Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Bay Trial Ends In Jail Sentences
myvirtualid writes "The Globe and Mail reports that the Pirate Bay defendants were each sentenced Friday to one year in jail. According to the article, 'Judge Tomas Norstrom told reporters that the court took into account that the site was "commercially driven" when it made the ruling. The defendants have denied any commercial motives behind the site.' The defendants said before the verdict that they would appeal if they were found guilty. 'Stay calm — Nothing will happen to TPB, us personally or file sharing whatsoever. This is just a theater for the media,' Mr. Sunde said Friday in a posting on social networking site Twitter."
Update: 04/17 12:16 GMT by T : Several updates, below.
Thanks to all the readers who have sent in various other links related to this news, including the dozens who noted
the BBC's version of the story. Reader a_n_d_e_r_s submits a link to the verdict itself (large PDF, in Swedish), and writes "The sentencing is not unexpected (max verdict is 2 years in prison) and the damages is about 1/3 of what the companies that has requested damages had requested. Notice that no punitive damages is applicable." Reader yendor writes, "More details are coming and The Pirate Bay will be holding a press conference at 15.00 CET.
HakanRoswallGoatse points out that besides the jail term imposed (and barring the results of planned appeals), "the four men will have to pay $3,6 million in compensation for lost sales to 17 media companies. Among them are: Warner Bros. Entertainment, MGM Pictures, Columbia Pictures Industries, Twentieth Century Fox Film, Sony BMG, Universal, EMI, Blizzard Entertainment, Sierra Entertainment, and Activision."
HakanRoswallGoatse points out that besides the jail term imposed (and barring the results of planned appeals), "the four men will have to pay $3,6 million in compensation for lost sales to 17 media companies. Among them are: Warner Bros. Entertainment, MGM Pictures, Columbia Pictures Industries, Twentieth Century Fox Film, Sony BMG, Universal, EMI, Blizzard Entertainment, Sierra Entertainment, and Activision."
No, it's 30 million Swedish Kroner, that's just under 3 million Euros.
Frederik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Carl Lundstrom and Peter Sunde were sentenced to a year in jail each. They were also ordered to pay 30m kronor total ($3.6m) in damages. The damages were awarded to a number of entertainment companies, including Warner Bros, Sony Music Entertainment, EMI, and Columbia Pictures. The news was broken early by Peter Sunde aka brokep via twitter, from a "trustworthy source".
A round-up of the arguments in court has already been discussed on slashdot, and the BBC has some thoughts on what happens next.
The site itself is on servers outside Sweden, and has sufficient funds to remain operational for some time. In combination with the appeal against the verdict already pledged by the men, the site itself should remain operational for now.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Both parties have already made statements that they will appeal if lost, even before the verdict came. This was the first level of Swedish legal system, now it will progress upp to "HovrÃtten", and from that very likely to the Supreme Court.
This case really has to go all the way given that it is the first case of its type, and that a prejudicating ruling must be available for the future.
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Doesn't work that way. Even if they didn't appeal, the Swedish prisons are full -- you actually have to queue to serve your sentence, and violent criminals always skip ahead of the queue.
Besides, they're going to appeal. During that time the sentence cannot be implemented as this wasn't something like murder or treason where immediate implementation would be appropriate. And as you say yourself: putting someone in jail severely hinders their chances of appealing.
Come down from your stupid-ass trip. It makes you look silly.
The difference is, and it was stated in the trial, that google actively works with the music and movies companys and removes offending files. Quite a bit different from how the pirate bay operate ;)
"The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
The English name for the Swedish currency is "krona" in singular and "kronor" in plural. The fine in this case is therefore 30 million kronor.
There are only a few swedish crowns in existence, and you have to visit the Swedish Royal Armoury museum to see them.
it's the rights of the creator of that work to have a say in how and when its reproduced that are being preserved.
Copyright law is actually a relatively recent invention. So no, I would argue that copyright law took away something that was already an inherent freedom, if not a right.
You could argue that it's similar to murder -- no one argues that we have a right to kill people. I would argue that this is a case where the government is stepping in to preserve a particular business model. Whether that's a good thing or not is up for debate, but I don't think the right to control an idea you had is anywhere near as inherent as the right to live.
If you don't like the fact that an artist or other creator wants to be in charge of their own work, then just walk away.
That is a good idea.
But I would think, as a content creator, I'd much rather see people pirate my work than see them walk away. Better to be famous and unpaid than just unpaid.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
What I'm interested to know is why - despite the prosecution failing to really prove their case, only to speculate on various things - this decision was reached.
Because of two reasons:
1. This lower court consists mostly of a kind of politically-appointed jury, where local politicians serve time on the bench, judging small claims all day. They are not equipped to handle complex copyright cases, but instead rely on expert witnesses and emotions of the "how will the starving artists get paid" kind.
2. It being a complex case, there are a number of interpretations to make of the law and the facts at hand, for example if TPB can seek refuge in the common carrier clauses of a specific law dealing with service providers. The court ruled that they would operate under that law, but not qualify for the exemptions of responsibility in it. Almost every decision of this kind has been ruled against TPB, throughout the verdict.
I have not found a single large miscarriage of justice when reading the verdict, only a large number of small, deliberate steps leading towards a conviction. The same steps in the other direction, each as reasonable and plausible as the ones taken, would have led to an aquittal.
Money for nothing, pix for free