Notes that no copyrighted material ever exists on The Pirate Bay’s servers, that technology is what’s really on trial in the case against the BitTorrent tracker site.
The Pirate Bay trial concluded today with the defense making their closing arguments. It began with Jonas Nilsson, who represents Fredrik Neij, one of the four founders, arguing that technology itself is what’s really on trial in the case and not the BitTorrent tracker site itself.
"The prosecutor has said that it is not the technology that is on trial, but it is Pirate Bay’s technology and how it is used that renders it permissible," he told the court.
He noted that no copyrighted material ever passes through the site’s servers and that technology is to blame and not the defendants.
"It is a completely legal technology that is offered by The Pirate Bay. It is an open site where users themselves upload content. There is certainly a lot of copyrighted material but this is an internet problem, not a Pirate Bay problem."
"Bit torrent technology can be used for both legal and illegal means on Pirate Bay in the same way as by Google or MySpace. That someone at The Pirate Bay has a cocky attitude or certain political standpoint is not sufficient to issue a guilty verdict," Nilsson continued.
He made the important argument that users are the ones who share content with one another and are the ones who ultimately decide what stays and what goes.
More importantly, he chastised the so-called "experts" for the prosecution since they are not independent experts.
"Music industry heads and movie directors are not objective."
This was a direct challenge to Peter Danowsky, the lawyer representing the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), who told the court yesterday that it "should give more weight to testimony by IFPI’s John Kennedy and Ludwig Werner who know what they are talking about" when attacking the defense’s use of Roger Wallis, a composer and emeritus professor of media at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), and true independent expert.
"Neij and The Pirate Bay TPB have not used the copyrighted material," continued Nilsson. "It is the uploader and the downloader of it that have been using it."
Svartholm Varg’s lawyer then presented his closing arguments by first noting that the prosecution has presented no evidence that The Pirate Bay consists mostly of copyrighted material.
"The only one who did a survey of how much copyrighted material was Sunde," he told the court, which Sunde has previously said is only around 20%. The majority of content on The Pirate Bay is actually legal.
Also called into question was the amount of money the prosecution alleges The Pirate Bay rakes in annually. He said there are only 4 ads on the site and that the prosecution never reviewed their PRQ server accounts, it only guesstimated what the amount it is.
"As soon as the technology changes in the society then the establishment reacts against it," he said.
He also defended Roger Wallis, their true independent expert.
"Prof Wallis has long list credential and wide experience and no direct link to TPB and never meet them before," he said. "The plaintiff behavior towards prof Wallis was at the very least insulting and attacks him personally rather his arguments."
Carl Lundstrom’s lawyer then began his closing arguments.
"TPB service has a legal use and with legal materials," he said. "The service is blind and can be misused. Is it right to attack the infrastructure if illegal material passes through? It is like suing car makers for unlicensed driver."
He then attacked the prosecution’s closing arguments yesterday whereby Swedish prosecutor Håkan Roswall gave the example that "a person who is holding someone’s coat while they assault someone else is complicit in the crime.”
Carl Lundstrom’s lawyer observed that case law clearly states that the assistance in the crime and the main crime had to be instantaneous. More succinctly, that "Swedish laws state that the parties that commit a crime are uploader and the downloader, not the middleman," which is The Pirate Bay.
A judgment in the case will be announced on April 17th.
Stay tuned.
[Hat Tip to Sofia for Her Twitter Translation]
jared@zeropaid.com
Related Posts
- The Pirate Bay ‘Spectrial’ Day #11 – Prosecution’s Closing Arguments
- The Pirate Bay “Spectrial” Day #9 – Prof Argues No Link Between File-Sharing and Music Losses
- Day #1 of The Pirate Bay ‘Spectrial’ in Sweden
- Day #5 of The Pirate Bay ‘Spectrial’ – Peter Sunde Takes the Stand
- Day #4 of The Pirate Bay ‘Spectrial’ – Accused of ‘Purposeful Crime on Grand Scale’
Loading ...
Yeah but its CALLED THE PIRATES Bay.. Its not GOOGLES PIrating page .. Or MyPiratespace.. PIrate.. TO plunder.. The name to get the most illegal files and to make it bigger then suprnova was.
I remember a few years back when an RIAA member called iPod’s ‘little pirate ships’ saying they were a huge vehicle for piracy. I think your argument falls on the flawed idea that the purpose of BitTorrent was to transfer pirated material. This assertion that I mentioned is false because it’s like saying that because you can use a steak knife to kill someone that it’s only purpose is to kill people. Can you find pirated material using TPB? Fine. Can you find non-copyright infringing material on TPB as well? Of course (ala NiN album) I can agree it’s hard to dispute the name but the intended purpose isn’t actually to pirate copyrighted works – rather to spread culture around on an uncensored medium.