The Pirate Bay appeal is nearly coming to an end as we enter the 7th day. Today the prosecution has been giving the court its closing arguments. Håkan Roswall, Peter Danowsky, Henrik Pontén and Monique Wadsted all appeared. The prosecution called for jail time and substantial damages to cover the losses the entertainment industries claim to have suffered due to the operations of the world's most famous torrent site.

Up until today most of the hearings during the Pirate Bay appeal were simply copied from last year’s District Court hearings. Although this is somewhat ironic considering the topic at hand, the proceedings did not bring much new information, let alone the spectacle that evolved last year.

Today, during the second to last hearing at at the Appeal Court, the trial went over to live action again as the prosecution made its final pleas. Members of the prosecution and representatives for the music and movie industries presented their closing statements to the court.

Prosecutor Håkan Roswall stepped up first, claiming that the evidence against the four defendants is now even stronger than before. He further laid out why each of the defendants had been actively involved in the operation, maintenance or financing of the site.

The prosecutor said that both Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm have admitted their role in the operation, but there’s also strong evidence that the other two defendants are complicit.

Roswall doesn’t believe Peter Sunde’s statements that he was just the site’s spokesman. He said that Peter was deeply involved, referring to claims that Peter worked on technical issues for the site.

In addition the prosecutor noted that advertiser Daniel Oded communicated with Fredrik and Gottfrid through Peter. Roswall also said that Peter helped to design and develop the site and had contact with some advertisers.

Lundstrom was also actively involved according to the prosecutor. Some computers that were found during the raid on The Pirate Bay were bought by Lundstrom’s company Rix Telecom, Rosswall said. In addition he claimed that there were other financial ties, including those to the Israeli advertiser Daniel Oded. Lundstrom also gave business advice and operational suggestions to the other defendants.

Roswall further argued that the E-Commerce Directive doesn’t apply to The Pirate Bay because it’s not simply transmitting data like an ISP does. The Pirate Bay is actually involved in the communication between downloaders, he said. The prosecutor compared the site to an electronic bulletin board where users and moderators interact with each other, which would not fall under the directive.

Concluding his final arguments Roswall demanded jail sentences for all four defendants. “The correct punishment is a year in prison,” he said.

Next up to make his closing statement was Peter Danowsky of the IFPI. He began by saying that the music labels want more compensation than the amount awarded to them by the District Court. The margin of error that the District Court applied to the Pirate Bay’s download counters resulted in less damages than the record companies are entitled to, Danowsky argued.

Danowsky further suggested a compensation of 6.5 Euro per downloaded album, which means that every download is counted as a lost sale. In addition, he wants the recording industry to be compensated for the damage The Pirate Bay has cost the music industry in general.

Danowsky went on to state that The Pirate Bay offers a service that is very similar to that offered by legal online music stores. However, the site doesn’t charge for the music and keeps the advertizing revenue to themselves instead of compensating the rights holders.

Physical piracy is exactly the same as illicit file-sharing according to the music industry lawyer, it simply utilizes newer technology.

Danowsky went on to note that The Pirate Bay was founded with only one (ideological) purpose: “Not to respect copyright.” Next, Danowsky stressed a slightly contradicting statement that The Pirate Bay is strictly a commercial operation.

Comparing The Pirate Bay to Google doesn’t make any sense according to Danowsky, because Google works with the rights holders to prevent piracy. The Pirate Bay on the other hand constantly mocks rights holders and does not cooperate with takedown requests, he said.

After the lunch break Henrik Pontén made his final plea. Pontén claimed that The Pirate Bay clearly operated as a business, making money from advertising revenue. “It was probably Sweden’s best-known brand at the time,” he said.

He argued that the defendants deserve a prison sentence because they “need a reboot” after their criminal activities. Pontén continued saying that imprisonment will also deter others from starting similar sites. He claimed that this effect already became apparent after the District Court verdict.

The damages claim should cover the loss in revenue for the entertainment industry, as well as the damage in goodwill that the site has caused, Pontén noted.

The police can’t possibly go after all The Pirate Bay users and the defendants are therefore responsible for the whole damage claim, he further argued.

Finally Monique Wadsted took the stand for her closing comments. She said that the defendants were running a massive copyright infringement operation. The purpose of the site and tracker was to attract as many users as possible, and turn this traffic into a profit, Wadsted added.

Wadsted further elaborated on the role each of the defendants played in the site’s operation, and why they should be held accountable for the copyright infringements that were committed by the site’s users. The defendants willingly damaged the movie industry, she argued.

Siding with the prosecutor, Wadsted said that the E-Commerce Directive doesn’t apply to The Pirate Bay, since the site isn’t fully automated and passive. The Pirate Bay has added categories to make it easier to index files, users can add comments, and moderators actively remove files, she said.

After having laid out the details of the damages requested by the movie companies, Wadsted added that the total sum of their request is not excessive. “This is about an intentional crime committed by adult men,” she noted.

That concluded the day, the appeal will continue on Friday with the final arguments of the defense.