The much awaited verdict on the Pirate Bay trial has finally arrived, and the four defendants are now facing some jail time and monetary fines for their roles in abetting copyright infringement. Perhaps this is the expected outcome but what does it really achieve?
The cynic in me thinks that nothing has really been gained either way, because it remains to be seen if this verdict will serve as an effective deterrent to all the other Pirate Bays out there, given that similar high profile cases in the past (e.g. Napster or Grokster) did not stop the rise of other services (e.g. Pirate Bay). So this could well turn out to be just another chapter in the eternal dance between the envelope and those that seek to push it (well its Friday and I like my metaphor cocktails…). On the other hand, if this results in the unlikely cessation of content piracy, I would be keen to see if / how it will affect the bottom line of aggrieved content industry plaintiffs.
Perhaps the problem is not just Pirate Bay or digital piracy at all, as they are probably just mere symptoms of a more fundamental shift in consumer behaviours triggered by the digital revolution. If that is the case then, it may be more sensible and effective to support the content industry and the whole copyright framework in adapting to these changes, rather than engaging in the weary process of other high profile lawsuits which only move the game to another playing field.
On the same theme of litigation, the register reports that the European Commission has called for a change in UK laws to better enforce confidentiality of communications. This in response to the "lack of action" by the UK government over the secret BT / Phorm trials some years ago. It also reported this week, that some companies and organisations, notably Amazon and Wikimedia, have requested for their domains and websites to be excluded from further non-secret trials of this service, in order to protect the privacy of their customers. It would seem that people are indeed paying attention after all.
About the author
Jude Umeh is a member of the UK's Sector Consulting Group in Capgemini's global Telecom Media and Entertainment (TME) community. His areas of expertise include: music, media and digital rights management; and he contributes to thought leadership development and delivery of solutions and services to the stakeholders in these fields. Jude is the author of The World Beyond Digital Rights Management.
Comments (9)
Leave CommentI am afraid the cynic in me is the same as yours, for example fining fraudsters or put them in jail does not stop other fraudsters, so why will copyright be any different: Unfortunately it is part of some peoples human nature, if there is money to be made or saved (directly or indirectly) then it will carry on:
Report Comment
Yes, true enough. But murder and violence have also been a part of human nature. Both have been around for millenia and show no signs of abating. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop them. Piracy is theft of other people's work. If it is on the internet then the technology exists to track those responsible. Why not prosecute those perpetrating this crime?
Report Comment
Napster -> Grokster -> Pirate Bay I think the penny will finally drop now. Infringing another person's copyright is against the law. I've always wondered why someone would try and create a business on such thin legal ice. If you're smart enough to create a P2P file sharing - why not try making some software that people might actually buy? Oh hang on ... that only works if people can't download a hacked copy. If you're in the business of "creating software" and not just "copying it" Pirate Bay's demise is good news.
Report Comment
Mark I don't disagree, yes any ill-legal actions including copy right infringements should be prosecuted, however the copyright laws are a little unclear: See "Why no fair use?" blog: .................. So the cynic in me still says that it will (as with all crimes) continue:
Report Comment
And now it appears that the Judge of the Pirate Bay Trial may or may not have been just a little bit biased... See: http://musically.com/blog/2009/04/23/pirate-bay-trial-judge-slammed-for-pro-copyright-affiliations/
Report Comment
While no one can argue that copyright infringement is not a bad thing and we should try to stop it it is not theft. Theft is when you take something and deprive someone of it's use, by copying it your not depriving any of using it. I fully expect this verdict to be overturned anyway since the judge in charge sat on the board of some copyright lobbying groups. Also and at the end of the day what Pirate Bay were punished for was aiding in copyright infringement by linking to it, so by that standard Google is just as guilty.
Report Comment
The shift in consumer behaviours is present, but it also represents a shift in consumer attitudes, at a time where commercial interests are influencing legislation that constantly seeks to erode individual freedoms. For many people that issue justifies the change in behaviours. Speaking subjectively, current copyright laws are corrupt, inequitable and outdated. Ignoring them just isn't perceived as a bad thing by most members of the public. Further to that, the Pirate Bay did not break copyright laws. No material was made available on that site without the permission of the IP holders. (Instead they were found guilty of facilitating copyright infringement; in other words they're a search engine. Don't go to Sweden, Sergey.) Combine those two factors with the apparent conflict of interest the judge omitted to mention, and the Pirate Bay trial looks to people that have followed it (i.e. the people you would expect it to deter) as a political case driven by international diplomatic pressure and aimed at benefiting commercial interests. Thus this case acts less as a deterrent to people thinking of copyright violations and more as a call to arms to get the laws in this area updated - as seen by the extensive increase in membership in the Swedish Pirate Party.
Report Comment
Speaking as a professional musician who's earning potential (royalties) over the years has been severely dented by piracy I believe that the entertainment industry has to take the lead and change their oprating model. If we take as a given that the pirates will always be one step ahead of the industry there is no reason to pour money into the development of ever more ingenious DRM methods. Making all content free would, at a sweep remove the piracy issue. The problem then facing the industry is how to raise income! I believe this, not piracy, is the biggest challenge to the industry at the moment. Also, over the last ten years (in music) we have seen a fragmentation of the industry. There was one "music industry" now there are hundreds of "music industries". One of the reasons that the major record companies became globally dominant was distribution. In a digital age you or I have the capacity to distribute the same product digitally (on a global scale) from our home computer. The "big boys" after years of reaping the benefits of living off off revenue created by "back catalogue" while not investing in new music (they were happy to let independents do that tand then take over distribution rights) now will have to think hard about their position and income generation.
Report Comment
Agreed. I doubt the verdict will act as a deterrent for other file sharing platform out there, the pirate bay decision was based on the business model of pirate bay which was 'to encourage piracy', the 'Pirate' in the name is even suggestive. For similar business models to escape culpability, the e-Commerce Directive is instructive, amongst others it says the service provide must have no knowledge of file sharing activity, in other words once an infringing activity is brought to the attention of a service provider, it must remove the illegal content. That is as far as the law goes, without requiring the service provider to monitor content. But unfortunately this seems to be the posture of assumed by UK's digital Britain report, which require that service provider monitor content in order to prevent/prosecute copyright infringement. It has repeatedly been stressed that p2p should be licensed for everyone to use, that way rights holders would be adequately be compensated rather than chasing after file-sharers.
Report Comment
Post a comment