What Comes After The Pirate Bay Is A Lot More Important Than Whether It's Up Or Down

from the what-comes-next dept

As noted, a police raid in Sweden took down The Pirate Bay yesterday and that's getting lots of attention. In addition, Peter Sunde, the former spokesperson for the site, is getting plenty of attention for a blog post he wrote in which he notes that he's happy it's down and he hopes it stays down forever. Lots of news sites are picking up on this, but everyone's focusing on Sunde talking about being happy the site is down and complaining about The Pirate Bay. But that's not new. Sunde's been saying that for years. We quoted him saying the same thing more than four years ago.

What's much more interesting, but apparently less headline-grabbing is the larger point that Sunde is making, which is that as bad as The Pirate Bay has gotten, what comes next is much more important. As he noted four years ago, and again yesterday, TPB basically became complacent and failed to innovate:

TPB has become an institution that people just expected to be there. Noone willing to take the technology further. The site was ugly, full of bugs, old code and old design. It never changed except for one thing – the ads. More and more ads was filling the site, and somehow when it felt unimaginable to make these ads more distasteful they somehow ended up even worse.

Rather, it's what comes next that's important:

But from the immense void that will now fill up the fiber cables all over the world, I’m pretty sure the next thing will pan out. And hopefully it has no ads for porn or viagra. There’s already other services for that.

I'd go further than that. It's not about the ads, but what the new technology will enable. For years, TPB has been more of a symbol of things, rather than an actual "thing." It's a product of the last decade that really showed where the world could go in the wake of Napster being killed. The world doesn't need that any more. It needs something that takes culture, free speech and the like further. There are plenty of folks attempting things, but it's high time that "the next big thing" really takes off.

Filed Under: peter sunde
Companies: the pirate bay

Hollywood Insiders: Directors, Actors, Producers, Camera People And More Demand Peter Sunde Be Freed & Treated With Dignity

from the total-overreaction dept

While we've written plenty about Peter Sunde, the former spokesperson for The Pirate Bay, we didn't cover his eventual jailing earlier this year. Given all the coverage of his trial and efforts post-trial to have the results revisited, the fact that he finally ended up going to jail didn't seem like much of a story. However, the way in which he's been treated in jail is simply inhumane. He's been put in the equivalent of a maximum security prison and basic requests for more humane treatment have been rejected. The latest outrage was that Peter's father recently passed away, and while prison officials have said they'll make arrangements for him to attend the funeral, he'll have to wear handcuffs. TorrentFreak says he'll have to wear handcuffs while carrying his father's coffin -- but from Peter's brother's quote, it seems clear that the prison officials were actually saying he can't even carry his father's coffin. The handcuff remark was just their way of saying "fuck you."

“But I will carry my father’s coffin,” Mats’ reports Peter as saying.

“You can not count on it,” the guards responded. “You will be wearing handcuffs.”

In response to this, a bunch of more open-minded Hollywood insiders, including actors, writers, directors, producers, camera people and others have quickly put together a video in support of Peter, asking that he be freed or, at the very least, treated with some dignity. The video was put together by Lexi Alexander, a Hollywood director who has gotten some attention in recent months for her outspoken criticism of the way traditional Hollywood has attacked the internet and file sharing in particular. Views like hers are not uncommon in Hollywood -- we frequently hear from insiders telling similar tales, including this one from an industry lawyer who talked about how those working in studios often encourage piracy for their own benefit. But, it's still rare for those in Hollywood to speak out about it, because of the prevailing view among the old guard.

TorrentFreak has some details about who's in this particular video (some chose to remain anonymous, while others agreed to go public), and it's interesting to see that one of the participants was a writer on Sons of Anarchy, since that show's creator has been one of the most outspoken (if extraordinarily confused) of the old guard, attacking anything online he doesn't like and blaming piracy for everything bad that's ever happened in the world.

That said, what still amazes me is that Peter is in this position at all. It seems to come from a sort of "file sharing tunnel vision" that some copyright maximalists have at times, in which all perspective and nuance goes out the window. They know they hate The Pirate Bay. They know that Peter was associated with the Pirate Bay, and thus they automatically assume that horrible things should happen to him. What amazed me throughout the whole situation was that if you actually stopped and looked at reality, Peter should never be in such a situation at all. To be honest, part of the problem may go back to Peter himself, as he never really seemed to take the trial against him that seriously -- and while the joking around and mocking of the trial while it was going on may have been fun at the time, it may have hurt the defense and actually further contributed to the tunnel vision against him. Those making the judgment could only see "these guys lack respect for authority" and thus they must have done something criminal.

But it's still difficult to see how anything Peter did was actually criminal in any way, shape, or form. He worked for a site that did not infringe on any copyrights directly, but acted as a conduit for people to share files, many of which were unauthorized, but plenty of which were also authorized. And he was the site's spokesperson. Yes, he mocked those who threatened and attacked the site, but that's just speaking freely. It's difficult to see how anything he did should be criminal at all, let alone deserving of many months in a maximum security prison reserved for violent offenders.

Anyone who's actually taken the time to get beyond the tunnel vision thinking of "Pirate Bay = Evil" kind of thinking, or looks past Peter's proclivity to mock authority (a useful trait), can clearly see that he's always been a very thoughtful, philosophical observer of humanity, technology and economics. For years, he's worked hard to help artists do more online, not to hurt them. Even at the Pirate Bay, he made efforts to help artists understand how to embrace it for their own benefit, and then later created and helped build Flattr as a tool to help creators make money. The idea that he's been treated as on par with a violent criminal is, frankly, disgusting.

Even if you absolutely hate The Pirate Bay and think it's the worst thing that's ever happened to the entertainment industry (a ridiculous view, but nonetheless...), the idea that the legal recourse against it should have been criminal, rather than civil charges, is mind-boggling. The idea that the site's spokesperson, who had little to do with the actual operations for the site should be criminally charged and convicted is equally ridiculous. And then the fact that he's treated at the same level as a violent criminal, and treated with such little respect and dignity concerning his own father's funeral is a travesty of justice. The lack of perspective from some who see piracy and think "lock him up and throw away the key" is immensely troubling.

Copyright should never be a criminal issue at all. The treatment of Peter Sunde just puts a massive, if terribly troubling, exclamation point on that statement.

Filed Under: copyright, criminal, hollywood, lexi alexander, peter sunde, prison
Companies: the pirate bay

Interesting Move: Peter Sunde, Of The Pirate Bay & Flattr To Run For EU Parliament

from the raising-visibility dept

The Pirate Party of Sweden famously got two MEPs elected to the European Parliament in its last election, and now in an interesting move, Peter Sunde -- probably best known as the former spokesperson for The Pirate Bay -- has announced that he'll be running for the European Parliament in Finland (he was apparently born in Sweden but his ancestry is Finnish). After the Pirate Bay -- which many people incorrectly assume is connected to The Pirate Party -- Sunde went on to found Flattr, a system (which we use here) that helps content creators make money.

I've discovered that people who have never met Peter tend to be very quick to jump to conclusions about him -- almost always entirely incorrect. Amusingly, when I first met him, a few years back in Berlin, he and I were sitting in "the green room" of a conference right before a panel that he was supposed to be on. All of the other panelists on his panel had entered the room and were discussing the panel across the room, without knowing that Peter was sitting right there talking to me. So they started talking about him, and someone explained that "the pirates now hate Peter, because he switched to the other side with Flattr." Of course, nothing is further from the truth. This was never about "sides" but about reality. Peter has always been incredibly focused on recognizing what reality is and trying to respond to reality -- rather than making up artificial boundaries and pretending a fake world must exist where it does not. I'm not sure how well that will play in actual political situations, but it would be great to see what would happen.

The one bit that surprises me, frankly, about the decision to do this via the Pirate Party is that, in the past, Peter has actually distanced himself from The Pirate Party in the past, saying that he preferred other parties, such as the Swedish Green Party. Either way, in my limited experience with him, Peter has always been one of the most perceptive and thoughtful commenters on the state of technology and its impact on society and culture. I've come away from our conversations feeling like I understood a lot more about the world than when the talks started. I recognize that for many who come with pre-conceived notions, it will be easy to try to dismiss him, but for those willing to take a chance and see what he actually has to say, there is tremendous value in hearing what he has to say -- and in a political world, it would be great to see what he could accomplish.

That said, there is the outstanding matter of the ruling against him -- and the fact that he's been sentenced to jail, though it's still never been made clear when or how he will be expected to serve that sentence. I would imagine that somehow, that issue would need to be clarified if his candidacy actually gets any real momentum.

Filed Under: eu parliament, finland, peter sunde, pirate party
Companies: flatter, the pirate bay

Rejection Of The Pirate Bay Founders' Appeal Sets Dangerous Precedent On Liability & Free Expression

from the not-a-good-ruling-at-all dept

As others have noted, the European Court of Human Rights has rejected appeals from two founders of The Pirate Bay, Peter Sunde and Fredrik Neij, of their conviction under Swedish law. The decision is worth reading in its entirety, in that it tries to lay out a "balanced" approach concerning freedom of expression against other rights, such as copyright, and appears to come down on the side of saying copyright is more important than freedom of expression. That seems like a dangerous outcome in a variety of ways.

The court quite readily admits that forcing Sunde and Neij to block content from being exchanged via TPB violates their free expression rights, but says that this is a legitimate restriction on such rights:

In the present case, the applicants put in place the means for others to impart and receive information within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. The Court considers that the actions taken by the applicants are afforded protection under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention and, consequently, the applicants' convictions interfered with their right to freedom of expression. Such interference breaches Article 10 unless it was "prescribed by law", pursued one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 10 § 2 and was "necessary in a democratic society" to attain such aim or aims.

They then look at whether or not the restriction of free expression was "prescribed by law" and conclude that it was, because it happened under the Copyright Act, and there was a "legitimate aim" behind the convictions. That's pretty broad, of course. It also looks at whether or not this restriction was "necessary in a democratic society," which is where it spends the most of its time.

The court seems heavily influenced by the fact that TPB did not remove torrents when asked to do so, despite no law requiring such actions. Furthermore, that sets a bizarre and dangerous precedent that just because someone "urges" you to remove content from an internet website or service, that you must do so or be held liable for it.

The part that troubles me most, however, is that the court more or less completely sidesteps the questions of secondary liability. While it mentions, a few times, that both Sunde and Neij have pointed out that TPB was just the service provider, and any actual infringement was done by users, it never properly addresses this issue, other than to suggest that secondary liability is perfectly reasonable. For those of us who have studied just how important protections for secondary liability are in promoting innovation, this suggests a very dangerous precedent for innovation in Europe. When service providers -- or even those who just worked on the platform -- are held directly liable for actions of their users, you create a very big chilling effect on other companies and services. While it may be more understandable for Neij, who worked directly on building and maintaining the site, Sunde's connection to the actual operations has always been remote. The EHCR reiterates the silly point that, among other things, Sunde "configured a load balancing service for TPB" as if that has anything to do with the overall operations of the site. While it does also talk about his minimal work in working with advertisers on the site, setting up a load balancer and advertising relationships are perfectly legitimate activities, and have nothing to do with any infringement that may have occurred on the site.

Having recently watched the documentary on the TPB trial, TPB AFK (and recognizing that it likely does not tell the full story in the short time frame allowed in a documentary flick), you begin to recognize that there is something of a language and technology literacy gap between those prosecuting the TPB founders and the founders themselves, and, if anything, I think that contributes to the situation the founders are in now. Many of their explanations make perfect sense from a technology standpoint, and are completely obvious, normal things that any online service would do. But, the founders seem to think that these things are so obvious and so non-troublesome that they don't appear to do a very good job of explaining them in ways that the court would understand. It's for that reason that I think the case has not gone that well for the founders. It often appears that they assume that those who are judging them (and prosecuting them) have a level of technological literacy and sophistication that they do not have. There would be ways to dumb down the arguments for why they should be protected under secondary liability theories, but it almost appears that the founders believe that it is the responsibility of those in the court to understand the more sophisticated arguments. I can certainly understand where such a position comes from -- and it makes sense in an ideal world. But in the real world, where that sophistication is lacking, the TPB founders glib explanations for the actions taken come off as semantics and rationalizations, rather than a compelling judicial argument. That is unfortunate, because the end result is a decision like the one today.

Filed Under: copyright, ehcr, eu court of human rights, europe, frederik neij, free expression, peter sunde, secondary liability
Companies: the pirate bay

Minecraft Creator Stops By Pirate Bay Co-Founder's Reddit AMA To Thank Him For 'Making The World A Better Place'

from the reddit:-making-the-impossibly-cool-seem-almost-commonplace dept

A recent Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything, for the .005% of readers who aren't aware) featuring Peter Sunde, co-founder of the Pirate Bay, had a visitor drop by to pay his respects... and nearly derail the whole thing.

The perception of the Pirate Bay as a lawless infringement paradise makes it an unlikely entity for a software developer to be praising, even with a few reservations. But this is what Notch, the creator of Legos Minecraft, had to say when coming face-to-face with Peter Sunde.

How much money have I lost because of this? Do I need it? God knows I certainly work hard enough to deserve it. That said, thanks for making the world a better place.

Notch and TPB go way back, or at least Notch and piracy do. Minecraft has proven hugely successful for the developer (check out the "Do I need it?" link), much of that due to the sort of "rampant infringement" that makes Chris Dodd and Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot cry themselves to sleep at night (and craft terrible DRM strategies during the day). The difference between Notch and the aforementioned weeping sleepers is his refusal to equate piracy with either "theft" or "lost sales."

Piracy is not theft. If you steal a car, the original is lost. If you copy a game, there are simply more of them in the world.

There is no such thing as a 'lost sale'... Is a bad review a lost sale? What about a missed ship date?

Notch addressed the "lost sale" fallacy again, following up on a question from another Redditor.

Do you think the sales that you've made through pirate versions are worth the number of downloads? I know I bought the real Minecraft after testing it out via. pirate software, as I do with most worthwhile software.

This is an extremely interesting question. For a game like Minecraft, I definitely believe it's at least broken even because the game has quite a long lifespan and has viral aspects in that people enjoy sharing what they create in and with the game. More users means more talking about the game, which means more sales.

For other games, I think piracy can definitely negatively affect the total number of units sold. This is especially true for hollywood style big story heavy big productions that are only expected to sell well and stay in the public conscience for a few months. That still doesn't mean anyone has actually LOST any money, as a bad review also can affect the total number of sales, and hopefully nobody thinks it would be sane to sue magazines for "loss of profit" over bad reviews.

And for a few games where there's a per-user cost, piracy can definitely be directly harmful to the company.

As Notch states, no one's suing magazines for bad reviews... yet. And that day may never come, especially if a convenient scapegoat like "piracy" can be asked to shoulder the blame for lousy sales. As for the statement about per-user cost, Notch is referring to ProjectZomboid, which was taken down, not because of piracy itself, but because of a glitch in the program that downloaded the entire game from Zomboid's cloud server any time the player clicked the "Update Now" button, racking up bandwidth charges for the developers. Unlike a torrent, where the delivery cost is footed by every user, Zomboid was footing the bill for bandwidth on its own. Not your usual "taken down because of rampant piracy" situation.

And then there's his response to a Redditor's simple "I'm sorry."

For what? Pirating the game?

I strongly believe individual rights are much more important than corporate rights, and I consider piracy to be an extremely minor offense. It's less harmful than jaywalking.

Organized and business run copyright infringement where people try to make money of someone else's work is a problem, but people sharing stuff casually is just barely even worth talking about...

This is the part that is often overlooked when the usual suspects begin decrying piracy. They choose to conflate it with counterfeit goods, child pornography, drug trafficking, terrorism... whatever it takes to make individual, non-commercial file sharing look like criminal behavior.

Thousands of individuals sharing stuff they like adds up. But attempts to place this behavior in the same basket as commercial enterprises that sell pirated content just make the person doing the basket-loading look ridiculous. As Notch says, casual file sharing is "barely worth talking about." This sort of behavior has gone on since the day of cassettes (for music and software) and isn't going away anytime soon.

By taking a more pragmatic approach to infringement, creators may find that an entity like The Pirate Bay isn't the enemy -- or at least, not the only one or even the worst one. Attacking The Pirate Bay also attacks its users, and its users are people you want on your side, not fighting against you. Notch sees both the upside and downside of free (and uncompensated) distribution and his solution has been to craft something that people want to pay for, even after they've already picked it up for free. Part of that profitable equation is an awesome product. The other part is simply being awesome -- something that's much easier to do when you're not painting potential customers as freeloading pirates.

(This really was Peter Sunde's AMA, so I'm going to give him the last word with this particularly hilarious response to a somewhat loaded question.)


Leeches: you have been served.

Filed Under: brokep, markus persson, minecraft, notch, peter sunde
Companies: mojang, the pirate bay

Did The US & Sweden Team Up To Get Cambodia To Arrest The Pirate Bay Founder... About Something Unrelated To TPB?

from the wouldn't-put-it-past-them dept

Over the weekend, when the news broke that Gottfrid Svartholm, the founder of The Pirate Bay, had been arrested in Cambodia, I didn't think too much of it. It was well known that he was in that part of the world, and you had to figure that sooner or later he'd be tracked down. Despite claims that he was too ill to show up for the appeal of The Pirate Bay trial in Sweden, many questioned if he was just hiding out in southeast Asia to avoid any potential jail time. Over the past few days, some additional info has come out that is certainly raising eyebrows, even if the evidence is circumstantial. And the biggest bit of news may be that his arrest might not even be about The Pirate Bay.

Either way, let's start with the basics. First, Cambodia has admitted that it will be deporting Svartholm, even though there's no extradition treaty between Cambodia and Sweden. Of course, deportation and extradition are not the same thing, and you don't need an extradition treaty to deport someone. But it is still notable.

But then there are two bits of news that seem like quite the coincidence. First up: Ron Kirk, the US Trade Rep, and the main US government official responsible for ACTA and the TPP... just happened to be in Cambodia the very day that Svartholdm was arrested... and, the very next day, Sweden just happened to announce a $59 million "aid package" with Cambodia. Is it any wonder that some are asking if Sweden basically paid Cambodia to arrest Svartholm... and if the US had a helping hand in all of this?

At this point, it certainly could all be a coincidence -- which is the direction I tend to lean for the time being -- but it is quite a coincidence. We already know that the US government has been heavily involved in getting Sweden to put The Pirate Bay on trial. In fact, the US's deep involvement in Swedish copyright laws and policies has been a source of friction with some Swedish officials. Furthermore, Ron Kirk's entire role is about negotiating agreements and treaties between countries -- so the fact that a Swedish/Cambodia deal came together just as he was in the country? It certainly wouldn't be shocking to find out that he had a hand in making the deal happen.

But, let's add in one more bit of info. Svartholm's fellow TPB'er Peter Sunde is claiming that the arrest is not related to The Pirate Bay, though other reports claim otherwise. Some other friends are also insisting that it's not related to TPB, though I will admit to being skeptical. More surprising, perhaps, is Sunde's suggestion that the arrest may actually have more to do with Wikileaks, which Svartholm's company used to host, rather than The Pirate Bay... Of course, if that's the case, it doesn't discount the involvement of the US or Sweden (and might only reinforce it). Though it does add an element of... oddity to the whole situation.

Of course, even if the arrest is about something else, if he does end up being shipped back to Sweden, the TPB issue won't just go away. And it's likely that whoever is involved -- whether it's these other two governments or not -- recognizes that as well.

Update: TorrentFreak is now reporting that the arrest is about a tax hack:

Svartholm’s arrest is related to a hacking operation that may date back to 2010.

The hack targeted Swedish IT company Logica, which supplies services to the Swedish tax office. Earlier this year the hack made the headlines when the tax numbers of 9,000 Swedes leaked online.

Filed Under: arrested, cambodia, gottfrid svartholm, peter sunde, sweden, us
Companies: the pirate bay, wikileaks

Is A Petition Calling For A Pardon Of The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde 'Offensive'?

from the really-now? dept

This is a little strange. We recently wrote about Peter Sunde's request for a pardon in which he lays out a fairly compelling argument for how the Swedish judicial system was railroaded into convicting him. Soon after that, a petition appeared on the site Avaaz in support of Sunde's request, with the idea being that if it obtained enough signatures, it would be delivered to the Swedish government. Avaaz was actually a very big player in the fight against SOPA, helping to stir up international interest against the bill late last year. But in a somewhat surprising move, as pointed out by TorrentFreak, the site has emailed users asking them if they find the Sunde petition "offensive, inflammatory or otherwise objectionable," in which case they may pull it down.

As TorrentFreak notes, this is odd for a variety of reasons. Beyond it being strange that anyone would think that a plea for a pardon is "offensive, inflammatory or otherwise objectionable," the petition site on Avaaz appears to have plenty of things that would be much more likely to cause offense to some people. TorrentFreak reasonably wonders why, of all the petitions on Avaaz, did it happen to pick out the Sunde one?

But I'd argue it goes even further than that. Why should Avaaz even be asking if petitions are "offensive, inflammatory or otherwise objectionable"? If someone posts such a petition, wouldn't it take care of itself by the fact that people won't sign it? Trying to pre-determine if a petition is acceptable seems to go against the very setup of an open petition site like Avaaz's.

Filed Under: pardon, peter sunde, petition, sweden
Companies: avaaz, the pirate bay

Peter Sunde, The Pirate Bay Spokesperson, Details Why His Conviction Was A Farce

from the convicted-for-doing-what-now? dept

Last week, I noticed that former Pirate Bay spokesperson Peter Sunde had posted the letter that he sent to the Swedish Administration as part of his plea to be pardoned. It was written in Swedish, and I wasn't comfortable that the Google translation was accurate enough. Thankfully, however, Rick Falkvinge has posted a full translation in English. Many of the points Sunde raises came out during the trial, but the key points -- on why he didn't actually do the things he was convicted of -- were new to me, and should concern anyone who actually believes in the rule of law and an impartial judicial system.

The serious conflicts of interests of many involved in the case have been covered before. The fact that the lead prosecutor was hired by the entertainment industry while he was still prosecuting the case, remains an astounding point that should have resulted in a clear mistrial. That multiple judges had strong connections to copyright maximalist groups or even competitors to The Pirate Bay should also be of great concern. However, even if we ignore all of that, Sunde's detailed explanation for his conviction is really quite incredible. He notes that he was specifically convicted of three things... which he did not do. Remember, Peter's role was as that of a spokesperson. He did not actually work on the technology of the site at all, but the prosecution needed to show that he did -- so Peter accuses them of concocting a story about how he set up a "load balancer" for the site, because he admitted that he knew what a load balancer was. However, as Peter notes (1) he did not set up a load balancer, (2) the server in question was put there by someone unrelated to The Pirate Bay and (3) it was never connected to the internet anyway. And yet he was still convicted because of it.

Among other things, I’m supposed to have installed a computer that operated as a so-called load balancer – a computer that makes it possible to distribute the workload of big web services among different computers. It reads clear as day in the Appeals Court verdict that I’m responsible for configuring this computer. Such a computer did indeed exist in one of the racks that The Pirate Bay was located in. On the other hand, it wasn’t connected with a single wire or cable in any way. Some computers have been investigated at the National Forensic Laboratory (Statens Kriminaltekniska Laboratorium). Some computers have been combed for details. In some cases, the prosecutor has called owners of computers to ask them if they want to press charges of electronic trespassing against Gottfrid Svartholm, as they found that he has had access to computers. Computers he has been maintaining for clients. The computer I’m supposed to have been responsible for isn’t mentioned with a single line of text, except in the seizing protocol from the raid. I cannot find the configuration I’ve been convicted of creating. The configuration I have created, beyond reasonable doubt, according to the Swedish Appeals Court. The configuration I can say with 100% certainty would have proven that this computer had never been used for The Pirate Bay. The owner had placed it in the rack by themselves just a few weeks prior to the raid.

During the Appeals Court proceedings, prosecutor Hakan Roswall confirmed my story of this, that this machine had never been used in the operations of The Pirate Bay. Therefore, my lawyer put no energy into bringing it up in his final statement. And yet, Roswall said after this, that I had been responsible for it. And in the end, I was convicted because of it. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere that this computer has been in use, not for anything at all

I know that some who dislike The Pirate Bay won't care about the specifics here. They'll argue that the site itself is pure evil, and he was deservedly convicted. I think that, if you agree with the court's basic reasoning for the convictions, you might be able to make a credible case against the two actual founders of the site who ran it. But Peter wasn't one of those guys. He was just "the spokesperson," and it appears that he got railroaded here, based on a very questionable use of the law.

Of course, he admits that it's unlikely his plea will work, and he fully expects to spend some time in jail. However, as for the fine that's been levied against him, he notes that the 11 million euros he will owe is "fantasy numbers" that he knows is unpayable, meaning that he's likely to be effectively banished from Sweden, noting that "this debt is equivalent to exile, to deportation."

Separately, Peter posted a much shorter blog post, which I'm trusting the Google translation feature on -- so I warn you that accuracy may be slightly sketchy. In it, Peter notes that the prosecution has effectively admitted that he didn't actually do the stuff he was convicted of, but claims that doesn't change his responsibility. Seriously. Here's the rough automated translation:

That the work of the Court of Appeal found Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi begun in late 2005 may not have resulted in actual service until the time of the raid against TPB, does not affect the responsibility of the act for which Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi convicted.

In other words, he didn't provide the actual services he was convicted of, but that doesn't make him any less responsible for the things he didn't actually do. Swedish justice in action.

Filed Under: conflict of interest, peter sunde, plea, sweden
Companies: the pirate bay

The Pirate Bay's Peter Sunde Questions Why We Let Dying Industries Dictate Terms Of Democracy

from the seems-like-a-reasonable-question dept

Peter Sunde, a very thoughtful and insightful guy, who's been completely demonized by the entertainment industry for his role with The Pirate Bay, has written up an interesting piece for Wired UK where he not only goes over highly questionable issues related to his conviction, but raises a larger question about why we, as a society, allow one obsolete industry to have so much power in government and policy issues. The connections between those involved in his prosecution and the entertainment industry are simply too numerous to be fair:

The Swedish prosecutor sent out a memo in 2006 saying that TPB wasn't guilty of "main" crimes -- at best it aids and abets (he also mentioned that the people running TPB were very clever). But Hollywood was not happy with this and forced the Swedish Minister of Justice to visit the White House and talk about it. The United States told Sweden that if they didn't get rid of the site, they would not be allowed to trade with the US!

The minister (illegally) told the prosecutor what had happened which forced him to raid TPB -- only a few weeks after sending out that memo about how legal it was.

Evidently, Warner Brothers felt that the investigation was taking too long. The studio contacted the police officer in charge of the investigation (one person that worked mostly by himself) and before I had even been questioned by him, he interviewed for a job with Warner Brothers.

When we found out he'd been hired (by him changing his employer from "Polisen" to "Warner Bros" on Facebook) the reply we got was that it was proof that Swedish IT police are of such high caliber that even the big US companies would hire them.

I got promoted from "witness" to "suspect" a week after the job was promised.

During the trial it turned out that the judge was the chairman for the Swedish pro-copyright society, one lay judge ran a record company, another one was formerly the chairman for the songwriter lobby organisation. I could go on.

It's stories like this that raise significant questions about the prosecution. Even if you believe that Sunde was guilty of what he was charged with, I would think you should be able to admit that the list of things above should not have happened under any circumstance. When you read that... and then realize that the guy leading the prosecution against Megaupload for the US DOJ used to work for the industry as an "anti-piracy" exec -- you see the same pattern happening again and again. People who have too close connections to industry are making decisions on these issues designed to protect their industries, rather than looking at the actual impact on society and the economy. That's a pretty big problem, and shows how "regulatory capture" can sometimes become "judicial capture" as well.

Filed Under: communications, corruption, democracy, peter sunde, sweden, technology
Companies: the pirate bay

Supreme Court Denies Appeal For The Pirate Bay Founders

from the jail-time-may-be-imminent dept

Despite significant questions raised on some of the specifics of the lower court's ruling against the folks behind The Pirate Bay, the Swedish Supreme Court announced today that it would not hear the appeal in the case. In theory, this means that the four individuals may face jail time pretty soon -- though, as Torrentfreak notes, it's pretty standard in Sweden for cases that have gone on this long to take 12 months off of the sentences, which might mean no actual jail time. One of those still facing jail time, Peter Sunde, who has since gone on to create Flattr (a service that has helped many, many content creators -- including us at Techdirt -- make lots of money), has written up a post highlighting just how questionable the entire process has been:

We’re not surprised by this. The previous court cases has been filled of corruption. From having the minister of justice pressured by the US to illegally make a case of TPB, through the police officer responsible for the investigation (Jim Keyzer) “just happened” to get a job at Warner Brothers the weeks before I myself got promoted from a witness to a suspect, to the judges in the court cases being either board members, or in one case the actual chairman of the board, for the swedish pro-copyright society, it was clear to us that the supreme court – where many of the judges make a lot of money on their own copyrights – would be hard to persuade to take the case. Even though most of the public would want the case tested there. Even though it’s one of the most important cases for all of the EU.

Another view worth reading comes from my friend Martin Thornkvist, who is from Sweden, and ran a record label in Sweden and has worked with a bunch of Swedish artists. You might think he'd be against The Pirate Bay, but he's quite upset about this ruling, noting that it makes him both sad and angry. He points out that it makes him sad, because the entertainment industry is still fighting their fans. He notes that when they stop fighting their fans -- as the record labels finally realized with Spotify -- piracy almost disappears. Though he also points out that without The Pirate Bay, Spotify almost certainly would not have existed. And that's the part that makes him angry. Despite helping to push the world forward, the thanks they get is jail time:

I’m angry because the founders of The Pirate Bay don't get the recognition they deserve. For pushing the development of new services further and forcing the media industries to distribute their content in a manner that people want, (ie not plastic discs and windows policies).

Meanwhile, the site itself has moved to a .se domain, assuming that the US government is likely to seize their .org before too long. Because, you know, that'll really stop file sharing...

Filed Under: appeals, copyright, corruption, peter sunde, sweden
Companies: the pirate bay