The Pirate Bay vs Them: Day Nine
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- The day of the big torrent site may be done, the future resting in meta-searches, says Gothenburg University’s Kristoffer Schollin.
He’s quoted by TorrentFreak’s enigmax, who’s continuing his The Pirate Bay vs the Entertainment Cartels coverage.
Yesterday, entertainment industry insiders explained how piracy caused their downfall, says enigmax.
But today, Schollin, a lecturer in IT law with a particular interest in file-sharing who’s written a paper on DRM, told the court TPB may not be the world’s largest tracker, “but it’s the most famous one, largely thanks to the media and thanks to the trial”.
Schollin noted trackers can operate behind the scenes, “not seen by the regular users” and, asked about the type of content indexed on TPB, “My God, everything,” he said, pointing out not only copyrighted, but also and copyright-free, material can be found. He also noted that because a .torrent is available on TPB, it doesn’t automatically follow the file uses TPB’s tracker.
He went on to explain how, in the creation stage, a .torrent file doesn’t even require a Net connection and that, once created, it’s uploaded and can then be indexed by such as Google, “which then allows anyone to access the .torrent via a Google search”.
In his TorrentFreak report, “Then it was Prosecutor HÃ¥kan Roswall’s turn to question Schollin,” says enigmax, continuing »»»
He put it to Schollin that kudos could be achieved in file-sharing circles if an individual put pre-release material up on the Internet, a point with which Schollin agreed.
[Swedish prosecutor HÃ¥kan] Roswall asked Schollin why he felt the TPB had grown so big and so popular. Schollin said that many users may feel that participation might be considered `cool’. The discussion again moved back to DHT (Distributed Hash Table) and then the court took a break.
On return, IFPI lawyer Peter Danowsky stepped up to question Kristoffer Schollin. He asked where Schollin’s interest in TPB began and he replied it started when there was lots of discussion about them on the Internet. Conversation moved to Schollin’s knowledge of TPB’s infamous `legal’ page and the ideology of some of its users.
Next up to question Schollin was Monique Wadsted, representing the movie companies. She asked Schollin if he had heard the rumor that 40% of the Internet’s traffic is down to TPB. Schollin said this was incorrect and it was more likely that they were responsible for 40% of all BitTorrent traffic. Wadsted then put it to Schollin that 50% of all the world’s .torrent files sit on TPB, and he denied this amount too, but recognized that there would be a significant number.
Schollin was then asked by the defense if he believed that TPB has a role in transmitting communications on the Internet. Schollin agreed it did. When asked if TPB might be considered a ’service provider’ under the law, he said that was for the court to decide.
Up next as a witness was Roger Wallace. Wallace is a media professor, composer and Chairman of the Swedish Composers of Popular Music and is involved in other outfits dedicated to the rights of musicians. However, Wallace previously said that he did not see the difference between TPB and other search engines such as Google and has criticized the music industry for being too slow adopting technology.
Speaking with Peter Altin, (Peter Sunde’s lawyer), Wallace said he specializes in developing the music industry on the Internet and because of this some have incorrectly drawn the assumption that he works for the industry – he doesn’t.
Wallace referred to a report he wrote which detailed the music industry’s approach to digital technology. He said there were elements who would do anything to smother it, referring to the backlash against cassette tapes in the 1970’s.
Altin asked Wallace if there is any connection between illicit downloads and lost sales in the music industry. Contradicting the opinion of John Kennedy of the IFPI in his testimony yesterday, Wallace said that downloading caused an increase in sales of live event tickets and although there has been a reduction in CD sales, this won’t continue.
Wallace went on to explain that while some people download, these people also tend to buy more CDs than others that don’t. It’s not just downloading causing competition for the industry, other things have an effect such as the growth of computer games, he said.
Wallace believes the music industry is shooting itself in the foot by going after file-sharers, for the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph. He said that on the whole, file-sharing is beneficial to the music and movie industries, pointing out that the movie industry just had its most successful year ever. But the music industry doesn’t help itself he argues. Anyone who has bought a Beatles single in the past, simply cannot buy the same single in the digital domain due to licensing issues. “This is madness,” he said.
Next up to question Wallace was Peter Danowsky, who immediately started to annoy him by questioning his credentials. Danowsky mused if Wallace was even a proper professor, while disputing the year when Wallace qualified as such, calling him into doubt and criticizing him. “Have you no better questions to ask?” Wallace replied, reportedly visibly annoyed.
With tempers starting to fray, the court took a break.
After the break media professor Roger Wallace was questioned by Henrik Pontén from Sweden’s Anti-Piracy Office. Pontén went on where Danowsky left off and asked the professor if he could elaborate a bit more on how he acquired his title. “Can you use Google? Wallace replied “Then you could easily find my CV,” he added, and the court agreed with his assessment that they have already been over this.
Pontén then showed some graphs from a study that showed that 18% of those who download copyrighted music buy less, while only 8% indicate to buy more. These figures cause some confusion in court, and Wallace responded by saying that these figures do not correspond with his findings. “I believe that it has no relevance,” Wallace added. The prosecution asks some more questions about the contradicting results of the other study, but Wallace doesn’t want to go into it.
When Wallace left the stand he was asked whether he wanted compensation for his appearance. “You are welcome to send some flowers to my wife,” he responded.
Stay tuned.
- The Pirate Bay trial, live and online - Day One
- The Pirate Bay vs Them: Day Two - Distributed Hash Tables
- The Pirate Bay vs Them: Day Three - `Small change`
- The Pirate Bay vs Them: Day Four - Neij`s turn
- The Pirate Bay vs Them: Day Five – TPB advertising deals
- The Pirate Bay vs Them: Day (six) Seven – Two-hour session
- The Pirate Bay vs Them: Day Eight - ‘Impossible to compete with free’
TorrentFreak – Pirate Bay Trial Day 9: BitTorrent Is Not Evil, February 26, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:46 am
I think Wallace was a big help against the **AA groups, what does anyone else think?
He helped to establish doubt in the **AA claims!
Can anyone with legal experience explain if this was helpful or not?
February 26th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Agreed.
Wallace is basically completely smashing the **AA’s bullshit claims. After this court case, the **AA will have no power whatsoever to bully the dutch countries at all.
Unfortunately, **AA will still be capable of bribing American judges, and having the judges prevent counter-arguments from being used against the **AA’s bullshit.
Wallace is a massive help in proving to the world that file-sharing is not piracy, but those countries that have corrupt governments won’t care.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Most real artists (not the corporate parasits who can not play an instrument can not read a score and can not put one verse together!) are not on the side of the industry for the sue them all and extortion operation.