The Canadian Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Today, the defence lawyers summed up. It was a short trial and not a particularly merry one, but it could have far-reaching effects Today was the last scheduled in the Pirate Bay trial, and the four defence lawyers made their closing statements. They all presented much the same points, the main ones being that the Pirate Bay site didn't hold any copyright films or music -- it merely acted as a search engine -- and that no copyrighted content passed through it anyway. The prosecution had failed to produce any uploaders or downloaders, and had not shown their actions were illegal where they happened to live. Fredrik Neij's lawyer, Jonas Nilsson, said that the prosecution had not established that most of the links on the Pirate Bay were to copyright material, but linking to copyright material wasn't specific to Pirate Bay, it was an internet-wide problem. Then there were the financial issues. The prosecution appears to have an exaggerated view of how much money the site made (millions!), and an even more generous view of how much had been lost in the cases presented in evidence (more millions). Gottfrid Svartholm's lawyer, Ola Salomonsson, said there were only four adverts on Pirate Bay, not the 64 the prosecution claimed, so the revenue was closer to 725,000 kronor (?55,846, ?62,510, $78,655). That was less than the site's running costs of 800,000 kronor. As for damages of 117 million kronor (?9m, ?10.1m, $12.7m), witness Roger Wallis had testified that the content industries benefited from file-sharing. Peter Sunde's lawyer, Peter Althin, said he personal attacks on Wallis were "pathetic". As or Sunde, he was just a spokesman for the site and hadn't done anything illegal. Carl Lundstr?m's lawyer, Per E Samuelson, said (to quote TorrentFreak's summary) that when new technology appears it can be difficult to "see the wood for the trees". He said that just because something may have been used by people for illicit purposes, should that mean that there should be an attack on the infrastructure as a result? It's like taking legal action against car manufacturers for the problems experienced on the roads, he said. As for Lundstr?m, he "didn't own the site, nor was he involved in maintaining or coding it." He was just a "businessman who is only vaguely connected to TPB [via] one of his customers (PRQ)," TorrentFreak reported. The prosecution didn't enhance its reputation during the case, but as Wired pointed out in an editorial, perhaps the defendants didn't, either. Their previous "swagger evaporated like salt water on a beached schooner once The Pirate Bay landed on the witness stand." Wired said: In the courtroom, the defendants quickly abandoned their revolutionary, free-culture ideals in favor of the simpler philosophy embraced by criminal defendants since time immemorial: I'm Not Responsible. Outside the courtroom, "Peter Sunde expressed confidence that The Pirate Bay would win the case," reports Ars Technica. "A guilty verdict would 'be a huge mistake for the future of the Internet,' he said. 'It's quite obvious which side is the good side'." It's equally obvious to the record industry, of course, which sees sites like Pirate Bay destroying the commercial music business. In its report, Billboard quotes Kjell-?ke Hamr?n, chairman of SMFF, the Swedish Music Publishers Association: "Without compensation the creators' livelihood is unsustainable. It is therefore of utmost importance that licensing schemes and new legal services can emerge in the digital environment, while at the same time legislation says firmly no to grand scale businesses that are built on copyright infringement." The verdict is due on April 17. Source: guardian.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Warwagon MVC Posted March 4, 2009 MVC Share Posted March 4, 2009 I don't see how they could ever be convicted. yes they allow for the distribution of mostly illegal material, but NONE of the actually illegal material has anything to do with them, the files are no where on their server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shokus Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 They are drawing parallels between themselves and Google, in that they are merely a search engine and not a site that actually hosts, provides or distributes the copyrighted material. Pretty smart move there, and one that could actually hold legal weight. Meanwhile, the other side hasn't exactly done their homework. So... it would be interesting what the outcome would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoLiMiT06 Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 They do nothing different that google... Type in the album, game, or movie that you want and you are almost always gonna find somewhere to download it. Example... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=r...mp;aq=f&oq= they do nothing more illegal than google does... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt4pack Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 They do nothing different that google... Type in the album, game, or movie that you want and you are almost always gonna find somewhere to download it. Example... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=r...mp;aq=f&oq= they do nothing more illegal than google does... Well maybe they should have chosen a different name for the site instead of pirate bay. Using that name doesn't exactly show that they had innocent intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C_Guy Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Oh please. We all know that Google (among other, better, search engines) has a tremendous range of uses. We also know that 99.9% of the functionality of TPB is to facilitate illegal file exchange. That's the difference. The fact that TPB doesn't hold or distribute files itself is completely irrelevant. It's primary purpose is to support illegal file exchange. Neither side is disagreeing with that. As I've said before, if they honestly thought their precious service was legal they wouldn't be trying to avoid the law on technicalities now would they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePitt Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 I wonder if they will be persecuted every year now but with differents charges... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 The fact that TPB doesn't hold or distribute files itself is completely irrelevant. It's primary purpose is to support illegal file exchange. Neither side is disagreeing with that. Actually, that's the most relevant fact about the entire case. Linking to the files is NOT ILLEGAL in Sweden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹ Posted March 4, 2009 Subscriber¹ Share Posted March 4, 2009 Oh please. We all know that Google (among other, better, search engines) has a tremendous range of uses. We also know that 99.9% of the functionality of TPB is to facilitate illegal file exchange. That's the difference.The fact that TPB doesn't hold or distribute files itself is completely irrelevant. It's primary purpose is to support illegal file exchange. Neither side is disagreeing with that. As I've said before, if they honestly thought their precious service was legal they wouldn't be trying to avoid the law on technicalities now would they? According to an internal audit, only 20% of torrent files uploaded were copyrighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Canadian Posted March 4, 2009 Author Share Posted March 4, 2009 Oh please. We all know that Google (among other, better, search engines) has a tremendous range of uses. We also know that 99.9% of the functionality of TPB is to facilitate illegal file exchange. That's the difference.The fact that TPB doesn't hold or distribute files itself is completely irrelevant. It's primary purpose is to support illegal file exchange. Neither side is disagreeing with that. As I've said before, if they honestly thought their precious service was legal they wouldn't be trying to avoid the law on technicalities now would they? Whatever, you don't see them bringing any other torrent site to court over the same thing...there's a whole lot more going on here than meets the eye; don't you think the EU themselves would get involved to bring the other torrent sites in Europe to court?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrChainsaw Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 TPB will live! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Spork) Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Actually, that's the most relevant fact about the entire case. Linking to the files is NOT ILLEGAL in Sweden. DING ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironsight2000 Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 if cassette sharing where illegal back in the early 80's most of the bands like metallica,acdc would not be as popular as they are to day. torrents are the modern day version of tape sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phot0nic Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 99.9% of the functionality of TPB is to facilitate illegal file exchange. Oh, quit pulling numbers out of your ass. There are loads of free, uncopyrighted material available on the torrent network, which TPB indexes. It's because of this type of ignorance that big businesses are going after TPB and Bittorrent. It's disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PermaSt0ne Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) Well maybe they should have chosen a different name for the site instead of pirate bay. Using that name doesn't exactly show that they had innocent intentions. i'm going to charge you for murder as i can only assume from your name your all for cutting up people and packing them in suitcases.....sorry but the law works on facts, not bias. the fact the site name is something you personally don't like does not make it illegal Oh please. We all know that Google (among other, better, search engines) has a tremendous range of uses. We also know that 99.9% of the functionality of TPB is to facilitate illegal file exchange. That's the difference.The fact that TPB doesn't hold or distribute files itself is completely irrelevant. It's primary purpose is to support illegal file exchange. Neither side is disagreeing with that. As I've said before, if they honestly thought their precious service was legal they wouldn't be trying to avoid the law on technicalities now would they? first, like hitchhicker said stop pulling numbers out of your arse. and there is no difference. they are exactly the same. the only diference would be "morally" which is completely subjective and has no place in a court of law. second, it's primary purpose is a forum where people can post and share stuff that they find interesting or worth sharing with the world. it doesn't have any rules saying you must post illegal content and nobody is being forced to do anything illegal, so claiming that it's main purpose is to do something illegal is completely false. just because some people might choose to upload a torrent (which isn't illegal) that can be used under the right circumstances to obtain copyrighted material, doesn't mean that TPB is doing anything illegal. TPB filters what the law requires it to filter, nothing more, nothing less. third, and i can't believe i have to ask this, you are seriously complaining that TPB can't be shut down just because the RIAA says so? technicalities are what define what is and isn't legal. i can't believe you just complained that TPB is using the law for protection. THAT'S WHAT LAWS EXIST FOR you complain when TPB points out there is no law against what they are doing, but you don't complain when the RIAA, IFPI, and all other associated parties completely ignore what the law says and try to get TPB shut down with zero evidence and zero laws to support them. you're complaining that the law doesn't cave when big companies throw temper-tantrums like a 5 year old. wow, that's very mature and objective of you :rolleyes: Edited March 5, 2009 by PermaSt0ne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted March 5, 2009 Member Share Posted March 5, 2009 I believe they will be found innocent because if they are found guilty it will affect all the major search engines, and there is too much money involved for anyone to allow that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spader Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Why cant the RIAA and others realize that they hold weight in the US only and not in other countries? The laws of the US do not stretch worldwide. I think there are people in these organizations who are just after money...and will any of it get put back to the artists if they happen to win? Bet your arse it wont! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted March 5, 2009 Member Share Posted March 5, 2009 No, the artist won't receive a penny of the money. The record labels will, however, and with that money those big, fat executives can buy yet another private plane or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcdefg Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I think there are people in these organizations who are just after money... Really? ;) "Sony is going to take aggressive steps to stop this. We will develop technology that transcends the individual user. We will firewall Napster at source - we will block it at your cable company, we will block it at your phone company, we will block it at your [iSP]. We will firewall it at your PC. These strategies are being aggressively pursued because there is simply too much at stake. The [music] industry will take whatever steps it needs to protect itself and protect its revenue streams. -Steve Heckler , senior vice president of Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. Year was 2000. Nice guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyLarry Veteran Posted March 5, 2009 Veteran Share Posted March 5, 2009 if cassette sharing where illegal back in the early 80's most of the bands like metallica,acdc would not be as popular as they are to day. torrents are the modern day version of tape sharing. I have always said this. When I was young, one of the happiest days of my childhood was the Christmas I got my first Boombox that had Dual Cassettes so I could play one and record it with the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fhpuqrgrpgvirzhpujbj Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Why does anyone bother making a big deal out of this? TPB can't lose, there's no point arguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas-c Veteran Posted March 5, 2009 Veteran Share Posted March 5, 2009 I thought the prosocution stopped the "You ownz all the copyrighted stuff" after 2/3 days ? ^^ TPB can lose... You forget... The general public are morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ba'al Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Why does anyone bother making a big deal out of this? TPB can't lose, there's no point arguing. Exactly :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PermaSt0ne Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Why does anyone bother making a big deal out of this? TPB can't lose, there's no point arguing. because they can loose, and if they do it will have a major impact on the torrent world. well, the public one anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironsight2000 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I have always said this. When I was young, one of the happiest days of my childhood was the Christmas I got my first Boombox that had Dual Cassettes so I could play one and record it with the other side. the RIAA needs to get this throught theres skull Torrent is the new age way of tape sharing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts