0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
If you're up for some light reading, the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) has published an exhaustive 77 page Swedish to English translation of The Pirate Bay verdict. The Pirate Bay's four main actors were found guilty earlier this month of "Complicity in breach of the Copyright Act". They currently face 1 year in prison and a $3.5 million dollar fine.The verdict digest goes through the extensive history of The Pirate Bay, and how the site came to be. It also details the intricate business relationship between the four defendants, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi and Carl Lundström,Keep in mind that the verdict digest was not commissioned by the court - this is the sole doings of the IFPI. Also, it's not the easiest read in the world, thanks to the fact that it's a Swedish to English translation. Regardless, it's an interesting read; below are some of the more interesting points:"By providing a website with advanced search functions and easy uploading and downloading facilities, and by putting individual filesharers in touch with one other through the tracker linked to the site, the operation run via The Pirate Bay has, in the opinion of the District Court, facilitated and, consequently, aided and abetted these offences""Liability for complicity does not require The Pirate Bay’s operation to be essential to the making available to the public of rights or works. The fact that the copyright-protected works may possibly have been made available to the general public on other websites before they were made available on The Pirate Bay, or that they may possibly have been made available on other websites at the same time as they were made available on The Pirate Bay, is, in the opinion of the District Court, irrelevant to any liability for complicity which may fall on the defendants as a result of their actions.""In summary, the operation carried on by The Pirate Bay does, objectively, constitute complicity in breach of the Copyright Act. The question is then whether the defendants can be held responsible for this complicity. This would, firstly, require them to be in a position where they can be held responsible for what took place within the framework of The Pirate Bay’s operations. Secondly, their intent must cover all the objective circumstances on which the offences are based.""The examination of the defendants, the letters from rightsholders published on the website, The Pirate Bay, and the e-mail correspondence indicating that the operation involved pirate copying make it clear that the defendants have been aware that copyrightprotected works were available via the website, and were shared via the tracker embeddedwithin the framework of The Pirate Bay’s operation. Despite this knowledge, they have elected to take no action to prevent the infringement of copyright. Based on their positions in relation to the filesharing service, The Pirate Bay, they have, in the opinion of the District Court, together and in collusion knowingly aided and abetted infringements of the Copyright Act by the individual users.""It has been confirmed that the operation of The Pirate Bay has generated advertising revenue which, during the period indicated in the indictment, has amounted to at least SEK 1,200,000. On this basis alone, the District Court can conclude that the operation was carried on as a commercial project. This conclusion is confirmed by the correspondence between the defendants and the fact that the defendants have investigated and discussed various corporate 59 forms which may have been applicable to the continued operation of The Pirate Bay."
