This article has prompted me to revive my blog from the ashes. While mostly accurate, I echoed the concerns of individuals who wrote comments on the Slashdot version of this, that the Pirate Bay was unfairly being labelled as "illegal" when in fact its illegality is still under question in Sweden.
In the last 24 hours, I sent a note pointing this out to Deborah Howell, the Washington Post Ombudsman, and actually got a response from her. It appears that she forwarded my note to the reporter, got a response from him, and forwarded it back to me. Note to self, Ombudsmen actually respond to complaints... at least this one does.
So, given that the reporter's response seemed pretty argmentatively weak, I decided to write a followup with more evidence, and send it back. What follows is the complete record of my interaction with the Washington Post on this issue.
Dear Ms. Howell,
I appreciate the time that you and Mr. Ahrens have taken to respond to my previous message. If you would permit me a bit more of your time, I would like to bring a few more things to your attention before leaving this issue behind.
Mr. Ahrens' response is that it is appropriate to call the site illegal if the Swedish police conducted a raid on it. This kind of "where there is smoke, there must be fire" reasoning might be appropriate in the absence of evidence to the contrary. However, the situation on the ground in Sweden, as far as I have been able to surmise, suggests there are grounded reasons to use greater caution.
A popular Swedish news program, called "Rapport", has claimed that foreign pressure caused the raid without a clear standard in Swedish law on the legality of the Pirate Bay's operations. Here are a few references that I was able to locate on the Web that support this:
The Local, an english translation site of Swedish news, June 2nd 2006, "US government behind Pirate Bay raid":
"Swedish police and prosecutors were then given the go-ahead to act. According to one prosecutor the legal situation was still unclear, but the state secretary Dan Eliasson gave the order for the operation to begin, according to Rapport." (http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=3969&date=20060602)
The International Tribune, June 4th, 2006, "Filesharing crackdown and backlash in Sweden" :
"A report by Rapport, the most popular news program on Swedish television, created a stir by alleging that the raid was a result of direct pressure from the U.S. government on the Swedish authorities and that it had happened even though Swedish prosecutors had already concluded that the case against The Pirate Bay was too weak to warrant a raid." (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/04/business/pirate.php)
Another example comes from Wired News, June 6th, 2006 "Pirate Bay, bloodied but unbowed":
"The site administrators believe that what they are doing is currently legal under Swedish law, because they don't host the pirated content themselves, only the pointers that let people get the files. "That argument would not work in the U.S., because they are promoting piracy," says David Hayes, chairman of the intellectual property group at the law firm Fenwick and West. That's secondary liability, where a provider is held responsible for the illegal actions of its users. But the site isn't directly subject to U.S. law, and "they seem to think there is no secondary liability under Swedish copyright law," Hayes says. "As far as I know that issue hasn't been tested in the Swedish courts." (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71089-0.html?tw=wn_index_2)
Essentially, the Swedish version of "60 Minutes", has claimed that the raids were politically motivated and were conducted without a clear legal standard, even from the new set of intellectual property laws. The quotations I have presented, in the articles they come from, are used as point-counterpoint to demonstrate that there is controversy within Sweden of the legality of the Pirate Bay's operations. I have come across many other articles that have deliberately avoided calling the Pirate Bay's operations uncategorically "illegal", as though it is a statement of fact, as Mr. Ahrens has done prejudiciously. While Mr. Ahrens may be satisfied to say that being raided by the police is proof enough of guilt, it would appear that the standard of presumed innocence before proven guilt ought to apply here. Until there is clear evidence in a court case in Sweden that rules that the Pirate Bay's activities fall afoul of the new law, the same respectful use of labels that the Washington Post extends to other alleged criminals to avoid a hasty character assasination should be adhered to.
I hope that you and Mr. Ahrens will confront these issues seriously and with an open mind. The real story here may be far more interesting than it appears on the surface.
Thanks,
Stephen Larson
From: Deborah C Howell
To: lomak99@hotmail.com
Subject: Here is what the reporter says...
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:26:42 -0400
Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
202-334-7521
----- Forwarded by Deborah C Howell/visitors/news/TWP on 06/16/2006 12:26
PM -----
Frank Ahrens
To: Deborah C Howell/visitors/news/TWP@WashPostMain
06/16/2006 12:20 cc:
PM Subject: Re: Frank, what do you think?(Document link: Deborah C Howell)
Yes, I got this. Pirate Bay was illegal enough for Swedish cops to bust the
site based on their new law. That's illegal enough for me.
Thanks. (emphasis added -Stephen)
Frank Ahrens
Media and entertainment industry reporter
The Washington Post
Phone: 202.334.5158
Fax: 202.496.3815
Deborah C Howell
To: Frank Ahrens/news/TWP@WashPostMain
06/16/2006 12:18 cc: Jill Dutt/news/TWP@WashPostMain
PM Subject: Frank, what do you think?
Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman
202-334-7521
----- Forwarded by Deborah C Howell/visitors/news/TWP on 06/16/2006 12:18
PM -----
Stephen Larson
Subject: Message via washingtonpost.com
06/16/2006 12:56
AM
Stephen Larson sent the following message:
Dear Ms Howell,
In Frank Ahrens recent article, "U.S. Joins Industry in Piracy War",
Thursday, June 15, 2006, Ahrens says the following:
"Last month, Swedish authorities briefly shut down an illegal file-sharing
Web site after receiving a briefing on the site's activities from U.S.
officials in April in Washington. The raid incited political and popular
backlash in the Scandinavian nation."
His reference to the Pirate Bay as "illegal" is factually incorrect.
In Sweden, the fact is that the Pirate Bay's legal status is unclear and
has been debated extensively. The law change in the previous line that
Ahrens references, "Sweden change its laws to make it a crime to swap
copyrighted movies and music for free over the Internet." does not directly
incriminate the Pirate Bay. This is because the Pirate Bay does not host
any copyrighted material whatsoever on its servers. It merely provides
pointers to other sites on the internet. In the United States, laws
against "contributory infringement" would be applicable, however Sweden
does not yet have these laws.
This inaccuracy has a very real effect on shaping the perceptions
of the issue. The fact is that there is a very real debate on the world
stage right now about the extent to which U.S. intellectual property laws
should be respected globally. By jumping the gun and calling the Pirate
Bay illegal when it is not stigmatizes one side of the debate unfairly and
introduces bias where there should be none.
Thanks,
Stephen Larson