Comments on: The Pirate Bay to be Charged by Swedish Prosecutors

By: Andrew Bruch

Andrew Bruch — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:44:13 +0000

15 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (2006) lays out the conditions under which a case may be brought.

Pirate Bay and Grokster (decided in U.S. Supreme Court a few years before) both established that if the primary purpose of the accused’s activity is to aid in the infringement of someone else’s copyright, then that person may be held accountable as an accessory. Now, while law enforcement might be unwilling to go after an individual downloading and copying files from the internet, it probably would be willing to go after a person who facilitated the action for thousands or millions of infringing people. It’s all a question of resources.

The Supreme Court emphasized though is that the person’s activity must have as its *primary* intent the incitement or inducement to infringe copyrights. So: you build an Internet and some infringement happens: you’re safe. But, you build a Grokster and tell people it’s the new Napster… then they come after you, notwithstanding all good your torrent technology might be able to do for people who have 1 GB files that they can’t share over e-mail.

By: Jorge

Jorge — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

o here we go again!

By: freeloader105

freeloader105 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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)?

By: soulxtc

soulxtc — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

@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

By: open_universe

open_universe — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: open_universe

open_universe — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Gamer8585

Gamer8585 — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: open_universe

open_universe — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Spurge

Spurge — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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?

By: colombianino

colombianino — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

these guys either know how to do their stuff or have good lawyers
and yup like someone else said here we go again……