Pirate Bay prosecutor tosses infringement charges overboard
Watered down to ‘assisting making available’
Updated Half of the charges made against the four men behind the notorious file-sharing website The Pirate Bay have been sensationally dropped on day two of the trial.
He has amended the charges against Carl Lundström, Peter Sunde, Frederik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm Warg by removing all mention of "complicity in the production of copyrighted material" from the charge sheet filed with the district court in Stockholm, Sweden.
The new charges will be changed simply to read “complicity to make (copyrighted material) available”, thereby limiting it to the production of the actual torrent file and the resultant hard or soft copy of it.
Defence lawyer Per Samuelsson described the amendment as “a sensation".
"It is very rare that you win half the case after one and a half days and it is clear that the prosecutor has been deeply affected by what we said yesterday," he said.
Samuelsson also claimed that Roswall “has not really understood” the BitTorrent technology used by The Pirate Bay.
The prosecutor reportedly used media evidence that included Harry Potter, Syriana and Walk the Line downloads in court yesterday. According to TorrentFreak, Roswall was forced to amend the charges today after failing to prove that the torrent files had used The Pirate Bay's tracker.
The Register asked the Stockholm district court if it can confirm Roswall’s amendment to the charge sheet, but at time of writing it hadn’t responded to our request. ®
The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry has issued a statement in which it downplayed the significance of Roswall's amendments to the charges against the four men in the Pirate Bay case.
It confirmed that the prosecutor had removed the charges relating to "copying, as opposed to making available, copyrighted works."
The IFPI's legal counsel Peter Danowsky said: “It’s a largely technical issue that changes nothing in terms of our compensation claims and has no bearing whatsoever on the main case against The Pirate Bay.
"In fact it simplifies the prosecutor’s case by allowing him to focus on the main issue, which is the making available of copyrighted works."
@My 2 cents' worth
"As long as TPB remove links that copyright holders protest about I can't see how they can be held responsible for what their users post..."
That's where the copypigs will nail TPB if indeed they do. Google, YouTube et. al. DO actually remove links that copyright owners complain about. TPB not only refuse to remove or even investigate the alleged infringement, they publish the complaint and *openly ridicule* the complainant!
That, in itself, is pouring petrol on the fire and I'm surprised it took this long for this case to happen. The prosecution can easily prove intent to facilitate infringement simply by pointing at TPB's inflammatory responses to their complaints. TPB would have stood a chance if they simply responded by saying something like "We acknowledge your complaint and will investigate the matter as time and resources permit", and then doing nothing, because they could then rightly say "Your honour, we simply don't have the resources to be able to investigate every torrent or every complaint we receive". This would at least get them some plausible deniability. Instead they tell the complainant to fuck off and/or bring it on. This, more than any other factor in the case, is what I think will result in TPB being shut down.
Just to harp on about the Google analogy a bit more...
Google is an index of all content on the web it can find, compiled automatically, without rhyme or reason. The Pirate Bay is a directory on torrent files. If The Pirate Bay was a web spider which exclusively indexed .torrent files from random sites so you could connect to them, your analogy might hold up so, but it's not - it is a site for hosting user submitted torrents and tracking them.
A better analogy would be YouTube, which not only facilitates the exchange of unlicensed material but actively engages in it.
the problem is with a country based on laws and not on fealings or the opinion of the man on the street you catuley have to PROVE they have done something wrong witch is going to be very tricky as the pepol who run it are very cerfull not to cross the letter of the law