Case partly based on evidence collected in the 2006 server raid.
This Thursday, the 31st of January, Swedish public prosecutor Hakan Roswall plans to charge The Pirate Bay with being an accessory and conspiracy to break that country’s copyright law, which could lead to fines or up to two years in prison.
The real dilemma for Swedish prosecutors has always been how to stop the world’s largest BitTorrent tracker site, for as the people behind The Pirate Bay have repeatedly pointed out, they don’t actually host any copyrighted content, but merely the torrent tracker files which visitors use to share content with one another.
This is why it seems that Swedish prosecutors have decided to take the “accessory” approach for current copyright laws in that country prevent any other legal approach.
“It’s not merely a search engine. It’s an active part of an action that aims at, and also leads to, making copyright protected material available,” Roswall told Reuters.
“It’s a classic example of accessory — to act as intermediary between people who commit crimes, whether it’s in the physical or the virtual world,” he said.
Peter Sunde of The Pirate Bay responded by calling the move “idiotic” and pointed out that there is “no legal ground” for the charges.
Roswall’s long term strategy seems to be to dissuaded businesses from advertising on the site and choking off needed hosting and site maintenance fees. He believes advertisers could have second thoughts about using Pirate Bay if a guilty verdict is handed down. “That can be the sort of thing that influences the site in the long run.”
The case is further complicated by the fact that after the previous raid in 2006 The Pirate Bay took the added precaution of scattering their servers throughout several countries so that shutting it down would be an almost Sisyphean task.
Stay tuned.
Related Posts
- Swedish prosecutors to extend search of Pirate Bay servers
- Case Against The Pirate Bay Delayed Once Again, Possibly Until 2009
- “Avast ye scurvy file sharers!”: Interview with Swedish Pirate Party leader Rickard Falkvinge
- The Pirate Bay: ‘We’ll Keep Operating Even If We Lose Copyright Case’
- Swedish prosecutor gets an extension to figure out a case against the Pirate Bay
Loading ...
o here we go again!
I’m sure TPB will win this one. But if they won’t then it will be a sad day for the filesharing community.
Also what does Sysiphisian mean (Google wouldn’t help)?
@Freeloader
Took for granted that spellcheck fixed it (now corrected).
“A fictional character in Greek mythology Sisyphus was a king punished in the Tartarus by being cursed to roll a huge boulder up a hill only to watch it roll down again and repeat this throughout eternity.”
—– activity that is unending and/or repetitive.
—– eternity of frustration
I thought Sweden’s laws were very explicit and specific that only “works of art” were protected and that this was the “loophole” for TPB along with the fact that they do not actually HOST the content.
Guess people will go back to trading CDs or keychain drives with music etc. Oh well.
Okay just Googled “sweden copyright law” here is what they say:
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2707/a/15195
New copyright rules since 1 July 2005
Today copyright-protected material such as music films books newspapers etc. can be copied rapidly and transmitted easily over the Internet. On 1 July 2005 the Copyright Act was amended in order to adapt it to technological development. The new copyright rules are largely based on an EC Directive.
I’m not sure about Swedish law but I think in US law an accessory charge can only be leveled on crimes and in the US Copyright Infringement is a civil-tort not a crime. So while I don’t know if its the same in Sweden I doubt such an approach could work in many nations. I give this approach an 85% chance of failing.
If copyright infringement is a civil tort in the U.S. and not a crime please explain the FBI warning at the beginning of every movie.
Thursday they will attempt to charge but who knows how long the whole process takes?
Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement? What the hell is that? Isn’t everyone guilty of that buying a recordable device of any kind?
these guys either know how to do their stuff or have good lawyers
and yup like someone else said here we go again……
It never ceases to amaze me the blind level of hope alot of people have. The law rarely comes into play when dealing with file sharing and copyright issue. Tvlinks and TPB are good examples. They have NO content illegal or otherwise and as such cannot be guilty of “giving it away”. They are essentially just “li nks”. How far does that trace? Does it go back too google too because google posts li nks to TPB?. This has nothing to do with law only the MPAA and the likes cash and influence. TPB will surely be found guilty as they have NO CHANCE of a fair trial.
Here’s a scenario for you the city builds the roads that people use to travel on however someone uses that road to mug someone walking along is the city responsible for the mugging as an accessory to mugging because they provide the means to travel?
This is just pure rubbish in the end thankfully there have been closer cases in the past that have been thrown out so they oughtta be fine.
What ever happened to the Media Defender stuff that showed that several Swedish megacorp companies were involved in attacking the legitimate website or are they trying to bring down the house before they get pinned for it?
“If copyright infringement is a civil tort in the U.S. and not a crime please explain the FBI warning at the beginning of every movie.”
See http://www.defendfairuse.org/ftc_complaint.html
The CCIA has complained to the FTC about these FBI warnings along with the copyright warnings in books and sports programs.