As much previously reported, on Friday morning three of the men who helped create the tracker service Pirate Bay: Frederik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg and Peter Sunde, and their chief funder Carl Lundstrom, were all sentenced to a year in jail for their role in enabling vast amounts of copyright infringement online. They were also ordered to pay £2.4 million in damages to the various claimants in the civil part of the case, a sum only Lundstrom could actually even conceive of paying.
But The Pirate Bay's defence was very weak, relying chiefly on hard to believe claims of ignorance regarding the levels of piracy the tracker service enables, stressing the chaotic nature of The Pirate Bay organisation as if that was a good excuse, and relying on the common defences in contributory/authorising infringement cases - we don't host any infringing content ourselves, and our service has legitimate uses.
But such defences have failed in a number of high profile lawsuits against the makers of P2P file-sharing software, who also don't host any infringing content and whose software has legitimate uses. The key to liability for so called contributory infringement in the internet age is whether an organisation which enables file-sharers responsibly communicates copyright law to its consumers, and whether they make reasonable efforts to restrict illegal usage. The Pirate Bay does neither. You might not agree with the way copyright law has developed in this domain, but - while previous key cases have been elsewhere in the world - the Swedish judge's ruling on Friday was wholly predictable, given the lack of a killer defence from the Four. (taken from Music Week)
Although they will appeal this is a start to show the world that what the file shares are doing is illegal and will the law is changing