Monday, March 2, 2009, 1:58pm
Next up to make his closing statement was Peter Danowsky of the IFPI. He began by saying that the trial is not about file-sharing technology, but about how it is used to infringe copyright. The goal is to find out whether or not the defendants have broken the law, and if so, what their punishment should be. Danowsky said he knew that there are other sites that engage in similar practices, but said that these are irrelevant to this case.
Comparing TPB to Google doesn't make any sense according to Danowsky, because Google is working with the rights holders to prevent piracy. TPB on the other hand constantly mocks rights holders. Danowsky further added that the number of [torrent files linking to] copyrighted works on TPB is much greater than the prosecutor decided to bring in as evidence.
Danowsky went on to state that TPB offers a service that is very similar to that offered by legal online music stores. However, TPB doesn't charge for the music and keeps the advertizing revenue to themselves instead of compensating the rights holders. Neij, Svartholm, Sunde and Lundström have contributed to copyright infringement according to Danowsky, and the record labels have to be compensated for the losses they have caused - in sales and in goodwill.
The difference is those who run The Pirate Bay mock those who assert copyright claims. That doesn't make them infringers themselves by the plaintiff's own statements.