Thanks to music trade group IFPI, the recent Pirate Bay ruling has now been "Englished" (PDF). While the verdict itself is well-known, numerous case details will be surprising to non-Swedish speakers—such as who paid for The Pirate Bay defense, which defendant was also arraigned on drug charges, and what happened to all that Pirate Bay computer equipment confiscated by the police?

A masterpiece of prose, the verdict is not. "A number of different filesharing programs and technologies have been developed over the years," says one representative section. "There have been or are two main types of filesharing systems."

But it does offer plenty of fascinating detail that was difficult for those not at the trial to learn. Let's take a look.

Confiscated equipment. All the confiscated servers and routing equipment from a police raid on The Pirate Bay "is declared forfeit," while other seized computers will remain confiscated "until the sentence has become legally binding." That process could take years, given the appeal already filed in the case, so by the time the equipment could be released, it will be obsolete.

Confiscated drugs. In the section devoted to defendant (and lover of wispy beards) Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, we come across this curious section. Not only were computers confiscated, but police picked up "three confiscated tablets of Klomifen," "narcotic drugs," and a "spoon containing traces of amphetamine."



Image credit: Gottfrid Svartholm WargImage credit: Wikimedia Commons

Turns out that Warg wasn't just accused of aiding copyright infringement but also of violating Sweden's Prohibition of Certain Health-Impairing Goods Act. As part of the 2006 police raids on The Pirate Bay, the cops searched an apartment belonging to Warg's parents, where they found several of the listed items in "a drawer unit" and "a cupboard at the desk." Warg said that the apartment had been rented out to others at the time and that he had no knowledge of the drugs there; the court agreed that nothing had been proven against him.

But there was a second incident in June 2007, when a police patrol was called to an apartment and found Warg "heavily intoxicated." In his backpack, other "preparations" were found. Warg told the court "that, despite being intoxicated, he can remember the event. He has also stated that the backpack was his, but that he, at some point during the evening, had lent it to some individuals at the party. He knows 'approximately' who he lent the backpack to, but he does not want to reveal the names of these individuals."

This didn't go over well with the court, which found "beyond reasonable doubt that Gottfrid Svartholm Warg has been in possession of the preparations in question, and that he should, therefore, be sentenced for breach of the Prohibition of Certain Health-Impairing Goods Act."

Who paid for the lawyers? The older (and much richer) defendant Carl Lundstr?m apparently paid for his own lawyer, but the three Pirate Bay admins did not. Their lawyers were all supplied and eventually paid for by the Swedish government, and they weren't cheap. Fredrik Neij's lawyer, for instance, was given 949,025 kronor (about $115,600) for his services; 35,525 kronor of that amount was given for "time wasted."

On moving to Argentina or Russia. As it became clear that Sweden might not be the best long-term base for The Pirate Bay, Carl Lundstr?m explored the possibility of moving the site to Russia or Argentina—and he asked the Swedish Embassy for help.

"A request by Carl Lundstr?m to the Swedish Embassy in Argentina for assistance in relocating the operation there, since the situation vis a vis copyright in Argentina could be assumed to be more user-friendly than in Europe, was turned down by the Embassy," says the verdict. "Carl Lundstr?m then contacted an Argentinean lawyer with the aim of ascertaining the cost of establishing the operation as a company in Argentina."

Similar moves were made in Russia; nothing appears to have come of them.

Legal advice. Why the interest in getting out of Sweden? A new copyright law came into effect in 2005, and Lundstr?m worried that it would make the site illegal. "Carl Lundstr?m contacted a lawyer," says the verdict. "Following discussions with his legal representative, he e-mailed Gottfrid Svartholm Warg and mentioned that as of 1 July 2005, the operation would be unlawful and that they should, therefore, consider relocating the operation to another country."

In the meantime, Fredrik Neij sought some legal advice of his own. Rather than pay a lawyer, though, he sought out the advice of a "law student who, in turn, checked with his teachers and professors." Based on advice from the student, Neij told the court that he believed The Pirate Bay was legal.

The Pirate Bay meets... TV? One other curious revelation was that Lundstr?m had the idea back in 2006 "for new services in the form of a pooling of The Pirate Bay’s website and a digital television receiver." Few details are offered, but this sounds a bit like a set-top box that could tune TV and also grab video content from The Pirate Bay. As with many of the other schemes mentioned in the verdict, nothing came of this.

The Google defense. During the trial, the defendants harped on the fact that Google also indexes .torrent files, many of them infringing; why was a search engine like The Pirate Bay on trial while a search engine like Google was not?

Here is the judge's answer in its most condensed form: "In accordance with what will be further demonstrated below, all the defendants were aware that a large number of the website’s users were engaged in the unlawful disposal of copyright-protected material. By providing a website with advanced search functions and easy uploading and downloading facilities, and by putting individual filesharers in touch with one other through the tracker linked to the site, the operation run via The Pirate Bay has, in the opinion of the District Court, facilitated and, consequently, aided and abetted these offences."

What happened to the "safe harbor"? US law offers immunity (under both the Communications Decency Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) to certain websites and ISPs for the actions of their users. Europe's "Electronic Commerce Act" contains a similar provision, but the judge found that The Pirate Bay didn't qualify. Why not? Because the law requires that a service provider was "not aware of the existence of the illegal information or operation, and was not aware of facts or circumstances which made it obvious that the illegal information or operation existed or who, as soon as he received knowledge about or became aware of this, prevented the spread of the information without delay."

Since they posted many of the takedown letters sent in by copyright owners, the admins certainly knew about all sorts of copyright infringement taking place on their site. They did nothing about it and instead mocked the rightsholders. "It must have been obvious to the defendants that the website contained torrent files which related to protected works," said the court. "None of them did, however, take any action to remove the torrent files in question, despite being urged to do so. The prerequisites for freedom from liability under ?18 have, consequently, not been fulfilled."

Translation: no immunity.

The end of the beginning



Despite the verdict, the case is just getting started. Defense lawyers have already filed an appeal and have since accused the judge overseeing the case of a conflict of interest. Judge Tomas Norstr?m belongs to a couple of Swedish copyright associations, a fact no one managed to dig up before the trial.

While the court's judgment sheds plenty of light on how The Pirate Bay operated and what its backers believe, the least relevant part of it may in fact be the legal reasoning.