TorrentFreak is reporting that the Sweden Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the four founders of The Pirate Bay. The current prison sentences and fines levied against Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundström will stand.

For a bit of background information, three of the four men were found guilty of criminal copyright infringement offenses in 2010. Previously, they had their sentences decreased in a 2009 trial, but were ordered to pay increased damages.

Sunde was given eight months in prison, Neij was given 10 months and Lundström will face four months. Svartholm was absent on medical leave during the appeal hearings. The ruling made in District Court in 2009 of one year in prison and a share of the damages is permanent. All four will have to pay a share of $6.8 million in damages.

Lundström’s lawyer called the verdict “absurd.” He is disappointed in the court and their disinterest in “dissecting and analyzing the legal twists and turns of the one of the world’s most high-profile legal cases of all time.”

One of the defendants told TorrentFreak that they are going to appeal to the European Court of Justice. This does not, however, prevent their sentence from being carried out in Sweden.

The men may not go to prison though as the Swedish justice system commonly deducts 12 months from prison sentences on cases over five years old. Their case meets the criteria, but the final decision is up to the court.

Sunde spoke to TorrentFreak about the decision:

Sweden speaks well about caring about the Internets. They spend a lot of money and time on helping activists all around the world. But who are these people that they’re so proud of helping? TPB has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

All of the people involved in TPB at some time have been involved in everything from famous leaks projects to aiding people in the arab spring. We’ve fought corruption all over the world. We’ve promoted equal opportunities to poor nations around the globe. We’ve crushed the monopoly on information. Our close ones, many who have helped building TPB, have been mentioned as possible winners of the nobel peace prize.

I’m not bragging – I’m saying this to make sure that people understand who’s doing the right thing here. I haven’t seen the entertainment industry help anyone but themselves.

The Pirate Bay Web site is still online as it was not part of the legal proceedings. The Pirate Bay Web site, however, now redirects to a .se domain, fearing that the U.S. will pull a MegaUpload on them.

The Pirate Bay Web site proper also posted a statement about the decision calling 2012 “the year of the storm.” They reiterate a lot of what Sunde said, but it’s still worth a read:

What binds us all together is a strong belief that what we do is good. That it is something we one day can tell our grandchildren about with pride. People from all over the world confirm this. We read testimonials from people in Syria longing for freedom, thanking us for what we provide. We receive more than 100 visits daily from North Korea and we sure know that they need it. If there’s something that will bring peace to this world it is the understanding and appreciation of your fellow man. What better way to do that than with this vast library of culture?

But what enrages us to our inner core is that the system, the empire, the governments, are still allowed to try to boss you and us around with one law crazier than the other. Do you think they will stop with SOPA/ACTA/PIPA? They will not. Because you won’t stop sharing those files. Because we will not stay down. Because no one can turn back time. Together, we are the iron that hardens with each strike.

In this year of the storm, the winners will build windmills and the losers will raise shelters. So flex your muscles, fellow pirates, and give power to us all! Build more sites! More nets! More protocols! Scream louder than ever and take it to the next level!

What do you think? Is The Pirate Bay here to stay? Or is this one more nail in the coffin of the world’s most popular torrent tracker? Let us know in the comments.

Lynton’s piece is remarkable also for what it doesn’t have: the credibility the entertainment industry and Big Content as a whole has lost. No reasonable person would support or condone piracy, which is the issue at the heart of Lynton’s argument. Stealing is wrong, we all can agree.

With the same amount of reason, though, a person can think the invasiveness, extremism, and disproportionate influence the industry prefers and wields is also wrong, and it is its vested interest that robs the industry of its credibility.

 At the heart of it, the industry is propping itself up on the piracy issue and pressuring open-pocketed politicians to achieve ends counter to their own customer base’s ideals. People care less about the pittance a few pirates cost the industry and more about how much their government will allow itself and its constituents to be bullied and scared into submission to the will of the industry.

Here’s what the people don’t want and should vehemently fight: ISPs sniffing their packets on behalf of government or the entertainment industry to root out a few lawbreakers by violating the whole’s right to privacy; ISPs and entertainment companies deciding based on their own interests what websites and content subscribers have access to; content companies, or any industry or government entity (industry and government are one and the same anymore) squashing fair use and freedom of speech because of copyright law abuse or to quash dissent; copyright lawyers wreaking financial ruin on minor offenders (their parents and grandparents) via litigation over a few dollars worth of pirated content; entertainment industry lawyers snaking their way into the DOJ, Congress, and now the Supreme Court (Sotomayor’s private practice life was as an intellectual property lawyer).

If letting a few pirates, or a bunch of teenagers, beat the system prevents all of that, well then who, other than the entertainment industry and Big Content, cares? Lynton is wrong when he says there are no guidelines in place or rules of the road regarding copyright. There are plenty of them, and violation carries stiff, stiff penalties. Sony, and the entertainment industry as well, are not the victims they’re making themselves out to be.

Lynton opens with the story of how X-Men Origins: Wolverine was leaked onto the Internet a month in advance and was illegally downloaded four million times. First, it sounds like a big internal problem that the movie was leaked in the first place. Second, Wolverine made $87 million at the box office despite that. Everybody still gets rich. Tell me again who suffered? One might argue that was great free promotion.

Lynton would say all artists, writers, actors, musicians, all content creators suffered. One might also say they already suffer by making a fraction of the money their art has made for these companies. Maybe the Internet, via new self-publishing and self-marketing venues, makes it easier for them to get their fair share? Yeah, that would be a problem for the industry, wouldn’t it?

This argument could go on and on, and I could do a bullet-point-style rebuttal of Lynton’s comments, which are designed to get Sony ahead and nobody else. As a writer (yeah, in case you wondered, I’m working on a novel—and I think it’s really stinkin’ good), I know I’ve got copyright law on my side to protect my work. When Sony buys the movie rights (see, I’m an optimist), I may even let them screw me over to further my career. Whatever happens, we’ll both need to evolve, but neither of us needs stronger copyright laws. The copyright laws are already stacked in our favor.

Any country music fans out there may be able to confirm that Cal IV is a big deal – even as someone who dislikes a lot of country, I recognized several names on the company’s “hit list” (Faith Hill, George Strait, and Martina McBride, among others).

In any event, Cal IV “alleged that YouTube hosts more than 60 of the company’s copyrighted songs and accuses YouTube of direct, inducement, vicarious and contributory copyright infringement,” according to Google Watch’s Steve Bryant.

Bryant then notes, “As with a similar lawsuit recently filed against YouTube by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, Cal IV argues that even though YouTube complies with the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) by removing videos quickly after being notified, the site does nothing to dissuade repeat infringement.”

As with every other lawsuit YouTube is facing, it’ll be interesting to see how this one plays out.  I have nothing against YouTube, but with an ever-increasing number of competitors in the video-sharing market, just one or two legal losses could contribute to Google’s king losing its crown.

Charkin is not, in case you’re wondering, a lunatic.  He’s also not a cat burglar who managed to breach the Googleplex – the CEO just picked the laptops off some pedestals at BookExpo America.  Charkin was, in his mind, making a point about Google’s attitude towards copyright law.

“The owner of the computer had not specifically told us not to steal it,” Charkin wrote on the Chark Blog.  “If s/he had, we would not have done so.  When s/he asked for its return, we did so.  It is exactly what Google expects publishers to expect and accept in respect to intellectual property.”

Charkin later continued, “I felt rather shabby playing this trick on Google.  They should feel the same playing the same trick on authors and publishers.”

Readers of The Register might agree; most of the comments following an article by Cade Metz suggest that Charkin’s actions were appropriate (and possibly hilarious, as well).  Yet the Techdirt crowd is more supportive of Google’s side, with Mike Masnick calling the whole thing “a cheap stunt” on Charkin’s part.

Right or wrong, Macmillan’s CEO did succeed in drawing some attention to his cause.  Charkin may want to watch out, however; Eric Schmidt could decide that a few of his possessions would add just the right touch to the Googleplex.

“Warner, the world’s fourth-largest music company, is claiming damages up to $150,000 for each copyrighted work infringed on the site,” reports Reuters.  Warner represents ultra-famous artists like Radiohead, Metallica, and Frank Sinatra – and Wikipedia lists 239 others – so the final, yet-to-be-determined sum could be nearly incalculable.

I’m sure the lawyers will find a way, though, and as they push their calculators into overdrive, all is quiet at the “online community where artists, fans & friends can promote their content, share their tastes, and discover new blogs, photos, music and video.”  By digging into the “Community Rules” section of Imeem, WebProNews did at least discover that the site regards copyright infringement as “just not cool.”

Oh, blast.  Imeem made the lawyers laugh and now they’ve got to start their calculations all over again; they’re certainly not buying that slacker excuse.  “Imeem is no innocent infringer,” states Warner in its suit.  “It invites Imeem’s millions of users to flock to its website to copy, adapt, distribute and perform unlicensed sound recordings and music videos.”

If Warner Music Group has its way, those millions of users could be left looking for somewhere else to “share their tastes” in the near future.  Maybe a lucky few will get to talk it over with their new instructor, Flea.

Techdirt’s Mike Masnick filed the story in the “you-have-to-be-kidding” department, writing, “You would think with a war going on, the threat of terrorism and, well, a scandal at his office that many think will eventually force him to resign, that the Attorney General of the US would be pretty busy dealing with any of those things.

“Apparently not,” Masnick continued.  “AG Alberto Gonzales decided that now is the best time to ask Congress (who you might say isn’t particularly happy with him right now) to pass stricter intellectual property laws.”

Gonzales suggested that anyone who “attempts” to infringe copyright law be prosecuted, according to Declan McCullagh.  Wiretaps would become easier to establish, and computers and other property could be “more readily” seized.  The RIAA is mentioned, as well – Homeland Security would have to notify that entity about illegal (copyright-related) imports.

The attorney general nonetheless maintains that this is not about dollars and cents.  “While crimes like (intellectual property) theft may appear harmless to some, we know that the reality is much different,” said Gonzales, as reported by Variety.  “Imagine a heart patient undergoing emergency surgery at a hospital that unknowingly purchased substandard counterfeit surgical equipment or medications.”

No one seems to know what kind of support the attorney general’s proposal can expect.  It should, at least, keep Gonzales’s name in the headlines.

You might call it a "flame war," in the traditional Internet sense, but that’s hardly accurate.

Besides the ensuing vitriol, the interesting twists the case puts on Internet copyright law, and the implications of what happens as a result of the case, at the end of the day there are incredible juxtapositions afoot. Specifically, a child has issued a challenge to a woman dedicated to protecting the rights of accused child abusers.

Though one may be hesitant to readily accept Shell’s cause – both her countersuit and her response to the "Internet Geeks" lambasting her toe the line of the extreme by demanding punishment of Internet Archive beyond, by some standards, what might be considered reasonable, and by use of what may be considered extensive abusive language in her FAQ (PDF) about the case – Shell manages to effectively illustrate the shortcomings of cyber-mobs unable to channel their anger into intelligible language carrying anything that might be called "gravitas."

Yes, we’ve certainly addressed the "weight-class," if you will, of the average Digg.com user, and we generally didn’t like what we found out.

Let’s review and clarify. When Shell discovered that Internet Archive had copied and displayed 87 versions of her website, profane-justice.org, she demanded the company pay $100,000 in licensing fees, according to John Ottaviani. Shell has a notice on her site announcing that copying pages from the site carried some pretty stiff fees. Internet Archive’s crawler copied the site for use on the Wayback Machine, an act Shell says is agreeing to the contract. There is some precedent for machines entering contracts, which makes this case all the more interesting.

Internet Archive refused to pay the licensing fees and sued Shell in a Colorado court seeking judgment that no violation of copyrights had occurred. Shell countersued, alleging copyright infringement, conversion, civil theft, breach of contract, along with federal and state-level racketeering. All but the breach of contract claim have been dismissed.

Shell is quick to note in this aftermath, that her case is not about the legitimacy of search engine spidering, but about copying and displaying. She defends Google’s and other engines’ fair use of Internet content for indexing purposes.

The story really came to light last Friday, though the case has been pending for nearly a year and a half. After that, a mob of so-called "iGeeks" began shooting off emails to Shell with threats of hacking her site, calling her a "moron," a "stupid whore," a "retard," and calling her lawsuit "a joke." Most of these emails were sent anonymously, Shell points out, climaxing with a threat to murder and sodomize Shell’s children. Shell has subsequently claimed, according Digg.com, that she is tracing phone calls and plans to press charges.

Shell responds in vitriolic kind in an FAQ published on the site over the weekend, accusing anonymous emailers of being cowards, unintelligent, rude, macho, nasty, sick, scary, and abusive, in as many different terms as she (or the writer of the FAQ) can find.

And she makes a good case for it. Say what you want about the merits of her seemingly overly-punitive countersuit, or even the cause in life to which she is devoted, but the breach of contract claim is an important one to explore in a time of uncertain copyright limitations.

Those that would argue Internet Archive is within its rights to copy and preserve at will, that the "opt-out" standard is acceptable in this age of boundless information, would be better served if their anonymous emails, if they must remain anonymous, had some sort of bite beyond petty, immature, misspelled, informal, and uncalled-for abuse.

Flaming, on the Internet and in life, just doesn’t win an opponent to your cause. Perhaps part of this is due to the orbitofrontal cortex, the brain’s regulatory center for appropriate speech that takes facial and body language cues to control what comes out of the amygdala, or the nastiness center. Anonymity coupled with lack of empathy-inspiring cues from the other side cause this process to halt, according to some researchers.

But it may speak more about an online culture more acutely coming into conflict with the real world, and a youthful base, that hasn’t developed certain communication skills and judgment yet, suddenly gripping a powerful vehicle for speech.

And that brings us around to Jeff Veillette. Veillette is a 15-year-old Canadian, judging from profiles on the Net, a Digg.com user, and self-insulting* online community member with what you might call typical 15-year-old rhetoric. Publicizing his actions on Digg, Veillette is daring Shell to sue him after setting up sue-me.info, a complete copy of Shell’s website, which would, if the terms were agreed to, rack up fees beyond counting.

At the top of the site, Veillette issues this statement:

_{Listen. Don’t fuck with us. We fight back, Suzanne. Try and sue me. I DARE you. Your entire site is framed here. Not one file (not two, but all) being processed is done by you. I framed it all, Suzanne. And you can’t do anything. Come on, Suzanne, go for it.}

NOTE: Heh! I actually wasn’t stealing anything. Just frames. But it proves a point. We don’t like you, Suzanne. Someone will try this, but at 15 years old I can’t afford it if you go insane. Sorry. Maybe next time.

And now, we sit back, shake our heads at both sides, and watch what happens next between a sharp-tongued, heavy-handed mother and the exceedingly arrogant bravado of a teenager. And we watch nervously.   

*CORRECTION: Veillette informs us that the "self-insulting" post was a prank by a friend of his and not actually him.

A little while back, we explored the idea that RSS, as an automatic distribution agent, could imply permission to republish. But that involves two human parties, essentially, with a technical agent in between.

A court battle in Colorado, however, focuses on claims brought by Suzanne Shell against the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, which holds in searchable perpetuity pages that appear on the Web, for future historical reference.

Shell owns the website www.profane-justice.org, devoted to providing information and support for people who feel they’ve been unlawfully targeted by state agents (like police or child services organizations) or unfairly accused of child abuse.

A notice appears on the site stating that users copying or distributing the content on the site automatically agree to the terms of a contract. Failure to abide carries a fee of $5,000 per page copied; $250,000 per occurrence of unauthorized use, and a charge of $50,000 for each occurrence of failure to pay, plus costs and triple damages.

There was no mechanism in place on the site (such as in the robots.txt file) to prevent Internet Archive’s robot from scanning, copying, and storing the pages on Shell’s website. She discovered that the Wayback Machine had reproduced the contents of her website about 87 times in five years, "and displayed her entire website to the public daily during that period." 

Shell sued the company for conversion, civil theft, breach of contract, and violations of the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act (COCCA).

As might be guessed, most of these claims were dismissed. But the breach of contract claim is still under consideration, awaiting more information. The question that will be decided, ultimately, is whether a web crawler that is not blocked by a website can legally be bound by a contract posted on the site.

The outcome of that question could also have important impact on Web-crawling and Internet copyright law itself. Search engines like Google have leaned on Fair Use principles when scouring the Web (and off-line libraries) for information. The Google Book Search project defenders have claimed that publishers can "opt out" of their network by letting Google know their desire to do so.

Of a similar vein, then, is Web crawling. Webmasters must opt-out of indexing via the robots.txt file, preventing the spider from crawling the site. If the courts continue to back search engines’ and other Internet companies’ right to copy and index at will, then the whole copyright system, by default, it would seem, goes opt-out, too.

Copyright law blogger John Ottaviani, on Eric Goldman‘s blog, goes into the Internet Archive v. Shell case and its implications in greater detail.