Conclusion

The purpose of this blog was to provide an overview of the Swedish Piracy Bureau, The Pirate Bay website and the Swedish Piracy Party. Even though there are no official links between the three, they all promote and challenge current copyright legislation and argue that culture and innovation can only be promoted when information is shared. Since this blog was started, media around the world have reported on the possibility of The Pirate Bay site being sold to the Swedish gaming company Global Gaming Factory X AB. The Swedish media has also repeatedly questioned how the court will collect the fine of 30 million Swedish crowns from the four convicted men who claim that they have no assets, at least not in Sweden. In addition, speculations about Carl Lundström, who initially backed the development of TPB site by providing servers and office space in Stockholm has been intense since his official place of residence is Switzerland and not Sweden. He is also known to the court for previous tax evasion and his only asset in Sweden already has a lien on it.

The verdict was a huge disappointed for both the charged men: Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde and Carl Lundström as well as supporters who rallied around The Pirate Bay. Throughout the ten day trial all four men denied any wrongdoings and knowledge of illegal downloading. Their main argument against the allegation was that they could not possibly be held responsible for how individuals use the bit-torrent technology available on the TPB website and that it is individuals who have downloaded illegal content that should be brought to justice. Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm Warg argued that their only interest in TPB is the technology and that is what they have been focused on since 2003 when the site went live. The fact that the men claim that they have no knowledge of individuals downloading illegal content seems ludicrous, whereas their argument about being wrongly charged for developing technology which has many legal uses more logical.
On one side of the issue are the defendants and the users of the torrent technology who claim that sharing music and movies will only have positive effects for the individual artist who created the work. It is interesting to note that many young Swedish musicians as well as established and recognized authors such Lars Gustafsson support file sharing as a way of providing open access to music (1). Musician and Professor Emeritus, Roger Wallis, of Stockholm university who testified in the trial, argues that there is no evidence that file-sharing reduces profits for the record industry and says that this debate is very similar to the development of cassette tapes in early 1970s. He suggests instead that the record industry should look at the new technology as an opportunity not as a threat (2). The other side of this argument has a strong hold in the entertainment business with the main purpose of protecting potential loss of earnings and investments. There is no doubt that it is extremely time-consuming and costly to produce movies and producers need an income like everybody else to survive. But it is also difficult not to acknowledge that the cost of movie tickets and the availability of new technology invite piracy, especially in countries which have no tradition of copyright legislation.

Peter Sunde, the spokesperson for The Pirate Bay reported after the guilty verdict was announced that the Swedish court cannot possibly ask for the site to be taken down since TPB does not exist in Sweden (3). After checking the site on July 7, and their TPB forum http://suprbay.org/, I noted that users are nervous about the future of TPB and clearly opposed to selling the site to the Global Gaming Factory X. The main objection on the forum chat appears to be that a “legalized” TPB have to charge for some of their services. Another interesting discussion thread on the forum is that many users express worries about being tracked want their IP addresses removed from the site.

As noted in previous blog entries both The Piracy Bureau and The Pirate Party received a great deal of attention during The Pirate Bay trial. The victory for the cause of reforming copyright and promote an open free internet was the election of the Swedish Pirate Party to the EU-parliament. The Piracy Bureau was also recognized recently when awarded 5,000 Euros from the Ars Prix Electronica. What remains to be seen is how far the Pirate Party can push their agenda within the EU-parliament and if they will sustain their support among Swedish voters in up-coming elections. The Piracy Bureau will no doubt continue to exist as long as it has the support from individuals and groups who believe that copyright reform is necessary and current legislation completely outdated.

This research project has certainly been educational and it has provided me with an insight into two polar arguments of the importance of and the abolishment of copyright. Upon completion of this blog, I am not convinced that I will vote for a party who has an agenda consisting of only three issues, even though I consider copyright and patent law very important. Rather I am left with a list of complex issues and sense of insecurity about what might be best for citizens in the two countries which I claim citizenships to. One issue which is clear, however, is that in order to curb piracy, a global consensus must be reached and this will most likely mean that the media industry and pirates will have to meet somewhere in the middle and compromise their agendas a great deal. As for now it is clear that copyright legislation protects profits generated by influential media conglomerates and not necessararily the expression of an idea.

Bibliography
1."Gustafsson röstar på piratpartiet ." Dagens Nyheter 27 May . 10 July 2009 .
2."Rättegången mot Pirate Bay - dag 8 ." Dagens Nyheter 26 Feb. 2009. 10 July 2009 .
3.Stiernstedt , Jenny. "Sunde: 'De skiter i vad vi gör så länge vi lyder.'." Dagens Nyheter 19 May 2009. 10 July 2009 .

The Swedish Pirate Party

Piratpartiet, or as it is referred to in English, the Pirate Party was founded on January 1, 2006 by Rickard Falkvinge. The founding of the party was marked by the opening of a website which allows interested individuals to discuss citizens’ right to privacy and immaterialrätterna, a Swedish collective term for patent law, trademarks and other forms of industrial branding. In less than 48 hours, the site had received 3 million hits and by February 4, 2006 Falkvinge had collected the 1500 names needed to register the party in Sweden (1). Only two and half years later, on June 7, 2009, the Pirate Party made history by winning one of Sweden’s eighteen seats (7.1 % of the Swedish votes) in the EU-parliament election. The British newspaper, Guardian, reports that even though there is no official connection between The Pirate Bay website and the Pirate Party, the party benefitted greatly from the media coverage of the trial. The membership more than tripled during the spring and the party had, before the EU-election just a month ago, 48 000 registered members in Sweden (2). Considering the fact that Sweden has just over 9 million inhabitants and is the physical size of California this is a significant political achievement by a new party.

Reform Copyright Law
Before the EU-parliament election, the Pirate Party had established a political platform consisting of three issues: reform copyright law, abolish patent law, and to protect citizens’ right to privacy. The Pirate Party argues that none of these issues are fairly represented by either the right or the left wing parties in Sweden (3). By reforming copyright law, the Pirate Party hopes to restore the balance between promoting innovation and enhancing the culture. They propose that all non-commercial copying and file-sharing as well as p2p networking should be free and encouraged because when culture is spread it increases in value. Their proposal for using works for commercial purposes should be limited to a five year term whereas all non-commercial uses, as noted above, should be free from day one. The agenda to reform copyright also includes the abolishment of Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies (4).

Reforming copyright law, as the party suggests, would certainly be a victory for libraries and heritage institutions in Europe and perhaps North America. There would simply be no more need to worry about the Fair Use doctrine and how to share resources via interlibrary loan or electronic delivery. One fundamental problem, however, is that if the law would actually change in Sweden and other European countries, there is the rest of the world to consider. It is difficult to imagine that the United States would ever adopt the Pirate Party’s aggressive copyright reform. The music and film industry would no doubt spend their last penny lobbying against such proposal. It is important to see internet piracy as a global issue and not one particular country’s problem. As we have learned from Awa in the discussion forum, China’s laws are loose and near non-existent which is a stark contrast to the United States’ complex and rather strict copyright law. In addition, European countries have their own regional copyright laws. To form a global forum and consensus around copyright might be an impossible task, but appears necessary to at least explore. Digital Management Rights technology is also adding complexity to this issue. After reading the material for unit 6, I question whether or not DRM is really necessary at all or just money and time ill spent, especially for consumers. It is on the other hand, certainly a way for the entertainment industry to control purchases made by citizens.

Abolish Patent Law
The Pirate Party argues that abolishing patent law in Europe would save lives in developing nations every day. The latest example, according to the party, is the development of the bird flu vaccine which has proceeded at an excruciatingly slow pace because pharmaceutical companies will not forego the process of applying for patents (5). The party argues that by removing patents patients will see lower costs for medicine. According to a Swedish study conducted in 2005, patent free drugs can be as much as 70 % cheaper than drugs protected by patents (6). Research conducted by Harvard’s medical schools researcher, Marcia Angell and Dean Baker at the Center for Economic and Policy Research Institute draw similar conclusion to that of the Swedish government report. for Economic and Policy Research
Another compelling reason for removing patents in Europe is the fact that the government pays for the majority of the research and subsidizes drugs for its citizen through universal health care programs. The Pirate Party also notes that the majority of larger European pharmaceutical companies spend only approximately 15% of their income on research. The rest is largely funded by government agencies. By removing patents, drugs would be cheaper and the governments in Europe can shift their expense of subsidizing drugs for individuals directly towards research of new drugs. This, the Pirate Party argues would be a win-win situation and actually increase funding for research as well as reducing costs for individuals (7).

Even though patent law is not as prevalent in everyday work at the library as copyright, it is nonetheless something that is very important. We all benefit from medical research and new innovative medicine which has the possibility to cure and aid us when ill. The Pirate Party’s suggestion to remove patents is certainly interesting and their arguments are convincing. But just like the proposal to remove copyright, there will no doubt be serious opposition from global pharmaceutical companies as well as American companies and interest groups who believe that health care is not a universal right and should remain private. As noted by Harvard lecturer, Marcia Angell, pharmaceutical companies have seen profits much higher than any other 500 Fortune companies in recent decades. She notes that in 2002 the largest 10 pharmaceutical companies averaged a 17% profit (8). It might be interesting to note that unlike the United States, most EU countries do not allow advertisements of drugs. This fact in itself saves both individuals and governments in Europe a great deal of money.


Protect privacy
The Pirate Party’s third principle involves citizens’ rights to privacy. The party claims that Europe has seen a dramatic increase of surveillance and control following the 9/11 event in the United States and this needs to be reversed and considered carefully. The party’s justification for this argument is that Europe has horrific examples of how 20th century leaders have exercised their rights to control and enforced surveillance on the population. World War II and the more recent wars in the Balkan states for instance had dire consequences for the population and did not reduced crime and or violence (9).

The third principle is perhaps the most difficult to comprehend and might the most challenging to find support for as it encompasses such as a broad range of issues. Even if most individuals prefer living in communities without the sense that a “big-brother” is constantly watching over them, it is only a natural instinct for humans who feel threaten to increase security around their borders, and at the individual level their homes. After all, who would not buy a few new locks and perhaps install a security system for the home after a robbery or home invasion. For libraries the right to privacy might affect how online resources and access to the same are saved and preserved in for the future. Computer activity is easy to detect and map and there are indeed many privacy issues to consider.

Conclusion
The Pirate Party may appear almost like a “protest” party or perhaps a joke and/or treat to established politicians and citizens. But the fact is that the Swedish seat in the EU parliament will be occupied by Christer Engström, a computer engineer in his early 50s, and not a 22 year old computer geek signals that this is not just a youth movement. European media is currently covering the rapid expansion of Pirate Party across the continent and Die Spiegel reports that the German Pirate Party is running for the next German parliament election (10). According to the Swedish Pirate Party website, the party has local organizations in 20 countries, including larger European countries such as Spain, Poland, and the UK. There is also a Pirate Party in the United States (http://www.pirate-party.us/).

It is difficult to predict the future of this new party and how successful the Swedish branch will will be in accomplishing its agenda in the EU-parliament. But it is significant that they have a voice in a democratically elected parliament and of outmost interest to individuals in favor of patent law and copyright reform.

Bibliography
1."Historia." Piratpartiet. 29 June 2009 .
2. Schofield , Jack . Guardian . 8 June. 29 June 2009 .
3. "Piratpartiet i vågmästarställning." Piratpartiet . 1 July 2009 <
.
4. "Principprogram version 3.3." Piratpartiet. 29 June 2009 .
5. "An alternative to pharmaceutical patents." Piratpartiet. July. 1 July 2009 .
6. "Läkemedelsförsäljningen i Sverige – analys och prognos." 2005. Socialstyrelsen . 1 July 2009 .
7. "An alternative to pharmaceutical patents." Piratpartiet. July. 1 July 2009 .
8. Angell , Marcia . "Excess in the pharmaceutical industry." 7 Dec. 2004. 1 July 2009 .
9. "The Pirate Party." Piratpartiet. 29 June 2009 .
10. "Sweden's Pirate Party Stands in EU Elections." Die Spiegel 17 Mar. 2009. 1 July 2009 .

The Pirate Bay Trial

The main source of information for this blog entry is the daily transcripts from The Pirate Bay trial published in the Swedish daily newspapers, Dagens Nyheter. Rather than repeating the same bibliography information ten times, I will refer to which day of the trial my information is from. The transcripts were published in the online version of the newspaper beginning at 6:00 PM on February 16 with the last entry on March 3 at 8:00 PM and retrieved from http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/rattegangen-mot-pirate-bay-dag-8-1.808091. For other sources, I am using end-notes. Please note also that I am only highlighting a few things from each day.

Introduction to the trial and Day 1
The Pirate Bay trial began at 9:00 AM on February 16, 2009 and lasted ten days. The hearings took place in Stockholm’s court house and attracted world-wide media attention. Three of the four defendants, Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde, and Gottfrid Svartholm Warg arrived to the courthouse in a “pirate” decorated buss which served as the head quarter for supporters and followers during the trial. The prosecutor introduced the case and stated that The Pirate Bay is one of the largest file sharing sites in the world, the site is financed by revenue from advertisements and maintained by the four defendants. The men were indicted for having maintained a site which enables individuals to download copyrighted material. The claim for loss of revenue from a long list of Swedish, European and American companies totaled at the time of the trial 117 million crowns (more than 14 million USD). A preliminary investigation amounting to 1,400 pages served as the base for the trial. It took the prosecutor the entire first day to explain the various charges against The Pirate Bay and how the site has assisted individuals to download copyrighted movies and music.

Day 2
The prosecutor spend a great deal of time explaining the technology and showing the court examples of how torrent files of movies such as Harry Potter and the Johny Cash biography Walk the Line are connected to The Pirate Bay torrent tracker. In contrast to the United States, jurors in Sweden are politically elected and the Stockholm court consists of three male jurors in their mid 50s. Both the media and Pirate Bay supporters questioned openly whether or not the jurors had the technical abilities to make good judgements about the indictments against The Pirate Bay (1).

Day 3
The defendants and the defense team had the opportunity to speak and defend themselves against the allegations. All four of them repeatedly denied any wrong doings and knowledge of individuals downloading copyrighted movies or music by using The Pirate Bay torrent tracker. Other individuals who testified against the Pirate Bay on this day was a representative from Hollywood and a lawyer representing the anti-piracy bureau (that’s another Swedish bureau), and a professor and musician who has done extensive research in how music benefits from file sharing.

Day 4
The reporter notes that the court is more crowded than yesterday because the defendants are expected to be heard by lawyers’ representing the American movie industry and Swedish and American music companies. All men are heard and several heated arguments are generated, especially about technology, the defendant’s personal opinions about copyright and whether or not they have earned money of the site. The defendants continue to plead innocent and dispute all allegations. Another interesting point about the hearings on this day was the interpreter’s difficulties in quickly providing the American lawyer with accurate translations.

Day 5
The prosecutor continues to hear the defendants and focuses on the economical aspects of the charges and statistics claiming loss of revenue for the companies who brought forth the allegations against the Pirate Bay. The Swedish industrialist Carl Lundström and alleged financial backer (which according to this trial only amounted to two computers, and physical space for servers) of The Pirate Bay is heard. He is already known to the court for connections with extreme right wing sympathizers, tax evasions, and an assault conviction.

Day 6
This day of the trial was devoted to letting the music (both Swedish and American companies) industry present evidence against the Pirate Bay for illegally facilitating downloads of copyrighted music.

Day 7
The most interesting issue raised on this day came from Carl Lundström’s lawyer who asked John Kennedy, President of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industr y (IFPI) how much the music industry spends yearly on anti-piracy activities. The answer (reluctantly according to the reporter): 20 % or an estimated 75 million pounds! The reporter noted sighs, wows and head shakes in response to the answer.

Day 8
The defense brought in professor and bit-torrent expert, Kristoffer Schollin from the University of Gothenburg (also teaches DRM) to testify about the technology. He adds new dimensions to the trial when he suggests that The Pirate Bay is less commercial and more ideologically based than many of its counterparts. He states that a Google search will generate as many torrent files as The Pirate Bay. Furthermore, he notes that the site is not one of the larger Bit-torrent sites, but one of the best known. Finally, he is asked why he thinks Pirate Bay is and remains so popular. He suggests that the site early on attracted free-thinkers and energetic libertarians who enjoyed writing and sharing their opinions about copyright and patent law. When asked if he thinks that The Pirate Bay has facilitated illegal services, he deferred to give his opinion and said that’s the court’s decision.

Day 9
The prosecutor spends most of the day wrapping up the charges against the four men and revisits the bit-torrent technology.

Day 10
The defense team presents their cases for the jurors and why they should doubt the charges against the four men. Finally, the Stockholm court announces that the verdict will be presented on April 17. It is hard to imagine an American court allowing a two month period of deliberation.

Conclusion and Verdict
A huge struggle for the prosecutor during the trial was the constant references to the fact that The Pirate Bay is not an official company (not registered or incorporated) and does not exists in Sweden or anywhere else either. None of the “feeder” servers are physically located in Sweden. The site is just maintained by two of defendants. The defense team also consistently pointed to the fact that the Bit-torrent technology in itself is not illegal and the main crime has been committed by those who have downloaded copyrighted material (2). It is difficult to dispute this argument, but yet equally difficult to believe that the defendants had no idea that people use the Pirate Bay torrent tracker to download copyrighted music or movies.

On April 17, the Swedish court announced that the defendants were found guilty and fined a combined 30 million Swedish crowns (3.6 million dollars). The New York Times notes that the victory sends an important message to violators and was very important to the music and movie industry (3). One of the defendants, Peter Sunde, says to Dagens Nyheter “They don’t give a shit (yes that word was actually published in the paper) what we do as long as we obey. As long as they have the power. The record companies are not interested in the society. They just want to make money for themselves, not for the artists.” Furthermore, Sunde notes that he and the others have received claims from the court, but neither of the defendants have any acquired wealth to pay the damages (4). This verdict might not generate any monetary compensation to the companies who filed the charge against The Pirate Bay, but as suggested by the New York Times, it was a symbolic victory against on-line piracy.

After reading this lengthy transcript, I felt that the trial was more about technology and global economics favoring large conglomerates than copyright violations. A sense of a generations shift in thinking is also apparent in the transcripts and it was clear that many of the “pirate” supporters are young. Since I have lived in United States for more than 20 years, it was also interesting to contemplate the differences between the two court systems. It is noteworthy to point out that Swedish copyright law is considered more lenient than most other countries and this trial has certainly generated criticism and pressure for Sweden to tighten the loopholes. Swedish copyright law dates back to 1960 with recent amendments in 1994 and 2005. The 2005 amendments states clearly that it is not prohibited to make pirate copies of movies and or music (5). In closing, I can only pose a few questions: Is The Pirate Bay really a Swedish issue? Should the technology be illegal? Would such law solve or just accelerate new innovations for piracy?

Bibliography

1.Söderling , Fredrik . "Rättegången är bara en början på kampen ." Dagens Nyheter 17 Feb. 2009 [Stockholm ].
2.Söderling , Fredrik . "Rättegången är bara en början på kampen ." Dagens Nyheter 17 Feb. 2009 [Stockholm ].
3.Pfanner , Eric . "File-Sharing Site Violated Copyright, Court Says." The New York Times 18 Apr. 2009. 27 June 2009 .
4.Stiernstedt , Jenny . "Sunde: 'De skiter i vad vi gör så länge vi lyder.'." Dagens Nyheter 19 May 2009 [Stockholm ]. 27 June 2009 .
5."Upphovsrätt." Swedish Government. 25 June 2009 .

Introduction to The Piracy Bureau and The Pirate Bay

This blog entry will examine the Swedish internet sites the Piracy Bureau, The Pirate Bay and the Bit-torrent technogly used to share files. I decided to explore these sites in part because the founders are Swedish and the recent Pirate Bay trial and copyright issues are currently discussed daily in Swedish media. My other reasons for exploring digital “piracy” is that I have a teenage son and daughter who frequent sites such as The Pirate Bay and they keep telling me “it’s all legal mom, don’t worry…” Keep in mind when reading this blog that this is an entirely new topic to me and I can only tackle this subject from the perspective of a novice. Even though many articles I read and have read are in Swedish, I will naturally translate my findings to English and also use the English versions of names associated with The Pirate Bay.

The Pirate Bay was set up by the Piracy Bureau in 2003. The The Piracy Bureau (http://piratbyran.org/) is a Swedish think tank which questions current copyright regulation and intellectual property rights (1). Along with support from the Piracy Bureau, Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm Warg set up the site and developed the file sharing technology. Some financial support was eventually received from Swedish industrialist, Carl Lundström and their official spokesperson has for the last few years been Peter Sunde (2). The Piracy Bureau website is, unfortunately written mostly in Swedish, but includes interesting details about the organization, or the “ongoing conversation” as the authors prefers to call it, regarding digital information infrastructure and copying of digital files (3). The cassette and crossbones logo used for the Piracy Bureau symbolizes the important invention of the cassette tape in the 1960s which revolutionized the possibility for individuals to record and copy music as well as other audio files. The first cassette tape produced by Philips was not patented in order to stimulate continuing production and innovation in the industry (4). In todays file sharing debate this is perhaps miniscule, but it does remind us that copying of music and audio has an almost 50 year old history. I was able to download their logo without risking copyright infringement since I provide a URL to the Piracy Bureau on this blog.

At the center of The Pirate Bay’s legal litigation is its Bit-Torrent tracker client software. Instead of The Pirate Bay hosting audio, video and text files, the Bit-Torrent software splits the files into smaller units or chunks and spreads them to as many host computers it can locate. The information about the units is kept in what is referred to as a torrent file or a tracker file on The Pirate Bay site. The tracker files have the ability to locate the different units on the host computers. In order to download a torrent tracker file, the user must first download a client program such as Bit-Torrent developed by The Pirate Bay (or other similar program—there are many more). The Bit-Torrent program delivers the various units of an audio or video file from host computers (around the world) to the user’s computer and when all the files have been downloaded the Bit-Torrent software reassembles the file for the user (5). This means that The Pirate Bay and other similar internet sites do not store the entire files on their sites and are considered peer-to-peer networks. The latter is becoming increasingly common and is not in itself an illegal activity. In fact, peer-to-peer networking is becoming a daily activity for most newspaper sites as well as popular internet sites such as Google and Yahoo (6). Peer-to-peer (P2P) networking is certainly an interesting and innovative development. I found the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer) illustrations (on the right side) helpful when trying to conceptualize the difference between a P2P and a client server model.

In February of 2009, the four men behind The Pirate Bay (names noted above) were charged by the Swedish court for having violated copyright because the site assists with distributing illegal (copyrighted) music, films and texts (including text books). The trial in Stockholm attracted world-wide media attention. Followers and supporters of the Piracy Bureau, The Pirate Bay and the newly formed Pirate Party were also present (7). Each step in this trial was also followed closely by live bloggers who attended the trial, and the Pirates own blog, privatliv (=private life, site is down and currently under reconstruction). Nathalie Roos Holmberg, a journalist at the Swedish daily newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, followed the blog and reports that bloggers found the trial a joke and laughed openly at the persecutors arguments (8). Due to the high volume of writers the blog actually crashed at one point during the trial (9).

An interesting side story to The Pirate Bay trial is the formation of the Pirate Party in Sweden and in other countries in Europe. In the recent EU parliament election June 7, 2009, the Pirate Party headed by Rickard Falkvinge received enough votes for one seat in the EU parliament. The party ran on a plat form of only the three following issues: Reform copyright law, Abolish the patent system, and Respect the right for privacy (10). An analysis of The Pirate Bay trial and the Pirate Party will follow in the following two blog entries.

Bibliography

1. Anderson , Kevin . "FAQ: The Pirate Trial ." La Guardian 17 Apr. 2009. 30-31. 7 June 2009 .
2. Swords Drawn in Pirate Bay. Bill Thompson. New Statesmen 4 May 2009.
3. Piratbyrån. . 14 June 2009 .
4. "Kassetten och dödskallen ." Piratbyrån. 14 June 2009 http://www.piratbyran.org/?view=articles&id=82
5. Thompson , Bill . "Swords drawn in Pirate Bay ." New Statesman May.4 (2009): 30-31. 7 June 2009 .
6. Venkatramen, Archana. “Stick piracy flag where it belongs. The truth is we may all be copyright infringers.” Information World Review May (2009): 7 June 2009 .
7. ”Pirate Bay inför rätta. Rättegången mot Pirate Bay – dag 1.” Dagens Nyheter 16 Feb. 2009 [Stockholm ] . 18 June 2009 http://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/rattegangen-mot-pirate-bay-dag-1-1.800295.
8. Holmberg, Natatlie R. “Bloggar skrattar åt rättegång.” Dagens Nyheter 5 June 2009 [Stockholm]. 6 June 2009 .
9. Piratpartiet.se 15 June 2009 http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english