Pirates on trial

So, as most of you will already know by now, day 3 of The Pirate Bay trial is now over. And, although it is probably the biggest blogged thing on the internet this week, but still I thought I would put down my thoughts.

So, first of all, I read what happened today from http://torrentfreak.com/g-defense-090218/ and 1 part of it really made me think. Allow me to quote.

“EU directive 2000/31/EG says that he who provides an information service is not responsible for the information that is being transferred. In order to be responsible, the service provider must initiate the transfer. But the admins of The Pirate Bay don’t initiate transfers. It’s the users that do and they are physically identifiable people. They call themselves names like King Kong,” Samuelsson told the court.

I have one thing to say about this. If this EU directive really exists and says exactly that, then I’m sorry, but the prosecution have no case. If it is true that the information providers are not responsible unless they initiate the transfer, then they are not quilty of copyright infringment. Plain and simple. And anyone who says differently either manages to find a loophole (stupid lawyers) or is just stupid.

Secondly, I would like to agree totally with what Mehall said that TPB are no guiltier than Google. Infact, this is how I explained it to my non-technical friends, that they are basically google for the torrent world. And torrents in themselves are not illegal, nor are the majority of things in torrents. They just get a lot of bad press. P2P is a fantastic technology and should be used a lot more than it is.

So yeah, if TPB get out of this as the underdog, then it is a great amount of injustice, and we would need to have a wee look at the legal system and see what the heck is happening.

The "Phantom" painting

£45000. That’s how much it cost a glaswegian art gallery to pay for this bit of canvas. (Obviously the woman isn’t part of the painting, she is the painter.)

Does it not seem a bit ridiculous that in a world where people are starving, not everyone has a home, and there are billions (yes…billions. about 6 billion) of people who do not have access to the internet, that we can spend that amount of money on something that, lets be honest, doesn’t actually look all that good.

Ok, it is a moving bit of fabric. Very good…she can paint without actually having to see it. Lovely. But first of all, what makes it the “phantom painting”? When I saw the news title on the BBC, I thought it meant a picture that was like eery, or had been found behind another or something like that. I didn’t think it would be a picture of a bit of silk.

O and one last thing. What is the definition of a charity?

dictionary.reference.com says this:

char⋅i⋅ty

/ˈtʃærɪti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [char-i-tee]
–noun, plural -ties.

1.	generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one’s life to charity.

2.	something given to a person or persons in need; alms: She asked for work, not charity.

3.	a charitable act or work.

4.	a charitable fund, foundation, or institution: He left his estate to a charity.

5.	benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need or in disfavor: She looked so poor that we fed her out of charity.

6.	leniency in judging others; forbearance: She was inclined to view our selfish behavior with charity.

7.	Christian love; agape.

So tell me which part of that definition The Art Fund (they gave half of the money for the painting) have anything to do with?

“The Art Fund is an independant charity that exists to save art for everyone to enjoy”

I get it…they are giving money to rich people. Got it. These art sellers need that money. Homeless people don’t.