The Swedish Pirate Bay Case in the District Court
Despite its length in pages, the judgment of the Stockholm district court in the landmark Pirate Bay case is strangely unfulfilling and lacking in substantial reasoning and concrete criteria for us lawyers to sink our teeth in.
The case always had three big points of interest. How will you treat the concept of accessory copyright infringement? How will you calculate an equitable account of profits? And how do you estimate actual damage to the rights owners in the digital media landscape? To these three points was added a fourth one of interest when the district court decided that the defendants all be considered joint perpetrators.
When it comes to the issue of accessory to infringements the district court finds that
1) the Pirate Bay was an effective tool in sharing copyrighted material,
2) the defendants were aware that a large percentage of the site's users were committing illicit sharing of copyrighted material and,
3) that the defendants held such positions within the Pirate Bay that they should be held responsible.
But this does not lend any help to the development of guiding principles when it comes to distinguish one Internet service from another. Any CEO of an internet search engine or user-driven site can quite easily fulfill these criteria. What we need to know is what provided the crucial point to separate them. Such things as the abrasive language and belligerent behavior of the Pirate Bay are mentioned, as is the site's refusal to remove torrents despite being prompted to do so. Would a notice and take-down policy have changed the verdict? The judgement gives scant details on these matters and leaves us already looking to the court of appeals.
Labels: Kristoffer Schollin, The Pirate Bay
