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
I really enjoyed reading this blog. The information was organized and promoted a thorough understandng of the topic.
ReplyDeleteReading through the trial section, I made several observances. One, it was mentioned that some jurors may not be familiar enough with the technology to make a fair ruling. Understanding the technology is paramount in determining the guilt of the defendants. From the information I gather from this blog, it seems these people were unfairly penalized for using legal technology. I think regulating bit-torrent technology would have been a more appropriate outcome, rather than fining people who are just taking advantage of available tools.
The discussion of the pirate political party was especially enlightening, as I am mostly ignorant of European politics. I agree that it would be hard to vote for a party based on only a few issues. However, I am supportive of bringing new causes in to the mainstream discussion. I will stay posted on what occurs in the next German elections.
Overall, an interesting topic and your commentary was easy to read and well written.