And The Pirates Strike Back

RT, you want to torture a guy over a couple of stolen video games?

CivBase wrote:RT, you want to torture a guy over a couple of stolen video games?

couple?

And no. I want him tortured for his arrogance and outspoken evasion of the law.

ReconToaster wrote:
The fine is not payable through the Lawfirm's onnline donation box. It doesn't work that way. This payment is COMPLETELY unrelated.

this matters how?

they aren't doing this through an online donation box.

KristallNacht wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:
The fine is not payable through the Lawfirm's onnline donation box. It doesn't work that way. This payment is COMPLETELY unrelated.

this matters how?

they aren't doing this through an online donation box.

Way to be semantic once more NT. Peter Sunde is not asking people to give money under his name. He's just asking them to donate 1 SEK to the site, in order to cost it a lot of money in handling fees. This has NOTHING to do with them paying off their fine. If they were sending the money themselves, in amounts of 1 SEK, it would be a different story.

As stated in the article, 'The bill inspired anakata to devise a plan involving sending money to Danowsky’s law firm, but not to pay the fine of course'


The plan involves sending money, but it has nothing to do with the fine.

Recon, you're arguing semantics.

Reality never matters, but legalities do.

i am fully aware of what is ACTUALLY happening.

BOXXY

KristallNacht wrote:Recon, you're arguing semantics.

Reality never matters, but legalities do.

i am fully aware of what is ACTUALLY happening.

And what's that?

They are IN NO WAY attempting to pay the fine. It says so right there in the article. They are asking their users to give increments of 1 SEK to the company, so that they may force the law firm to lose money handling the payments. They are NOT asking the users to pay their fine. The only way this could affect the payment of their fine is if they cause the company to go under, in which case they'll probably be sued for conspiracy of fraud.

I don't see what you're getting at.

KristallNacht wrote:Rasq, whether they said they're going to pay or not is irrelevant.

Actually, it is, considering that payment is the focus of the whole issue here.

KristallNacht wrote:and like it says. GAIN. The pirate bay has nothing to really 'GAIN'.

Except delaying payment of the fine.

CivBase wrote:RT, you want to torture a guy over a couple of stolen video games?

No. We want him tortured over his blatant disregard for the law. It's like wanting to torture O.J. Simpson.

KristallNacht wrote:Recon, you're arguing semantics.

Reality never matters, but legalities do.

Legality is semantics.
And they ARE doing it to avoid paying a fine.

Kislany wrote:BOXXY

What ? . . .

Rasq wrote:Legality is semantics.
And they ARE doing it to avoid paying a fine.

And to financially damage the law firm, which is also a clause of Fraud.