed prior.
As for the article, again I don't wish a debate of its merits (whether in isolation or in the context of other employed sources), but I will say that ad hominem doesn't imply an untruth, just a focus on the person rather than the position, If I'm understood. To wit, rather than discussing the merits of the Pirate Bay's position on copyright law the article focused on the qualities of the person advocating that position. This is ad hominem.
Of course, that the article did employ an ad homimem attack bears no importance on the larger issue of whether the information on Oscar Shwartz should be included. But it seems we're both, for our respective reasons, prepared to leave that matter as it is. As I said, it is academic to me, so that is satisfactory. Thank you again for both the information and your regards. May you be well. (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

New fraud case[edit]

A fraud case has just been brought against the RIAA. I'm not sure how this affects the topic, since the Pirate Bay trial takes place in Europe, but I thought people paying attention here might be interested. Equazcion /C 22:33, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

i haven't read all about it, but as i see it, it doesn't have much to do with tpb. That is given i haven't missed anything. It's definitely interesting though, it should be integrated in the mpaa article, which is pretty much a stub (in the context of the size of the matter) Floker (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Shut down of The Pirate Bay?[edit]

As of late evening the 2nd of March The Pirate Bay cannot be reached any longer. I guess that is news to be included in the article? Has anyone any details on what has happened? Court order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It goes down all the time. There's no reason to think this has anything to do with the trial. If you want to keep up with all the downs and ups see the forum, [1], [2]. Equazcion /C 22:47, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Only the site is down. Trackers are still up. It is a technical issue. More information can be found at JeremyWJ (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The Article on tf also talks about how the downtime doesn't have anything to do with the trial. Now, we'll see if we get similar news for different reasons in the next weeks, i'm looking forward to the verdict. And not only to finish this article. Floker (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

plaudit for fourth and fifth day sections[edit]

i just thought i might add some commendation for the fourth and fifth day sections of the article. i don't feel comfortable enough with the article yet to write the other missing sections, but those two paragraphs i find very good. appearantly they're made by User:Equazcion and an IP-user. Floker (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

`Preciate the commendation but I actually didn't have anything to do with those. Equazcion /C 17:24, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

explanation of king kong defense[edit]

Does anyone else find the explanation to be incredibly redundant? The explanation just seems to repeat the actual quote.-- (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

They decided to merge the article about the king kong defense into this article a week or so ago. That is why it is covered like it is. JeremyWJ (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Protection?[edit]

Why hasn't anyone moved to edit protect this page? Vandals are running wild —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

News for the article[edit]

- The verdict has been appealed by Carl Lundström. - The court has filed a complaint at the police. Somebody leaked the verdict before 11:00CEST. - The Swedish pirate party gained 3000 new members during the day and are now 3 largest politcal party in sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Name[edit]

Sorry but "The Pirate Bay trial" is frankly a stupid name. The article should follow the naming convention of other court case articles: "Sweden v. The Pirate Bay" or whatever the Swedish Case naming equalvilent is. -- (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

IFPI v The Pirate Bay. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, the name should be changed.-- (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Alphageekpa (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, the name should be changed to the name of the actual name of the case. --Sauronjim (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The court refers to the case as "Mål nr B 13301-06". For the press they refer to it as "Rättegången i det s.k. Pirate Bay-målet"[3] (Trial in the so called Pirate Bay case). I can't find them, the Swedish or English media using the vs. notation anywhere. --Para (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
In Sweden you never talk about vs. in law. And the trial is known as "The pirate bay trial" already. A name change would only cause confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, all the swedish newspapers and so use the pirate bay-rättegången as title, and translating it to anything else then the pirate bay trial would be confusing for both swedish users and others. Evalowyn (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I also strongly oppose this. It known mostly as "the pirate bay trial" to most people. The name is not stupid, its what everyone knows. I see no reason to change it. JeremyWJ (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

World of Warcraft[edit]

I'm a little confused. Why would this be pirated at all given the nature of the game (i.e. requires an active CD key and is available for free download if you possess a key)? If it was inserted as a joke or vandalism then it should be taken out. Narco (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many server emulators for WoW and WoW is indeed often pirated (check out piratebay or any other torrent site0. If it was included in the case then it should be in the article or if there is a lot more then what we are listing then we need to consider whether the specific information is actually that important Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Verdict and reactions section is terribly biased and completely one-sided[edit]

Why are there no reactions from the media organizations, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well this is a rather general statement but the "media organizations" appear to have the same reaction to most of these situations. They just wait for the results (or sometimes not even that long) and then do a PR bit about how they won no matter what the results were. The best example of this is probably the MPAA after the pirate bay servers were confiscated. Afterwards they released statements saying how they had succeeded and that pirates get punished yet the pirate bay was back up in 3 days with twice as many members (free advertising anyone?). Although yes I agree their statements and reactions should still be added to provide both points of view. I would do it but I have a feeling it would be rather biased so it would be best left to someone else. Adimus28 (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Because the reactions of the affected parties and the general public are far more relevant than the reactions of the media organizations, who have little direct stake in the matter. If someone can find a reaction from an organization representing the artists who would ostensibly be affected by this (meaning: one which is actually controlled by artists, not one which controls the artists), that would likely also be relevant. Esn (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Appeal for defense claims evidence is fraudulent[edit] has an effect on this case. The appeal may be a very quick process. I will update soon but if anyone has more time and better fingers than me, I say get to it. I'm throwing a current tag up.Dragonnas (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's about The Pirate Bay#The Netherlands and not about the Swedish case covered in this article. --Para (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Pro-copyright Judge?[edit]

I was surprised to read the intro section "The case was decided jointly by a judge who was a member of several pro-copyright organisations ...". Is there any English support for this? There are two Swedish articles but as I don't read Swedish they could say anything. Plus surely such a degree of bias would invalidate the case. I'm definitely not saying it isn't true but it does seem peculiar. (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Believing in the law is not bias.Objective3000 (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the judge was biased. Especially since they were charged with a law that didn't actually exist and they were incapable of being charged with. Even somewhat apathetic anit-piracy politicians were appalled by this case due to the complete, open disregard for Swedish law. The judge should have legally been dismissed from the case the moment his connections (that he illegally didn't establish with the court) to the plantiffs became known. Not to mention the clear-cut fact that the case should have been overturned after it became publically known. Whats worse is that despite the clearly biased, illegal handling by the judge, the case itself charged the defendants with a crime that didn't exist in Swedish law. A lot of people in Sweden are finding the trial a farce and a terrible erosion of Swedish rights and law, regardless of the piracy aspect. Hopefully soon this judge will be fired and the verdict completely overruled. (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Please take this elsewhere.Objective3000 (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Try harder, Objective. Next time come up with an argument. (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Needs update[edit]

Max Andersson, member of the Committee on the Constitution in the Parliament of Sweden, requested the committee to review the incident. The committee will arrange a hearing in spring 2010.

Spring 2010 has already passed. --PabloCastellano (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


The second trial is currently going on and will end in mid October. Update? Quispiam (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

USPP Class Plans to Update[edit]

A group of students working on the WP:USPP project from UCB plan to update this article to include information up to and on the appeal. We are aware that this trial isn't precisely USPP, but we got approval to update the article because of its importance. We'll probably start editing within the next month. Any help or suggestions are appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaloryth (talkcontribs) 18:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

IFPI website attack.[edit]

IFPI's website has been brought down again in response to the verdict, and has been noted by a number of outlets.

Is there a statement or response from IFPI or related organizations in general? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC) is down as of 27JUN2012[edit]

FYI: the entire site is down here in California as of the above said date; not sure if this is temporary. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It's up here in Europe. __meco (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Int21h edits[edit]

Int21h's edits and edit comments suggest that the entire Swedish Court system is corrupt/biased and this is why multiple courts ruled against TPB. Absurd charges were made against a living judge. Those charges were heard by an appelate court and rejected. The judge was cleared. The claims that the first Swedish judge, then the appelate judges, then the entire Swedish judicial system are all corrupt/biased have been used as an excuse for the conviction of TPB. The added refs now suggest the entire judicial system in Europe is at fault. TPB lost. They were found guilty. It is not acceptable for an encyclopedia to repeat such wild conspiracy theories. This is an article on one trial. Critiques of the entire European criminal system in a trial with an unsurprising verdict make no sense and most probably libel living persons. (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

List of movies/series/whatever[edit]

First of all: Someone is adding it without discussion even though I asked for references. I couldnt find them on reliable sources. Nevertheless I also have to ask two other questions: 1) If the list is expanded wouldnt the list become ridicilously long? 2) Why a list, cant they be added in the text?

Silvina luna video (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, is that list even relevant, taking into account my first question? Silvina luna video (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Pirate Bay trial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)