Pirate Bay Founders On Trial In Sweden
The founders of The Pirate Bay [http://thepiratebay.org/] are once again facing legal troubles as they defend themselves against charges of "promoting other people's infringements of copyright laws" in a trial in Sweden.
Frederik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde Kolmsioppi and Carl Lundstorm have been taken to court by a group of movie, music and videogame companies that includes MGM [http://www.sony.com] because of the huge amount of illegal file sharing that takes place through The Pirate Bay. The companies are seeking roughly $13.5 million in damages due to losses caused by the site; the men also face up to two years in prison and a fine of $143,500 if convicted.
But the four claim they cannot be held liable for copyright theft because the content being shared isn't actually hosted on their computers. "File-sharing services can be used both legally and illegally," said defense lawyer Per Samuelsson, who compared the site to "cars that can be driven faster than the speed limit".
While the accused are portraying themselves as "digital libertarians," Monique Wadsted, an attorney representing the media firms, claimed the issue was not about civil liberties but simply about respecting copyright. "It's not a political trial, it's not a trial about shutting down a people's library, and it's not a trial that wants to prohibit file-sharing as a technique," she said. "It's a trial that regards four individuals that have conducted a big commercial business making money out of others' file-sharing works, copyright-protected movies, hit music, popular computer games, etc."
"The Pirate Bay has hurt creators of many different kinds of works, from music to film, from books to TV programs," added International Federation of the Phonographic Industries [http://www.ifpi.org/] Chairman John Kennedy. "It has been particularly harmful in distributing copyrighted works prior to their official release. This damages sales of music at the most important time of their lifecycle."
The Pirate Bay has been raided several times in the past, according to a BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7892073.stm] report, and had nearly 200 servers seized in 2006, an act which temporarily closed down the site. It bounced back quickly with servers operating in different countries, however, and Warg, one of the co-defendants, made it clear that he's unconcerned about this latest effort to take it offline. "What are they going to do about it? They have already failed to take down the site once. Let them fail again," he said in a recent webcast. "It has a life without us."
Sunde, another defendant, denied Kennedy's assertions that the group had made "substantial amounts of money" from the site and claimed that they were essentially judgment proof [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_proof] against any decision against them. "It does not matter if they require several million (kronor) or one billion," he said. "We are not rich and have no money to pay."
I can't decide how I want this one to work out. On one hand, my stance against piracy has been well established and despite their noise about the legal aspects of file sharing, we all know why The Pirate Bay exists. On the other, the kneejerk tendency of media industries to bring punitive litigation against everything that even looks like a copyright violation needs to end; media consumption habits have changed and continue to evolve, yet publishers (most notably in the music industry) have struggled against that change every step of the way. Incentive is required to drag these companies into the 21st century and a few ugly losses in high-profile cases like this would be a good place to start.
The only truly satisfactory outcome? The Pirate Bay guys win the trial, then get hit by a bus while walking out of the courthouse. Sometimes, everybody needs to lose.
Permalink
The founders of The Pirate Bay [http://thepiratebay.org/] are once again facing legal troubles as they defend themselves against charges of "promoting other people's infringements of copyright laws" in a trial in Sweden.
Frederik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde Kolmsioppi and Carl Lundstorm have been taken to court by a group of movie, music and videogame companies that includes MGM [http://www.sony.com] because of the huge amount of illegal file sharing that takes place through The Pirate Bay. The companies are seeking roughly $13.5 million in damages due to losses caused by the site; the men also face up to two years in prison and a fine of $143,500 if convicted.
But the four claim they cannot be held liable for copyright theft because the content being shared isn't actually hosted on their computers. "File-sharing services can be used both legally and illegally," said defense lawyer Per Samuelsson, who compared the site to "cars that can be driven faster than the speed limit".
While the accused are portraying themselves as "digital libertarians," Monique Wadsted, an attorney representing the media firms, claimed the issue was not about civil liberties but simply about respecting copyright. "It's not a political trial, it's not a trial about shutting down a people's library, and it's not a trial that wants to prohibit file-sharing as a technique," she said. "It's a trial that regards four individuals that have conducted a big commercial business making money out of others' file-sharing works, copyright-protected movies, hit music, popular computer games, etc."
"The Pirate Bay has hurt creators of many different kinds of works, from music to film, from books to TV programs," added International Federation of the Phonographic Industries [http://www.ifpi.org/] Chairman John Kennedy. "It has been particularly harmful in distributing copyrighted works prior to their official release. This damages sales of music at the most important time of their lifecycle."
The Pirate Bay has been raided several times in the past, according to a BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7892073.stm] report, and had nearly 200 servers seized in 2006, an act which temporarily closed down the site. It bounced back quickly with servers operating in different countries, however, and Warg, one of the co-defendants, made it clear that he's unconcerned about this latest effort to take it offline. "What are they going to do about it? They have already failed to take down the site once. Let them fail again," he said in a recent webcast. "It has a life without us."
Sunde, another defendant, denied Kennedy's assertions that the group had made "substantial amounts of money" from the site and claimed that they were essentially judgment proof [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_proof] against any decision against them. "It does not matter if they require several million (kronor) or one billion," he said. "We are not rich and have no money to pay."
I can't decide how I want this one to work out. On one hand, my stance against piracy has been well established and despite their noise about the legal aspects of file sharing, we all know why The Pirate Bay exists. On the other, the kneejerk tendency of media industries to bring punitive litigation against everything that even looks like a copyright violation needs to end; media consumption habits have changed and continue to evolve, yet publishers (most notably in the music industry) have struggled against that change every step of the way. Incentive is required to drag these companies into the 21st century and a few ugly losses in high-profile cases like this would be a good place to start.
The only truly satisfactory outcome? The Pirate Bay guys win the trial, then get hit by a bus while walking out of the courthouse. Sometimes, everybody needs to lose.
Permalink