RealityKing
03-03-2009, 10:09 AM
Swedish prosecutor Håkan Roswall notes that the BitTorrent tracker site is not some sort of charity and estimates it earns some 11.6 million kronor per year.
Today was the day that prosecution in the trial against The Pirate Bay for facilitation of copyright infringement gave their closing arguments.
Swedish prosecutor Håkan Roswall began by arguing that even though the person actually committing copyright infringement resides abroad, the actual crime occurred in Sweden.
This proves that the prosecution doesn't know what it's talking about because that's simply not the case. The BitTorrent protocol means that pieces of data are collected from users connected to a swarm from all over the world and then reassembled on a person's PC. The only crime committed in Sweden, which it isn't under Swedish law, is, allowing users to communicate with another by downloading a non-copyrighted BitTorrent tracker file.
Roswall's answer to this is that "the effect of the crime is what's important, not the actual technology used."
“A person who is holding someone's coat while they assault someone else is complicit in the crime,” he told the court.
He went on to note that the real purpose of The Pirate Bay was to make money and aid in piracy, and that under Sweden's e-commerce law there is no immunity for the middleman.
Roswall is seeking one year prison terms for each of the four founders of The Pirate Bay.
"I believe that the correct punishment should be one year in prison and that is what I am requesting that the district court hand down in this case," he told the court.
Roswall initially estimated that the site raked in about 1.2 million kronor ($130,000 USD) per year, but now raises that amount, thanks to better calculations, to 11.6 million kronor ($1.2 million USD).
“And therefore The Pirate Bay isn’t some sort of charity operation. It’s a business,” he said.
Peter Danowsky, representing the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), then gave his closing arguments.
"What the defendants have done, with financial and strategic help being directed by Carl Lundstrom, is create a database available to anyone in the world allowing users to download copyright works through just a few clicks with no recompense to any rights holders," he said. "The defendants actively assisted and encouraged illegal actions and this should affect the compensation awarded to the plaintiffs."
Danowsky reiterated music industry claims that the damages sought should cover not only record sales lost to The Pirate Bay, but the loss of goodwill and other harm caused by file sharing.
He then called into question the expert testimony of Roger Wallis from the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), who argued that there are benefits to file sharing and that copyright as a system may have outlived its utility.
“Wallis’s 30% guest professorship at KTH provides about as much credibility as something on par with a newspaper editorial,” said Danowsky, adding that the court should give more weight to testimony by IFPI’s John Kennedy and Ludwig Werner who “know what they are talking about."
Too bad they know so much about The Pirate Bay, but so very little about how to sell music in the digital age.
The defense is scheduled to give its closing arguments tomorrow.
Stay tuned.
Today was the day that prosecution in the trial against The Pirate Bay for facilitation of copyright infringement gave their closing arguments.
Swedish prosecutor Håkan Roswall began by arguing that even though the person actually committing copyright infringement resides abroad, the actual crime occurred in Sweden.
This proves that the prosecution doesn't know what it's talking about because that's simply not the case. The BitTorrent protocol means that pieces of data are collected from users connected to a swarm from all over the world and then reassembled on a person's PC. The only crime committed in Sweden, which it isn't under Swedish law, is, allowing users to communicate with another by downloading a non-copyrighted BitTorrent tracker file.
Roswall's answer to this is that "the effect of the crime is what's important, not the actual technology used."
“A person who is holding someone's coat while they assault someone else is complicit in the crime,” he told the court.
He went on to note that the real purpose of The Pirate Bay was to make money and aid in piracy, and that under Sweden's e-commerce law there is no immunity for the middleman.
Roswall is seeking one year prison terms for each of the four founders of The Pirate Bay.
"I believe that the correct punishment should be one year in prison and that is what I am requesting that the district court hand down in this case," he told the court.
Roswall initially estimated that the site raked in about 1.2 million kronor ($130,000 USD) per year, but now raises that amount, thanks to better calculations, to 11.6 million kronor ($1.2 million USD).
“And therefore The Pirate Bay isn’t some sort of charity operation. It’s a business,” he said.
Peter Danowsky, representing the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), then gave his closing arguments.
"What the defendants have done, with financial and strategic help being directed by Carl Lundstrom, is create a database available to anyone in the world allowing users to download copyright works through just a few clicks with no recompense to any rights holders," he said. "The defendants actively assisted and encouraged illegal actions and this should affect the compensation awarded to the plaintiffs."
Danowsky reiterated music industry claims that the damages sought should cover not only record sales lost to The Pirate Bay, but the loss of goodwill and other harm caused by file sharing.
He then called into question the expert testimony of Roger Wallis from the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), who argued that there are benefits to file sharing and that copyright as a system may have outlived its utility.
“Wallis’s 30% guest professorship at KTH provides about as much credibility as something on par with a newspaper editorial,” said Danowsky, adding that the court should give more weight to testimony by IFPI’s John Kennedy and Ludwig Werner who “know what they are talking about."
Too bad they know so much about The Pirate Bay, but so very little about how to sell music in the digital age.
The defense is scheduled to give its closing arguments tomorrow.
Stay tuned.