The Pirate Bay Found Guilty

[Raiders Army]

FT.com / Global Economy - Pirate Bay four found guilty

Pirate Bay four found guilty
By Salamander Davoudi and Maija Palmer

Published: April 17 2009 10:53 | Last updated: April 17 2009 12:03

The entertainment industry scored a victory on Friday after a Swedish court found four men guilty of promoting copyright infringement by running Pirate Bay, the world’s biggest free file-sharing website, and sentenced them to a year in prison.

Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, and Carl Lundstrom were also ordered to pay SKr 30m ($3.58m) damages to a series of entertainment companies, including Warner Bros, Sony, EMI, Columbia Pictures and Universal.

Though the damages are smaller than the SKr100m companies had been seeking, the ruling marks a victory for the entertainment industry, which has mounted numerous lawsuits to shut down sites such as Napster, Kazaa and Grokster, which facilitated illegal downloading.

“The Stockholm district court has today found guilty the four individuals that were charged with accessory to breaching copyright laws,” the court said in a statement. ”The court has sentenced each of them to one year in prison.”

Some industry observers remained sceptical about the impact of the court’s verdict saying that as one site is shut down another two open.

The Pirate Bay, which started in 2004, makes use of a peer-to-peer filesharing technology called Bit-Torrent. It provides a forum for its estimated 22m users to freely download music, films and computer games.

The owners of Pirate Bay maintained they could not be held responsible for the material being exchanged since no copyrighted material is stored on their servers and no exchange of files actually takes place there.

The prosecution argued that by financing, programming and running the site the four men promoted the infringement of property rights by the site’s users.

John Kennedy, chief executive of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which led the case, said: “The trial of the operators of The Pirate Bay was about defending the rights of creators, confirming the illegality of the service and creating a fair environment for legal music services that respect the rights of the creative community.”

“Today’s verdict is the right outcome on all three counts. The court has also handed down a strong deterrent sentence that reflects the seriousness of the crimes committed.”

The founders of Pirate Bay have been notoriously outspoken against copyright laws, often using the Pirate Bay site to campaign against such legislation. They have argued that media industries should create new business models rather than try to prevent copying.

The defendants were charged last year by a Swedish prosecutor with conspiracy to break copyright law and related offences. They denied the charges and now plan to appeal.

Huge decision here.

[jeff061]

Wonder if the outcome would have been different if they didn't act like such marvelous idiots.

[Icy]

That is the problem with WWW and each country laws (and why USA keeps trying but failing to regulate it worldwide, like casinos/poker). In Spain there have been 2 or 3 major torrent/emule sites lawsuits and the website owners have not ever lost one.

The main related law here states that if you are not getting any economical profit directly from file sharing, then you can't be lawsuited.

Also torrent sites are not considered like providing any content, just providing ways to find that content, exactly like others like google do. You can find in google anything ilegal that you could want, but they are not facing lawsuits for making it easy to find.

This would be the key here for them to win the lawsuit:

The owners of Pirate Bay maintained they could not be held responsible for the material being exchanged since no copyrighted material is stored on their servers and no exchange of files actually takes place there.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

So, how closely is Google watching this?

[whomario]

well, it might be key but in all seriousness it shouldn´t be : Of course they knew what was going on.

It´s like saying "yeah, i burried a land mine on a town square, how could i know someone would step on it?"

They knew for what their service was used, they didn´t shut it down, they are guilty.

Hell, i´m not saying "all you stupid filesharers should burn in hell" but if you play with fire you shouldn´t be suprised to get burned.

People need to learn some dignity, imo. Seriously, nowadays a lot of people act like it is their right to get everything for free and whenever they want it. I mean, if the new Flatscreen in the store is to expensive i´ll either live on with my old TV or at least wait till it gets cheaper, i don´t break in an get it at night.

Heck, i won´t say i´m a priest in that regard but i sure as hell won´t cry foul when someone takes steps against it.

kind of related question : What´s the going ratio itunes/Amazon MP3 to Disc at Shop/Amazon nowadays ? (i buy quite a lot as MP3, but almost allways directly at an artist´s or label homepage)
That´s the one legitimate complain i can see, that that ratio isn´t cheap enough from what i have seen a couple years ago. Wonder if it has gotten better or worse ?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by whomario

kind of related question : What´s the going ratio itunes/Amazon MP3 to Disc at Shop/Amazon nowadays ? (i buy quite a lot as MP3, but almost allways directly at an artist´s or label homepage)

According to an NPR story I heard yesterday, CD sales were down 9% in 2008 while digital sales were up 17%. The main conclusion of the story seemed to be that sales of music on virtually all physical media (i.e. CDs) will eventually go away completely, with maybe a niche market remaining for vinyl, of all things.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

So, how closely is Google watching this?

Why would Google care?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by whomario

well, it might be key but in all seriousness it shouldn´t be : Of course they knew what was going on.

It´s like saying "yeah, i burried a land mine on a town square, how could i know someone would step on it?"

They knew for what their service was used, they didn´t shut it down, they are guilty.

One could argue that it is more akin to why sell guns you know what they can be used for?
Or, why sell alcohol you know it makes people drunk and drunk drivers kills people
Or why sell cars, people drive them drunk.
If you have to be responsible for illegal use of your product, thats a mighty slippery slope.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Why would Google care?

What is the difference between the Pirate Bay linking to a .torrent file of copyrighted material, and google linking to a .torrent file of copyrighted material?

[Ksyrup]

What does Mike Leach have to say about this?

[Tekneek]

Copyright infringement needs to be a civil matter, just like patent infringement. To my knowledge, nobody does prison time for patent infringement and neither should they for copyright infringement.

They also need to do a better job of identifying damages. Damages need to be based on illegal copies sold/distributed, and then only for the ones where it is reasonable that the individual would've ever bought the legal version. It is a fallacy that everyone who acquires a free, or very cheap, illegal version of an object would have definitely paid regular price for the real thing.

I know this goes against the current "intellectual property" scheme, which says that you not only control the object, but you also control the time and method of distribution as well. I believe revising this would serve us all better in the end.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

What does Mike Leach have to say about this?

SEAL teams should move in and kill the Pirate Bay owners.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

It is a fallacy that everyone who acquires a free, or very cheap, illegal version of an object would have definitely paid regular price for the real thing.

I think that's true, but don't the pirate defenders also say, "I buy the CD if I like the illegal download", when that suits their purpose?

The conection between Google and piracy is a lot more tennuous than between The Pirate Bay and piracy. I mean if you want to take the Google comparison to it's aburd conclusion, Dell and Microsoft should be sued to, as well as the trucks that transport the computers. Obviously there's a line somewhere.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by molson

Obviously there's a line somewhere.

Of course, but the question is who defines that line? Is the line the same for different countries? The Pirate Bay obviously provides access to illegal things. Google as well provides access to illegal things. My only fear is where this all ends up.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

What is the difference between the Pirate Bay linking to a .torrent file of copyrighted material, and google linking to a .torrent file of copyrighted material?

It's probably a difference in scope. Google's search technology links to a wide array of things, the vast majority of which are legal, and Google doesn't make any overt effort to shield illegal activity from legal authorities.

Providing a platform for quasi-legal activities was more-or-less The Pirate Bay's modus operandi, regardless of their official legal protestations, and I don't think they were ever able to get away from that in court.

Call it a legal "smirk test". No one could really say "Oh, the main reason for The Pirate Bay existing is totally for legal filesharing" without smirking.

So if I'm Google, I'm not concerned. They already comply with takedown requests anyway, and the RIAA already learned their lesson in taking on a well-funded and well-connected entity when they went after Harvard Law School.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Icy

In Spain there have been 2 or 3 major torrent/emule sites lawsuits and the website owners have not ever lost one.

There had also been numerous attempts by various agencies to shut down the pirate bay in the past, and their owners have always gotten relief from the swedish courts. They were quite proud of this, and used it to flaunt their "untouchability" in letters responding to cease and desist letters from copyright holders - their claim has always been that they were not violating any Swedish law. That seems to have changed.

Lesson: court opinions in individual countries can and will change in response to international pressure.

Originally Posted by Icy

The main related law here states that if you are not getting any economical profit directly from file sharing, then you can't be lawsuited.

Oh, but the pirate bay owners were certainly profiting directly from file sharing, and it would be relatively easy for any competent lawyer to prove. If that is the single defining test (and I claim no knowledge of Spanish law) sites that sell advertising while providing access to copyrighted material will eventually lose that test.

A google test would be very interesting, although they have an additional 'abstraction' layer. They do not store addresses of copyrighted material on their servers - they store the addresses of those that do. A handle rather than a pointer, if you will.

[sterlingice]

To all making it, the Google to Pirate Bay are apples to apples comparisons

(flere kindof summed this up well with the "smirk" test paragraph)

SI

[Noop]

Interesting. I will miss it if it goes away.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

To all making it, the Google to Pirate Bay are apples to apples comparisons

(flere kindof summed this up well with the "smirk" test paragraph)

SI

Not sure I see the need for rolleyes here, I'm not trying to defend Pirate Bay in any way. I'm more worried about the law of unintended consequences. I would say that flere's "smirk test" is obviously the most logical way to go, but the law often seems to not be able to parse ambiguous situations effectively.

[sterlingice]

It's true- the law doesn't process ambiguous situations well. And the smiley wasn't directed personally at you- there are much more disingenuous defenses. You brought up a valid concern.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I would say that flere's "smirk test" is obviously the most logical way to go, but the law often seems to not be able to parse ambiguous situations effectively.

I wouldn't be too worried, to be honest. In my opinion, the legal concept here (besides precedent) is, basically, intent. And in general the courts do a good job of determining intent and ruling correctly. The problem is that we generally only hear about the court decisions where they ignored intent and based their ruling on some other criteria, and then it becomes a cause celebre.

Another reason not to worry: over time, more and more judges will be tech-saavy. They'll understand better and better the intent of technologies and whether they were implemented primarily for illegal reasons (or to support illegal activity) or if their implementation has been partially corrupted for illegal activities.

This is not to say we shouldn't continue to fight the abuses of the legal system by the RIAA and MPAA, more that I think the "problem state" will trend towards normality and a resolution over time.

Plus, there's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much money to be made by providing a legal alternative to piracy (see, iTunes) that more-or-less obviates the need for piracy (for all but the hardcore). Eventually the entities that make up the RIAA and MPAA, being for-profit enterprises, will drag themselves kicking and screaming into the 21st century and offer reasonable content delivery systems that satisfy their customers and kill the need for pirate systems.

FREE MARKET AT WORK, BABY!!!

[molson]

A year in a Swedish prison doesn't sound bad at all.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

According to an NPR story I heard yesterday, CD sales were down 9% in 2008 while digital sales were up 17%. The main conclusion of the story seemed to be that sales of music on virtually all physical media (i.e. CDs) will eventually go away completely, with maybe a niche market remaining for vinyl, of all things.

thanks . Although i was more aiming at price differences Anyone there who uses itunes etc regularly while still buying CDs ?

I know that most artists i have bought from (or labels like Arts&Crafts) it is regularly arround 9-10 dollars compared to about 15 for the CD at amazon.com And for germany that´s about 7 Euros converted, which than is a huge saving as most CDs here sell for about 16-18 Euros regular price.
A quick search at amazon has their MP3 downloads at 9 Dollars for most acts i searched, which still is reasonable and lower than i´d expect.

[SirFozzie]

What a sham trial. When you modify the charges on TWO SEPERATE OCCASIONS during the trial, it's a fucking kangaroo court.

[SportsDino]

They deserve what they got. The difference between them and Google i think is that they were prosecuted under 'promoting copyright infringement', which they obviously were... and google does not promote copyright infringement, it rather operates a service for searching the net and complies with copyright protection requests.

Its like if I ran some website convenience service that offers user input and aggregation, and someone keeps putting up donkey human love pics on my site. I make an effort to stop and block abuse of my system, and I doubt very much that a court is going to hold me liable if some third party, the congregation of prudish people with too many lawyers, goes ahead and sues me because they search for something on my site and end up with graphic imagery. I'm sure I would get some sort of leniency... so in the worst case I think that is what happens if someone tries this to google.

As opposed to pirate bay, where they act like they are entitled to crap on intellectual property rights and did everything they could to flaunt that.

The ultimate solution is a new business model, but I believe that force is being driven more by convenience, technology, and the ability to rapidly sell more content at less cost... rather than assholes stealing stuff over the internet and acting self-righteous about it.

You do not have a need for the latest boy band drivel, the boy band could charge 50 bucks for their crappy CD if they want to, its their right. If you don't like it, screw you! The ability to steal something should never be encouraged and tolerated (I could probably get away with knocking off banks and convenience stores, or stealing candy from babies, but ethics as much as punishment hold me from doing those stupid things).

[MJ4H]

lol at anyone defending the pirate bay. the pirate bay.

ffs

[cartman]

The folks at Ninja Harbor are exceedingly happy with this verdict.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

They deserve what they got.

So you advocate jail time for copyright infringement? Do you advocate the same for patent infringement? If not, why?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

So you advocate jail time for copyright infringement? Do you advocate the same for patent infringement? If not, why?

Are we talking about flagrant, systemic, gross abuses or an individual act?

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cartman

The folks at Ninja Harbor are exceedingly happy with this verdict.

SI

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

What a sham trial. When you modify the charges on TWO SEPERATE OCCASIONS during the trial, it's a fucking kangaroo court.

Somehow, I figured you'd be backing the pirates. Just so I get this straight...On which side did you fall in the Somali pirate thread?

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by molson

A year in a Swedish prison doesn't sound bad at all.

A year in prison would probably suck no matter where you are, even if some are worse than others.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Are we talking about flagrant, systemic, gross abuses or an individual act?

Feel free to set the limits however you think they should be. The first question is whether anybody should ever do jail time for patent infringement. I do not think patent infringement is even treated as criminal.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Somehow, I figured you'd be backing the pirates. Just so I get this straight...On which side did you fall in the Somali pirate thread?

Are you fucking seriously comparing Somali hijacking of a physical ship to copyright infringement? Give me a fucking break. Do you work for the BSA or something?

BSA hijacks Somali pirate hype • Channel Register

[Calis]

Not sure where I stand this. Obviously you hate to see anything that encourages and makes pirating easier, but I do think this is a slippery slope legally and I'm not sure where this leads. They aren't hosting anything on their servers, and there is plenty of legal material you can obtain there...but of course that's not what people are grabbing in 99% of the cases.

I think if the Pirate Bay guys weren't such colossal dicks about it in the past they could actually have a leg to stand on making this a political issue and having more people on their side other than Pirates. They haven't approached it that way at all in the past, so it's hard to think of them as anything other than people trying to make money off giving people easy access to pirated media.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Are you fucking seriously comparing Somali hijacking of a physical ship to copyright infringement?

Both are nothing short of outright theft at their best. If not for the presence of the crew, I'd see no legitimate difference in the two at all. But I'll concede that much of a point.

If ever there have been two people who were truly & completely opposite on a subject, you + me + this one = a damned good example.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Somehow, I figured you'd be backing the pirates. Just so I get this straight...On which side did you fall in the Somali pirate thread?

I think it is quite obvious that not all pirates are the same, matey.

You can't really compare the guy who downloaded the new Pearl Jam re-issue because he already has purchased the CD once before to some dude who is killing people. If you kill a few spiders in your basement it doesn't make you a mass murderer like Dahmer.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Both are nothing short of outright theft at their best. If not for the presence of the crew, I'd see no legitimate difference in the two at all. But I'll concede that much of a point.

If ever there have been two people who were truly & completely opposite on a subject, you + me + this one = a damned good example.

Nothing new here, Jon, eh?

Amazing that we get on the way we do otherwise (well, I think we both realize we won't change the other person's opinion, so why even bother arguing about it)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Feel free to set the limits however you think they should be. The first question is whether anybody should ever do jail time for patent infringement. I do not think patent infringement is even treated as criminal.

What type of stealing money do you draw the line at for prison time?

SI

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Mota

I think it is quite obvious that not all pirates are the same, matey.

You can't really compare the guy who downloaded the new Pearl Jam re-issue because he already has purchased the CD once before to some dude who is killing people. If you kill a few spiders in your basement it doesn't make you a mass murderer like Dahmer.

Only if you eat them.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Both are nothing short of outright theft at their best. If not for the presence of the crew, I'd see no legitimate difference in the two at all. But I'll concede that much of a point.

Maybe a good way to put it is that Somali pirates are more like armed robbers? These guys are certainly in the class of say the Barry Madoff's of the world though. They are making money off my hard work...

[Drake]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

What type of stealing money do you draw the line at for prison time?

SI

The guys who own most of my credit line seem to be staying out of prison...and getting government bailouts.

And when they jacked my rate up last month for no discernible reason other than that they wanted to, I call that theft. Corporate theft of consumer money = AOK. Shoe on the other foot = prosecution. Color me disgruntled.

This is a complete t/j, though.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Drake

The guys who own most of my credit line seem to be staying out of prison...and getting government bailouts.

And when they jacked my rate up last month for no discernible reason other than that they wanted to, I call that theft. Corporate theft of consumer money = AOK. Shoe on the other foot = prosecution. Color me disgruntled.

This is a complete t/j, though.

Hey, I'm with you. There are much worse offenders out there who are going to get off completely and who have greatly profited from this. I wish we could throw a bunch of these guys in jail, but, again that's a threadjack.

SI

[Drake]

To continue the t/j...

The problem with the guys running the Pirate Bay isn't what they did...it's that they didn't make billions of dollars a year doing it so they could get on Forbes list. Once you've joined the club, you can fuck everybody and get away with it.

That said, it's the system we've got. You pay to play, and if you choose not to pay, you accept the consequences.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

What type of stealing money do you draw the line at for prison time?

I am not sure, but theft of currency is always a crime, isn't it?

I am asking why copyright infringement should be regarded as criminal when patent infringement is not. My contention is that copyright infringement should be a civil matter, just like patent infringement is.

[Sgran]

I'm having a hard time coming up with a good reason to throw these guys in jail. A massive punitive fine would seem to do the trick without taking away a cell that could be used for a violent criminal.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

So you advocate jail time for copyright infringement? Do you advocate the same for patent infringement? If not, why?

It's theft and in my opinion no different than someone who walks into your house and steals your TV. These guys have facilitated millions and millions of dollars of stolen content. Would somoene in the U.S. who stole millions not go to jail?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I am not sure, but theft of currency is always a crime, isn't it?

I am asking why copyright infringement should be regarded as criminal when patent infringement is not. My contention is that copyright infringement should be a civil matter, just like patent infringement is.

Patents infringement is for ideas while copyright is the expression of that idea. They are completely different issues that need to be handled different.

First, patents have much more grey area than copyrights. It's not always cut and dry when someone infringes on someone's patent. Many cases the infringer has no idea that they have done it or simply don't agree that they have.

When it comes to copyrights, the infringer almost always knows what they are doing and knows it's malicious. If I walk into a music store and steal a CD from the shelf, I know what I'm doing. Just as these people knew what they were doing when they facilitated the site.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's theft and in my opinion no different than someone who walks into your house and steals your TV. These guys have facilitated millions and millions of dollars of stolen content. Would somoene in the U.S. who stole millions not go to jail?

Except you still have your TV and can do whatever you want with it.

I love that analogy, it's gotta be the stupidest one that can be used in that argument. :/ (Nothing against ya Rain, just honestly, that argument is dumb)

[Pumpy Tudors]

and so it begins

lol internet