I find it incredulous that they would throw money on the purchase of something such as this, given the fact their projected Q3 income for 2009 is just $400,000 with a staff of 75+ - Either they're paying ~$6000/year salaries, or just wasting the venture capital dollars they have on things which really can't improve the bottom line or resolve major issues their users truly have with their site.

Of course, they project $4 mil in sustained incoming for Q4 2009 and up to perhaps $1.5 billion by 2013 if you believe their estimates, though I have a hard time accepting that - Especially in a down economy like this which doesn't look to recover back to it's former pace for at least another year or two. Quite frankly, this has 1999 dot-com bust written all over it, complete complete with the ridiculous hype, overpriced acquisitions and no defined strategy for how to actually make money.

All we need now is an IPO

In United States legal system, all things are weighed within the context of their predominate actual use. You have no idea what you're talking about.

If I had the heart to continue this debate, I would. But since you have no interest in posting facts to support your arguments, I will leave it at this.

And your point is? It requires a rather narrow scope of vision to state that public-domain material constitutes a "substantial" amount of it's indexed torrents. The fact that there exists a non-copyrighted copy cannot justify the existence of a service if it is predominantly used for acquisition of illegally acquired materials.

Here's the Top 100 for The Pirate Bay:
  - http://thepiratebay.org/top/all ...Count them. How many non-copyrighted works can you find? And of those which are freely available, how many of those torrent seeders are really authorized to publish these materials? Or do you think it's an entitlement that you have quick, fast and free access to these materials?

I mean, it has the name THE PIRATE BAY, for god sakes. Courts and legal authorities can execute search warrants if they believe that an organization is assisting or enabling criminal acts if there is substantial indications of such - In modern courts, the name of an organization IS CONSIDERED an indication of intent (the same is true if a I opened a shop called "Bongs and Things").

As a software engineer who cannot bear to see his work stolen, I would tend to completely disagree - You assert that offering links to illegal materials submitted by users is not an offense; For the sake of argument, let's assume I agree.

What I do NOT agree with though, is that:
  - Being an accessory to a criminal act
  - Having intent to provide a forum for a criminal act
  - Being negligent in not removing infringing materials after the copyright holder has asked you to remove the material ...is not criminal - Because it is.

The fact that a minority (and don't kid yourself - They are a minority) share Ubuntu, PBS programs and other free material does not justify the actions of the larger community.

Culpability and liability are real words in real world courts - The difference between the mass of posters on this board, and the judge/jury in Sweden is that they realized this; You do not.

I will not defend the draconian practices of the MPAA and RIAA which are, quite honestly, disgusting. However, I cannot sympathize with 4 stupid Swedish software engineers who couldn't account for 3 years of contradictory statements, and couldn't hire a competent defense attorney.

I have to completely agree with the poster - The thing that seems to be missing here for a lot of posters is that:
  - ...accessory to a crime...
  - ...intent...
  - ...and negligence... ...though not as serious as the original offense, are still criminal in most North American and European courts.

The fact that the Pirate Bay did not actually partake in the illegal sharing of files, or the fact that a minority of users choose to use the service for legal purposes, does not excuse the individuals from culpability for the actions of it's users.

I am not a sympathizer of the RIAA, the MPAA or any other draconian trade group, but I find it hard to sympathize with 4 Swedish morons who:
  - Couldn't hire a competent defense attorney
  - Couldn't answer for 3 years of contradictory statements.
  - Couldn't stop from trying to make the trial a circus show.

The difference between the slashdotters on this site, and the judge/jury in Sweden is that they realized it, while so many here don't.

My personal favorite open source app is this one this one. But I guess I'm just a bit picky....

Discs that are more expensive than DVDs? Having to buy new type of player? Limited selections? Difference noticeable only on HD TV sets? Gee...seems like the perfect combination to me.