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
