I don't know Swedish law, but they were convinced of aiding copyright infringement. To me, it is clear they are guilty of that, the whole site is designed for that sole reason of copyright infringement (except perhaps 1% of torrents). Further, the admin do extensive "cleaning" of torrents they deem inapproriate (for example files put in the wrong section), but never clean up copyright infringing files.
Now, you might think that aiding copyright infringement shouldn't be illegal, but if it is, how do the facts speak against the verdict?
Aiding in copyright infrigement, aiding is the key word. The ISPs carrying the signals and the state putting down the wire has been aiding the infrigement. The Linux servers running the torrent site and the collocation facilities are aiding in the infrigement.
Never before in Swedish justice history has this law been applied so rigorously as now. The monopoly mail-delivery system has never been trialed for aiding in spreading of illegal content such as child abuse pictures or bombs.
The messaging system has many uses, the trial did not even take this aspect up for discussion. The servers of thepiratebay where raided and with them several sites where taken down and servers where confiscated, still not returned. Some of those where owned by startup companies and completley unrelated to tpb except for sharing the same server room.
>The ISPs carrying the signals and the state putting down the wire has been aiding the infrigement.
I have no knowledge of Swedish law but this argument sounds to melike you are trying to use a loophole. I don't think you need more than basic common sense to see why TPB is guilty while accusing the ISP or the State is a little far fetched. And if their is no law in Sweden that can make the distinction between the two well, there needs to be one.
Yes, you can argue that every part is technically aiding. But the thing is, legality also considers intent and awareness. The Pirate Bay was clearly intended for pirate material (how you prove that is another point..) and they were very much aware that the majority of torrents pointed towards pirated material.
Aiding in copyright infrigement, aiding is the key word. The ISPs carrying the signals and the state putting down the wire has been aiding the infrigement. The Linux servers running the torrent site and the collocation facilities are aiding in the infrigement.
You're stressing it for lack of an argument.
There are various levels of aiding. Those you described don't count much. In fact, they are fairly neutral: the "wires", for example, are used for millions of non-copyright-infringement uses.
Your "argument" is akin to saying that the company who made the knife in the first place is as much an aid as the guy that held the man getting knifed to death by his accomplice. And maybe their mothers too, because if they hadn't brought them to life, there would be no murder.
Is it too much to ask for people to NOT go making far fetched claims and playing every loophole?
Tired argument's like: "It's not stealing, because you only make a copy", "Google aids copyright infringement too", etc, are 1st grade material, not actual arguments worthy of adults.
I disagree. I'm definitely an adult and I don't think copyrighte infringement is stealing. We can have an intelligent discussion about the morality of copyright infringement, but calling it stealing is spinning.
> Further, the admin do extensive "cleaning" of torrents they deem inapproriate (for example files put in the wrong section), but never clean up copyright infringing files.
I can tell that a movie is, for example, a RomCom by looking at it. How do I know a given copy of a specific 50 Cent video is a copyright infringement?
I mention 50 cent because I understand that various artists have released independently produced videos for general distribution. In addition, labels have done the same thing.
Yeah, because TPB believes that all of its torrents are potentially legitimate (50 cent has released videos for general distribution after all). I'm sure if they were ever notified by rights holders that they were hosting a torrent that was aiding in the infringement of protected works, they would surely "clean" it up. After all, I can tell that a movie is, for example, infringing by looking at a takedown notification.
Classy. Surely they were acting in good faith by defying notification since it referenced US instead of Swedish law. As we all know, the appeals process has just proven "no Swedish law is being violated." It is certainly appropriate for TPB to tell the rights holder to "Go fuck yourself." How dare the rights holder demand that TPB not aid in the piracy of their work while TPB, not the work's creators or investors, profit off it.
</sarcasm> It is beyond me how prevalent the opinion is on HN that this court ruling is corrupt. I don't claim to know every relevant detail of this case or Sweedish law, but IMHO, what TPB currently does SHOULD be illegal. However, it seems to me that this is the minority opinion here.
Well, when someone e-mails you, telling "transformers 3", in your film category, is in fact transformers 3, and ask you to take it down, you could do so.
Instead thepiratebay tended to just laugh, and insult people who sent them letters, claiming what they were doing was perfectly legal. It turns out, it appears, that they were wrong.
I don't know Swedish law, but they were convinced of aiding copyright infringement. To me, it is clear they are guilty of that, the whole site is designed for that sole reason of copyright infringement (except perhaps 1% of torrents). Further, the admin do extensive "cleaning" of torrents they deem inapproriate (for example files put in the wrong section), but never clean up copyright infringing files.
Now, you might think that aiding copyright infringement shouldn't be illegal, but if it is, how do the facts speak against the verdict?