Pirate Bay Aground

Michael Hedges August 25, 2009 - updated August 31, 2009 Follow on Twitter

Pirate Bay’s future has turned bleak. Attempts to turn the bitTorrent peer-to-peer download site legitimate with a new owner seem to have run aground. Then a Stockholm court ordered ISP service cut off

Pirate Bay and its founders became something of a cause célèbre among supporters of free internet downloading, undeterred by losing lawsuits by copyright holders. Fines and jail sentences imposed had no immediate effect. Pirate Bay kept operating… until Monday (August 24).

The Stockholm District Court ordered ISP Black Internet to shut off Pirate Bay or face a large fine. “We received the decision on the penalty just after lunch and turned off (the service) just before three approximately,” said Black Internet CEO Victor Möller to Dagens Nyheter (August 24). “There are laws and rules in society and they should be followed.”

It was the second hammer to drop on Pirate Bay in one day. Earlier (August 24) the Stockholm stock exchange suspended trading of Global Gaming Factory, the company intending to buy Pirate Bay. Global Gaming Factory (GGF) announced it would buy Pirate Bay (July 1) for €5.5 million – roughly the amount of the fines – and the deal would be consummated last week (August 27). Global Gaming Factory said (August 24) the deal would go forward. The Stockholm stock exchange questioned whether or not the company could come up with the money, which would be raised from new investors. GGF's investors began pulling out while its board approved the acquisition (August 28).

Courts and regulators always shut down illegal downloading sites. Dutch regulators forced the ISP Minerva (August 27) to cut off bitTorrent sites. Irish ISP Eircom blocked Pirate Bay (August 27) as part of a settlement with music rights holders. Courts also reject claims that peer-to-peer sites are legal because they host no copyrighted content. Because of the legal precedent of “facilitating copyright infringement” ISPs are unwilling to subject themselves to jeopardy.

But copyright holders, courts and regulators are aware of the “whack-a-mole” dilemma. Not all jurisdictions view copyright infringement claims with equal expedience. For every Pirate Bay or Napster shutdown new download sites pop-up and downloaders looking for free movies or music find them easily.

If “whacking” peer-to-peer sites is less than effective, individual downloaders are the other target. Despite ugly anecdotes of grandmothers fined enormous amounts for allegedly downloading a handful of tunes, copyright holders have succeeded in convincing governments that prosecuting individuals is more effective despite the public relations storms. Again, they believe, the route to effective enforcement is through the ISPs.

The British government is the latest to propose tightening the noose around individual downloaders. In June then Communications Minister Stephen Carter’s Digital Britain proposed rule making, effective in 2012, penalizing “persistent filesharers” with prosecution if warning letters went unheeded.  Quicker measures are now being proposed, said The Guardian (August 25), to move enforcement from regulator OFCOM to the Secretary of State. ISPs would be required to pay enforcement costs as well as limit evil downloaders internet service to “basic public services.”

French courts ruled a similar plan unconstitutional, citing privacy concerns. And the European Commission is watching the whole idea carefully. Individual privacy and the internet will continue to challenge all concerned.