SHARE
COPY LINK

COPYRIGHT

Pirate Bay closed after court decision

Swedish file sharing website The Pirate Bay remained closed on Tuesday morning after a Stockholm court decision forced a supplier to cut off server capacity.

Pirate Bay closed after court decision

The Stockholm District Court ordered Black Internet to stop supplying the notorious file sharing site with capacity in a ruling issued shortly after lunch on Monday.

Faced with a fine of 500,000 kronor ($70,700) Black Internet took the decision to cut off the Pirate Bay and the site has been closed since, according to a report in the Dagens Nyheter newspaper.

“We received the decision about the fine shortly after lunch and turned off capacity just before 3pm. There are laws and regulations in society and one should follow them. What we think about this and how we shall act in the future remains undecided,” Black Internet’s CEO Victor Möller told DN.se.

The court ordered that server capacity to The Pirate Bay should be closed pending the conclusion of the court case directed against the founders of the website by the US film and music industry, the newspaper writes.

According to Victor Möller The Pirate Bay is unlikely to remain out of service, but as they were its biggest supplier new capacity could take a while to find.

The Pirate Bay is the subject of a 60 million kronor takeover bid by Global Gaming Factory X (GGF) that is due to be completed on August 27th.

The Local reported on Monday that GGF and CEO Hans Pandeya are the subject of a criminal investigation amid allegations of insider trading.

Pandeya is also the subject of a claim filed with the Swedish enforcement service (Kronofogden) for alleged unpaid debts to former board member Johan Sellström and the Swedish tax agency.

Stockholm District Court convicted Pirate Bay backers Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde and Carl Lundström in April on charges of of being accessories to copyright infringement.

The four were each sentenced to one year in prison and ordered to pay 30 million kronor ($3.56 million) in damages.

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.

COPYRIGHT

Wikimedia ‘breaks copyright’ with Swedish statue photos

Sweden’s supreme court ruled on Monday that the non-profit internet giant Wikimedia breaches Sweden’s copyright laws by publishing photos of public artworks.

Wikimedia 'breaks copyright' with Swedish statue photos
Gothenburg's iconic Poseidon statue by Carl Milles. Photo: Leif R Jansson/TT

The controversial judgement is a victory for the Visual Copyright Society in Sweden (Bildupphovsrätt i Sverige – BUS), which sued Wikimedia at Stockholm District Court for publishing photos of Swedish public sculptures and other public artworks without first getting permission from the artists. 

“We are naturally very disappointed,” Wikimedia's Swedish operations manager Anna Troberg told The Local after the supreme court gave its guidance to the district court. 

“We view this as an anachronistic and restrictive interpretation of copyright laws. It also runs counter to recommendations from the European Court of Human Rights.”

Wikimedia is the group behind the free online encyclopaedia Wikipedia. It has created a vast online knowledge repository by allowing members of the public to group-edit entries and upload pictures to its pages for educational purposes. 

In its judgement the supreme court affirmed that Swedish copyright law does permit members of the public to take pictures of public artworks. But, the court said, “it is different when it’s a database where artworks are made available to the public to an unlimited extent without copyright-holders receiving any remuneration.”

“A database of this kind can be deemed to have a commercial value that is not inconsiderable,” the supreme court said in a statement.  

“The court rules that the copyright-holders are entitled to this value. It is not relevant whether or not Wikimedia has a commercial aim.” 

Wikimedia’s Anna Troberg said the group would now consult its lawyer and its parent foundation in the United States before deciding what action to take. 

“Our priority now will be to re-shape the debate, because clearly this is an outdated judgement. It is in no way in tune with the times that somebody should face legal repercussions for taking photos of public artworks that we have all paid for with our taxes.”