p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- “Please note this translation was commissioned by IFPI and it has not been endorsed by the Stockholm District Court.”

That’s the rider at the top and bottom of a document released by Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music’s IFPI (International Federation of Pornographic Industry) giving chapter and verse on the recently concluded but, no one doubts, soon to be restarted, anti-P2P, anti-file sharing trial.

In it, the movie and music industries tried to keelhaul The Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi (top), Frederik Neij (left), Gottfrid Svartholm Warg (centre) and Carl Lundström who run a search site which operates very much along the lines of Google, except it’s specialised.

Proving they have absolutely no idea how to handle themselves in the 21st digital century, all Warner Bros, MGM, EMI, Colombia Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Sony BMG and Universal achieved was to:

• Make heroes out of TPB4;
• Indelibly illustrate the benefits of acquiring ‘product’ online; and,
• Line Google up for possible attacks as a facilitator of massive illegal online distribution.

According to the IFPI translation, the District Prosecutor indicted the four for alleged »»»

… complicity in breach of the Copyright Act (1960:729), since, jointly and in collusion with each other and another person, they had been responsible for the operation of the filesharing service The Pirate Bay and, through this, aided and abetted other individuals who, through transfer via the Internet of files containing certain named copyright-protected recordings of sound and moving pictures, as well as computer software (computer games), had made the recordings and software available to the general public on certain specified dates and, on a certain date, also aided and abetted others in the production of copies of the recordings and computer software. According to the District Prosecutor, the aiding and abetting referred to the fact that the defendants, through the filesharing service, provided others with the opportunity to upload torrent files to the service, provided others with a database linked to a catalogue of torrent files, provided the opportunity for others to search for and download torrent files and also provided the functionality with the assistance of which individuals wishing to share files with each other could contact each other through the filesharing service`s tracker function.

The District Prosecutor also alleged that the defendants were guilty of preparation for breach of the Copyright Act, during the period 1 July 2005 to 31 May 2006, in that, in connection with the operation and through the functionality of the filesharing service, in a specially prepared database with associated catalogue, they received and stored the torrent files which related to the copyright-protected rights and works. The torrent files were specifically intended to be used as an aid in breach of the Copyright Act.

But, the vaunted Hollywood and Big 4 record labels victory against The Pirate Bay is in fact Pyrrhic, said p2net, going on:

“Because despite corporate claims of a resounding triumph, repeated endlessly in the lamescream media, it’s not over yet.

“Not even nearly.”

In another post, “Sweden, already disgraced not only in the eyes of its citizens, but of the world,  by nakedly toadying to the corporate entertainment industry, now has another reason for shame,” we said, continuing:

“When the decision came down that a Swedish court had ruled against Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi, Frederik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, the people who run a .torrent search site called The Pirate Bay, and their supporter, ‘The corporate press corps doesn`t even blush at reporting a court case brought by the movie and music industries against four (4) people, whose combined incomes wouldn`t keep the cartels in coffee and donuts, as a triumph,’ said p2pnet.

“But we didn’t realise how right we were.

“In what has to be the biggest scandal yet, far from being impartial, the judge in the case is a member of pro-copyright groups, writes emigmax in TorrentFreak.

” ‘The copyright industry likes to have the outcome of processes clear before engaging them so it`s perhaps unsurprising that SR today revealed that the judge Tomas Norström (right) is in league with it on many fronts. The judge has several engagements – together with the prosecution lawyers for the movie and music industries, he says, going on to list organisations in which the entertainment cartel judge has interests in »»»

Swedish Association of Copyright (SFU) РThe judge Tomas Norstr̦m is a member of this discussion forum that holds seminars, debates and releases the Nordic Intellectual Property Law Review. Other members of this outfit? Henrik Pont̩n (Swedish Anti-Piracy Bureau), Monique Wadsted (movie industry lawyer) and Peter Danowsky (IFPI) Рthe latter is also a member of the board of the association.

Swedish Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (SFIR) РThe judge Tomas Norstr̦m sits on the board of this association that works for stronger copyright laws. Last year they held the Nordic Championships in Intellectual Property Rights Process Strategies.

.SE (The Internet Infrastructure Foundation) РTomas Norstr̦m works for the foundation that oversees the .se name domain and advises on domain name disputes. His colleague at the foundation? Monique Wadsted. Wadsted says she`s never met Norstr̦m although they have worked together. [NOTE: Wadsted is a lawyer who acted for the movie industry - Jon.]

Sunde’s lawyer, Peter Althin, immediately filed for a re-trial.

Below is a summary, a la the IFPI, of arguments put forward by The Pirate Bay defendants »»»

Fredrik Neij:
The filesharing service The Pirate Bay was not illegal, so no criminal complicity can be asserted simply on the basis that the service has been supplied with and provided information on torrent files. Nor is there any evidence that a principal offence has taken place.   The Pirate Bay has only used information on torrent files from Internet users without The Pirate Bay or any of its representatives having acquainted themselves with any copyright-protected material or actively referred to such material. The production of copies has taken place on the users’ computers without the recordings and computer programs covered by the indictment having passed through The Pirate Bay’s computers. He has not intentionally been complicit in the infringement of copyright in accordance with indictment count 1, since he has not been aware of the existence of the files specified in the count. It is the users of The Pirate Bay who have been responsible for the files they have supplied and shared with others. Fredrik Neij has agreed with the District Prosecutor’s allegation that The Pirate Bay is an Internet filesharing service which uses the BitTorrent protocol and that the service consists of three sub-components (indictment count 1, description of the act, first paragraph, first to third sentences). He has agreed that the operation of the service has, to some extent, been financed by advertising revenue. He has also agreed that, in accordance with the allegations, he has been involved in the operation of the filesharing service on the dates and from the locations specified in the description of the act (third paragraph). He has confirmed the District Prosecutor’s allegation that the filesharing service provided the opportunity for others to upload and store torrent files, for others to search for and download torrent files, and that the service had a tracker function which made it possible for individuals who wanted to share files to contact each other (description of the act, second-last paragraph), but has argued that this is a widely-used, conventional filesharing technology and should, therefore, not been regarded as aiding and abetting an infringement. Preparation for breach of the Copyright Act has not taken place for the same reasons cited in support of the fact that no complicity took place, and the torrent files have not been specifically dedicated to be used as an aid in the offences.

Gottfrid Svartholm Warg:
He has cited the same circumstances as Fredrik Neij in support for his denials. He has agreed that the tracker function which he created has resulted in a peer-to-peer network. He has also agreed that the filesharing service has, to some extent, been financed by advertising revenue, and that he has handled most of the operational aspects of the service (indictment count 1, description of the act, third paragraph). He has emphasised that he, jointly and in collusion with Fredrik Neij only not the other defendants has been responsible for the measures involved in the operation of the filesharing service. 18

Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi:
He has not jointly and in collusion with the other defendants been responsible for the measures involved in the operation of the filesharing service and, therefore, not provided the opportunities which facilitated filesharing from The Pirate Bay. He has, in addition, cited the same circumstances as Fredrik Neij in support of his denials.

Carl Lundström:
It is not an offence per se to provide a filesharing service which can be used for both legal and illegal purposes. The indictment refers to responsibility for collective complicity, which is not an offence covered by Swedish law. Carl Lundström who has not been involved with the website The Pirate Bay can only answer for his own actions. He has owned the companies Rix Telecom AB and Rix Port 80 AB. The companies have hired out computers and provided broadband space on market terms for the company PRQ Internet Kommanditbolag, which was the owner of the domain names associated with The  Pirate Bay’s website. The companies were paid by PRQ Internet for services provided, just as it is by the company’s other 50 100 customers. He has had no intention of committing an infringement of copyright. The purpose of the company’s contacts with the customer, PRQ Internet, was to earn money. The indictment for preparation for breach of the Copyright Act is not fully framed. In  addition, previous circumstances are cited in support for the denial of the indictment for preparation.  He has also cited the same circumstances put forward by Fredrik Neij in support of his denials.

Meanwhile, “in the wake of speculation that the verdict lays Google just as open to the charge of  ‘assisting making available copyrighted content’, the search giant began seeding a response through Marco Pancino, its European policy counsel,” notes The Guardian, adding:

” ‘To meet the needs of holders of intellectual property rights, Google has designed a set of procedures for reporting and removing the content on its search engine of copyright infringement,’ he wrote in Italian, continuing to explain that Google is like a highway on which people drive – and is not responsible for bad drivers.

“InformationWeek points out there is little distinction between the two as a search tool; advanced Google searches can search for Torrent file types – Pirate Bay would automatically search only those. Google might have systems in place to remove illegal material on its own hosted services, like YouTube, but it would be sabotaging its primary service if it started excluding links to specific files in its search results.

“That all sounds a bit too much like China.”

Definitely Stay tuned.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

tried to keelhaul – Sweden loses The Pirate Bay case, April 17, 2009
resounding triumph – Us versus Them, April 18, 2009
we said – The Pirate Bay trial judge accused of bias, April 23, 2009
p2pnet – The Pirate Bay decision leak `a bit LOL`, April 18, 2009
TorrentFreak – Pirate Bay Judge Accused of Bias, Calls for a Retrial, April 23, 2009
acted for the movie industry – The Pirate Bay vs Them: Day Seven,   February 20 4, 2009
The Guardian – Pirate Bay: Defence pushes for retrial, April 28, 2009