Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pirate Bay Defendant Aims For Sweden's Supreme Court

Posted by timothy on from the but-yer-honor dept.

justice4all writes with this news from eWeek Europe:"One of the defendants in the Pirate Bay trial says he will take his appeal bid to the Supreme Court in Sweden. One of the defendants of the Pirate Bay trial, the Swedish tech magnate Carl Lundstrom, has confirmed he will appeal the sentence imposed by a Swedish appeal court, by taking his case to Sweden's Supreme Court. Lundstrom, along with his three co-defendants – Peter Sunde, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, and Fredrik Neij – were found guilty of being accessories to copyright violations by a Swedish court back in April 2009. The copyright test case against The Pirate Bay was brought by the Swedish subsidiaries of leading music and film companies, including Sony BMG, Universal Music, EMI and Warner Brothers."

6 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. Supression is futile by EmperorOuk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Despite the fact that a Swedish court ordered an ISP to shut down service to The Pirate Bay in August last year, the website continues to function. The website is now apparently registered in the Seychelles.

    It should be pointed out that Pirate Bay does not host copyrighted material itself, but instead links to a number of torrents elsewhere on the Internet.

    These two paragraphs alone highlight the futility of the recording industry's crusade against piracy. I bet it's lawyers who love to hate piracy more than anybody else.

    1. Re:Supression is futile by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I bet it's lawyers who love to hate piracy more than anybody else.

      Lawyers love anybody who has a crusade and deep pockets. They're the only winners in any legal dispute.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Supression is futile by delinear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think they're acting out of some kind of ignorance of how their service is being used - quite the opposite, I think this is people with an agenda (to bring down copyright) providing a service that is aimed at advancing that agenda. I might not agree with their approach but I'm not averse to the thinking behind it. Having said all of that, I think it's pretty clear that they've not committed any crime and that the law is being twisted by those with their own agenda to try and make them criminals. What they offered was realistically little different to what Google or Bing or Yahoo already do, albeit with a target user base with a more specific interest. I have zero issue with private individuals acting within the law to undermine what many people see as an unjust set of rules, I'm a little more wary of big corporations acting in collusion with government to twist laws to take said individuals down (it wouldn't even be so bad if they outright enacted laws to make their actions illegal, at least then we could hold them to account and ask why Google and MS have had a free pass, but this whole thing stinks of corruption at the highest level).

  2. Corporate media can die. Human rights must live. by mykos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The world will go on without not-for-profit average joes buying every movie that shows up. Corporate media is not important to the human race as a whole.

    If hearing a song without the proper license to do so gives a corporation the right to take someone's liberty and pursuit of happiness, this is a crappy set of laws to live under.

  3. Re:Does Sweden have laws? by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You mean, as opposed to your (US/UK) common law system where laws are made up by judges as they go along?

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  4. Makes one wish by lostmongoose · · Score: 3, Insightful

    for the days when Sony was cool with personal copying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax_case