The Pirate Bay and Megaupload scandals: Never forget.

Post Reply New Topic

The battle over The Pirate Bay has raged on ever since 2006 and led to convictions in both the district court and court of appeal. The case is principally interesting in many ways, yet the Supreme Court today decided not to try the Pirate Bay case.

- The Pirate Bay case is principally important and it's unfortunate that the Supreme Court chooses not to take up the case, says The Pirate Party's party leader Anna Troberg. The handling [of the case] has, already from the strike in May 2006, been insufficient, and it had been desireable that the Supreme Court would've approached the case.

The Pirate Bay case has, ever since the 31st of May, when fifty or so police officers stormed the web hotel PRQ and confiscated all servers - not just Pirate Bay's - been surrounded by questions. Prosecutors and courts have displayed an insufficient technical competence. One of the police's investigators wage negotiated with Warner - one of the parties in the case - in the middle of the ongoing investigation - and then got a position with Warner, right after the completion of the investigation. Cultural minister Lena Adelsohn-Liljeroth chose to support the first conviction, despite that the conviction had been appealed and the legal process therefore had not ended.

- There are many questions that need to be straightened out, both in and around this case, says Troberg. Due to the Supreme Court's decision, we will be sitting with many loose ends that will complicate in future cases of a similar sort. The intellectual property industry is mobilizing, and as of this decision, they will intensify their hunt for owners of torrent sites and individual file sharers.

Later today comes the verdict from Nacka district court against a man [who] has file shared sixty movies via, among others, The Pirate Bay. During that trial, it was clear that the prosecutor, despite him having the police's expert beside him, hadn't insight in how the ADSL technique works.

In three weeks, a trial also begins against the man who ran the torrent site Studentbay. Today's answer from the Supreme Court will affect this trial in every sense of the way.

Information:
Högsta Domstolen [the Supreme Court (www.hogstadomstolen.se)], 08-561 666 00

Would you kindly restate your claim in a somewhat more concise manner without spamming the thread into oblivion?

Let us say I have a sandwich. My friend is hungry and also wants a sandwich. I have a replicator with which I can create an exact copy of my sandwich which I could give to my friend. I am not claiming to have made the sandwich nor am I selling it for my own profit.
The concept is the same; file sharing is not theft.

Those whose products are shared digitally are foolish for thinking they can hope to make as much profit from their products as they have in the past (with analogue formats) with digital formats which can be copied easily with technology that anyone can obtain.

Let us say I have a sandwich. My friend is hungry and also wants a sandwich. I have a replicator with which I can create an exact copy of my sandwich which I could give to my friend. I am not claiming to have made the sandwich nor am I selling it for my own profit.
The concept is the same; file sharing is not theft.

Those whose products are shared digitally are foolish for thinking they can hope to make as much profit from their products as they have in the past (with analogue formats) with digital formats which can be copied easily with technology that anyone can obtain.

the same can be said in reverse,
does a shareholder with no personal investment to speak of hold the right to continously profit from the work of others?

much easier for there not be any laws regarding personal non profit use with an increased consequence if money is made on it, it is happening quite naturally anyway, [b]multiple a list bands are releasing albums for free digitally and then cash in on the "pay what you think its worth" system,[b] this also cuts out most of the dead wheight meaning that even if people only pay a third and only a third of all people that regularly use it actually pay at all, then it still means the band is better off finacnially than they were under the common copyright system of the physical world.