Analysis of Media Law: the Pirate Bay - Case Study Example

Media Law Name Institution Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Overview of the Pirate Bay 3 P2P File Sharing 4 The Pirate Bay Trial 5 Prosecution’s Evidence 5 The Defence 5 The Guilty Verdict 6 Sweden Copyright Law 6 Academic Research 7 Conclusion 8 References 9 Introduction Communication and media law deals with legal issues concerning media sector. The law covers issues such as piracy, copyright infringement, defamation and censorship (Pouwelse et al., 2008). Media law is concerned with journalists, publishers, online originators and telephone companies. With technological advancement, people are more likely to experience legal complications. The media law also regulates information technology, internet services as well as the entertainment sector among others. The internet is a media through which people are able to share files, pictures, videos and music among others. Nevertheless, for this to be possible, a platform is required (Pouwelse et al., 2008). Many technologies today serve as a bridge for sharing videos and files around the globe. According to Quiring, Von Walter and Atterer (2008), these platforms only serve as a bridge rather than a piracy store. The availability of such platforms has made many industry sectors concerned with the violation of copyrights. Many industries regard this as illegal and advocate for their closure. Nevertheless, sites that offer the connection to sharing data and files highlight that they are not breaking the copyright law since they do not sell copyright materials they are just offering a means by which people can access these files (Pouwelse et al., 2008). One current case of media law is the Pirate Bay. This case created a debate around the globe between people who were against copyright violations and those who supported Peer to Peer file sharing. This report will analyse the Pirate Bay case using extensive research from literature. Overview of the Pirate Bay The pirate Bay was among the largest pirated music and content sites in Swedish. The company offered free access to copyrighted music and Hollywood movies. The company reported to having more than 5 million registered users and about 25 million “free riders” (Maister, 2009). These numbers put together suggested that Pirate Bay had three times more users compared to Sweden population. The company was in the top 100 list of the world’s most popular sites in 2011. Regardless of repeated legal efforts to close it, the Pirate Bay has been considered the world’s most resilient bittorrent site. However, the legal fight is close to being over. The site asserts that music, films and TV shows should be free and unrestricted to people (Maister, 2009). In contrast to other sites, the Pirate Bay does not have a database of copyrighted media and does not have a network of computers that allow such networks to exist (Maister, 2009). What the site does is to offer a search engine that generates a list of music tracks and movies as requested by clients. The users are able to gain access to music or movies through clicking on a given link. The site is said to link users to stolen content which is considered illegal (Larsson, 2008). Nevertheless, the founders consider the process legal since they claim that they only offer pointers to existing P2P network. The founders also claim that they do not encourage any illegal downloading. P2P File Sharing Today, the internet has become a strict site for music as well as movie pirates to make a living. Pirates are being faced with enforcement and legal actions and competition from wireless technologies that enable people to stream high-quality content for a small fee (Quiring, Von Walter and Atterer, 2008). The Peer to Peer technology allows the transfer of files between communicating computers. The use of this software does not require a central computer when computer are close to each other. It has a Direct Connect that is responsible for connecting different computers connected to hub. Another technology for file sharing is called BitTorrent that divided a digital file into different sections that create a torrent file that facilitates the distribution of the file (Quiring, Von Walter and Atterer, 2008). The basic knowledge of this software is important in understanding the work of the Pirate Bay. The Pirate Bay Trial Prosecution’s Evidence The Pirate Bay Trial involved the prosecution of four people who were charged for encouraging the act of copyright infringement of others through the Pirate Bay Company. The Swedish prosecutors filed charges on 2008 against the founders of Pirate Bay and a Swedish businessman who sold services to the site (Kiss, 2009). It was believed that the four worked together in facilitating the breach of copyright law. The trial involved 34 cases of copyright infringement in which 4 were related to games, 21 to music and to films. Copies of invoices were presented as evidence that the site made a profit. The prosecutors argued that the Pirate Bay, through its file sharing service, offered a chance to upload torrent files, and to search for as well as download torrent files (Lewan. 2009). This was considered a breach of the copyright law. The prosecutor argued that the torrent files were used to aid in the breach. The prosecution showed that the site was a profitable business that assisted people to violate the copyright law. From the evidence presented in court, the Pirate Bay made about $1.5 million in revenue. The Defence According to defence, file sharing can be legal or illegal. The defence highlighted that it is legal to offer service regardless of whether it can be used legally or illegally. The internet users who are served by the Pirate Bay must be liable to the material they have or share with others (Lewan, 2009). Therefore, the Pirate Bay should not be criminalized since it does not have a direct connection to the illegal part of the business. According to the defence, the site is merely a search engine just like Google and should not be subject to legal infringement (Maister, 2009). The Pirate Bay never initiated any transfer of file and therefore, it is not responsible for any information transferred from one user to another. There were no close ties between the Pirate Bay and the users of its service. And as such, it is the users who were responsible for copyright infringement (Maister, 2009). The Guilty Verdict In April 2007, the four defendants were found guilty of copyright infringement and were sentenced to one year imprisonment (Lewan, 2009). In addition, they were liable to pay damage compensation to Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Nordisk Films, Warner Bros Entertainment, The Twentieth Century Fox and Emi Music Sweden among others. The total damage compensation fee was about $3.6 million. The verdict caused controversy across the world with some saying that this was a harsh punishment while others maintaining that the court gave a fair ruling (Lewan, 2009). Sweden Copyright Law Copyright Act of Sweden defines copyright protection as an exclusive right to dispose, produce and make work available for people. It is a breach of copyright law when an individual makes a work of a right holder available to the general public without the consent of the author (Government Offices of Sweden, 2010). Breach of copyright law carries a fine and imprisonment of at most two years. Under the Sweden Copyright Law, the Pirate Bay did not create a platform to willingly commit negligence and did not use copyrighted material. The company only facilitated the sharing of content which is not punishable under the law (Government Offices of Sweden, 2010). From the Sweden Copyright Law standpoint, the accusations and court verdict of the Pirate Bay is not valid. The court decision was not based on this law but on the biasness of the court as reported by Lewan (2009). Academic Research According to Sinha and Mandel (2008), Peer to Peer production has a positive effect on existing business models. Peer to Peer production causes more than 2/3 internet tariff, in which more than 70 per cent comes from video. Since millions of people are interconnected, their creativity overpowers that of giant company. This is termed as “the third mode of production” (Sinha and Mandel, 2008). Peers can now create media but this comes with negative effects such as piracy. People benefit from direct peer distribution rather than using the services of big companies to distribute their work. This has affected the operation and profitability of these companies. YouTube serves as the largest website for P2P production and sharing. P2P has also gone to a new level of social networking which has made changes in the media production and distribution industry (Sinha and Mendel, 2008). Today, the copyright laws have become more or less enforceable as a result of the increasing use of file sharing as well as lack of countermeasures. A solution presented by Pouwelse et al. (2008) is that a new digital distribution right should be created to legalize P2P for producer-consumer usage. The value added by publishers is weakening as a result of Peer to Peer sharing since anybody can independently reach millions of audience and create new business model (Quiring, Von Walter and Atterer, 2008). The verdict in the case of the Pirate Bay showed that the fight against P2P sharing is based on economic interest rather than the interest of protecting the right of content creator. The defendants in the case had to pay compensations to copyright holders. This illustrates that the fight against P2P was based on corporation economic gain (Quiring, Von Walter and Atterer, 2008). Technological advancement in the current time hassled to the availability of technologies to produce and share content through P2P platforms. This eliminates the need for large corporation to distribute content (Quiring, Von Walter and Atterer, 2008). Consequently, P2P platforms benefit the authors and negatively affect large corporations. According to Pouwelse et al. (2008), P2P platforms are not the reason why large corporations are losing money. Peers are willing to pay for content but not high prices. Most large corporation ask for large prices which prompts peers to look for cheaper options. Conclusion The Pirate Bay case attracted worldwide debate. As indicated by the Sweden Copyright Law, copyright infringement occurs when an individual produces and share copyrighted work without the consent of the author. This was not true for the Pirate Bay which only created a platform for people to share and access music, videos and films. Therefore, the court verdict regarding the company was not based on this law but conflict of interest. Nevertheless, the defendants were found guilty of infringement of copyright law. This could bring problems to other platforms that use P2Pfilesharing such as MySpace, YouTube and Google. Peer to Peer sharing is not going anywhere and is appreciated by authors and peers alike. The use of P2P according to the Sweden Copyright Act is not considered illegal. References Government Offices of Sweden (2010). The Swedish Copyright Legislation revised (ACT 1960:720). Retrieved 3rd Feb. 2017 from http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/05/42/00/8f85f6fa.pdf Kiss J. (2009). The Pirate Bay Trial: Guilty Verdict. The Guardian. Retrieved 3rd Feb. 2017 from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/apr/17/the-pirate-bay-trial-guilty-verdict Larsson, L. (2008). IDG.sd. Computer Sweden. Charges filed against The Pirate Bay. Retrieved 3rd Feb. 2017 from http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.143146 Lewan, M. (2009). CNET News/Digital Media: Pirate Bay judge accused of conflict of interest. Retrieved 3rd Feb. 2017 from http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10226167-93.html Maister, P. (2009). International news. In Sweden, Pirate Bay Verdict Feeds Populist Movement. Retrieved 3rd Feb. 2017 from http://www.law.com/jsp/law/international/LawArticleIntl.jsp?id=1202431221332 Pouwelse, J., Garbacki, P., Epema, D. & Sips, H. (2008). Pirates and Samaritans: A decade of measurements on peer production and their implications for net neutrality and copyright. Telecommunications Policy, 32(11): 701-712. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2008.09.004 Quiring, O., Von Walter, B., & Atterer, R. (2008). Can filesharers be triggered by economic incentives? Results of an experiment. New Media & Society, 10(3): 433-453. Sinha, R. & Mandel, N. (2008). Preventing Digital Music Piracy: The Carrot or the Stick? Journal of Marketing, 72(1): 1-15. Read More