Day 6 of The Pirate Bay appeal mostly dealt with the question of whether piracy is doing any financial damage to the music industry. Ludwig Werner of the IFPI and Universal Music's Per Sundin both claimed it is, while media professor Roger Wallis informed the court that file-sharing is actually beneficial to the artists.

As on previous days, most of the day was spent on watching and listening to material previously recorded during the original trial at the District Court.

The day started off with presentations by Ludwig Werner of IFPI Sweden and the CEO of Universal Music Per Sundin, who talked about the damage The Pirate Bay has done to the music industry. Kristoffer Schollin from Gothenburg University then discussed BitTorrent and was followed by media professor Roger Wallis who informed the court about the effect of music piracy on sales.

Due to the fact that some sensitive information was discussed today, the Appeal Court did not make any audio feeds available. This means that our report is based solely on information from people who were present at the hearing, and recordings from the hearings at the District Court last year.

Ludwig Werner of IFPI Sweden was the first to take the stand. Most questions to him dealt with the amount of damages the entertainment industry suffered, with the defense questioning whether or not the figures presented by the entertainment industry are justified.

Werner said that music sales declined in 2002 and 2003 and that illegal file-sharing was the main reason for the decline in sales in recent years. He further confirmed that artists are allowed to upload their own music to the Pirate Bay if their contracts permits them to do so.

Werner’s questioning was followed by the hearing of Per Sundin, the CEO of Universal Music. Again, this was a recorded hearing of the questioning that took place during the 2009 trial.

When Per Sundin was asked whether the decline in sales could be fully attributed to illegal filesharing, he said yes. Sundin went even further and claimed that 50% of the loss in sales the music industry has suffered can be linked to The Pirate Bay.

He had to admit, however, that he has no evidence to back these claims up. “It is what they see and experience every day,” Sundin said.

Sunde vs. Sundin (taken last year)

Sundin’s hearing was followed by that of Kristoffer Schollin, who spoke via telephone from Gothenburg University. Schollin was interviewed about the technology behind The Pirate Bay, and BitTorrent in general.

Schollin explained that he is a lecturer in IT law with a particular interest in file-sharing and has written a paper on Digital Rights Management (DRM). He also made a special witness report for the Court.

Answering questions from the defense, Schollin explained that .torrent files are a more sophisticated type of Internet link (such as an http hyperlink) and that The Pirate Bay is an “open database” of .torrent files. Several large companies are using BitTorrent technology said Schollin, including Blizzard who use it for World of Warcraft.

When asked about TPB specifically, Schollin noted that the site is essentially a BBS (Bulletin Board) for .torrent files, attached to a forum for debate. He was also asked, in his opinion, if TPB is illegal. “That’s for the court to decide,” he said, while noting that the technology behind the site is not illegal in any way.

When asked about the type of content indexed on TPB, Schollin said: “My God, everything,” noting that both copyright and copyright-free material can be found.

When speaking with Carl Lundstrom’s lawyer Per E Samuelsson, Schollin admitted that while searching for .torrents via Google (using Harry Potter as an example) more results could be found than with TPB’s search alone. Indeed, said Schollin, EU law documents are easier for him to find via Google than they are on the EU’s own website.

Touching again on the issue of exactly whose tracker is used when a torrent file is activated, Schollin said that just because a .torrent is available on TPB, it doesn’t automatically follow that the file uses TPB’s tracker.

Schollin went on to explain how to make a .torrent file which links to content. He said that in the creation stage, it doesn’t even require an Internet connection and everything is done on the user’s PC with a torrent client, not on TPB. Once created the .torrent file could then be uploaded on to the Internet. It would then be indexed by Google, which then allows anyone to access the .torrent via a Google search.

Then it was Prosecutor Håkan Roswall’s turn to question Schollin. He put it to Schollin that kudos could be achieved in file-sharing circles if an individual put pre-release material up on the Internet, a point with which Schollin agreed.

Next up to question Schollin was Monique Wadsted, representing the movie companies. She asked Schollin if he had heard the rumor that 40% of the Internet’s traffic is down to TPB. Schollin said this was incorrect and it was more likely that they were responsible for 40% of all BitTorrent traffic. Wadsted then put it to Schollin that 50% of all the world’s .torrent files sit on TPB, and he denied this amount too, but recognized that there would be a significant number.

Schollin was then asked by the defense if he believed that TPB has a role in transmitting communications on the Internet. Schollin agreed it did. When asked if TPB might be considered a ‘service provider’ under the law, he said that was for the Court to decide.

Up next was the District Court recording of Roger Wallis. Wallis is a media professor, composer and Chairman of the Swedish Composers of Popular Music and is involved in other outfits dedicated to the rights of musicians. However, Wallis previously said that he did not see the difference between TPB and other search engines such as Google and has criticized the music industry for being too slow in adopting technology.

Speaking with Peter Altin (Peter Sunde’s lawyer), Wallis said he specializes in developing the music industry on the Internet and because of this some have incorrectly drawn the assumption that he works for the industry – he doesn’t.

Wallis referred to a report he wrote which detailed the music industry’s approach to digital technology. He said there were elements who would do anything to smother it, referring to the backlash against cassette tapes in the 1970’s.

Mr. Wallis and his wife, who received hundreds of flowers from Pirate Bay supporters.

Altin asked Wallis if there is any connection between illicit downloads and lost sales in the music industry. Contradicting the opinion of John Kennedy of the IFPI in his testimony yesterday, Wallis said that downloading caused an increase in sales of live event tickets and although there has been a reduction in CD sales, this won’t continue.

Wallis went on to explain that while some people download, these people also tend to buy more CDs than others that don’t. It’s not just downloading causing competition for the industry, other things have an effect such as the growth of computer games, he said.

Wallis believes the music industry is shooting itself in the foot by going after file-sharers, for the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph. He said that on the whole, file-sharing is beneficial to the music and movie industries, while pointing out that the movie industry just had its most successful year ever. But the music industry doesn’t help itself he argues. Anyone who has bought a Beatles single in the past, simply cannot buy the same single in the digital domain due to licensing issues. “This is madness,” he said.

Next up to question Wallis was IFPI’s Peter Danowsky, who immediately started to annoy him by questioning his credentials. Danowsky mused if Wallis was even a proper professor, while disputing the year when Wallis qualified as such, calling him into doubt and criticizing him. “Have you no better questions to ask?” Wallis replied, reportedly visibly annoyed.

Media professor Roger Wallis was then questioned by Henrik Pontén from Sweden’s Anti-Piracy Office. Pontén continued where Danowsky left off and asked the professor if he could elaborate a bit more on how he acquired his title. “Can you use Google? Wallis replied. “Then you could easily find my CV,” he added, and the Court agreed with his assessment that they have already been over this.

Pontén then showed some graphs from a study that showed that 18% of those who download copyrighted music buy less, while only 8% buy more. These figures caused some confusion in Court, and Wallis responded by saying that they do not correspond with his findings. “I believe that it has no relevance,” Wallis added. The prosecution asked some more questions about the contradicting results of the other study, but Wallis didn’t want to go into it.

That concluded the day, the trial continues tomorrow.