Open Letter to the IPFI;
This just about covers my feelings on the matter;
The Pirate Bay Farce, I mean trial
From: Alan Fisher (xxxxx.xxxxx@.xxxxcom)
Sent: 03 March 2009 11:53:27
using a variety of sources, including your own website, I follow this debacle with an increasing mixture if interest and wide-mouthed disbelief. I do not download using the site in question but, like all IT professionals, have heard of them and am sure I know a number of people who avail of their services.
I find the IPFI's apparent desperation to bend the legislature in order to ensure they do not lose this trial (let's face it, if you do it does make your organisation a bit suplus to requirements) when it is clear to any other person following the case that there is not a case to be answered.
I can thus far see the following;
1). Håkan Roswall, your chief prosecutor, is playing the emotional aspect, as well as the layman's lack of technical details, up to his projected advantage. This reeks of deperation and is unpleasant to read about. Surely this is not the face your organisation wishes to present to the world? If we are to look to you for our copyright interests, I do not feel encouraged.
2) The Pirate Bay might have, slightly, indirectly, somehow, facilitated someone to provide someone with the possible, likely, potential means to maybe infringe copyright. Why the persuit of these men continues escapes me. Mr Roswall's reasoning again lapses into what I call "Law and Order Mode" or "Hollywood lawyer mode"; I feel he is going to seek the prosecution of knife manufacturers and gun manufacturers next? Afterall, their products are produced with the implicit purpose of the cause of harm are they not? One does not use a gun, or purchase such in order to prop up a shelf now does one? One purchases said firearm in order to discharge it. Therefore the blame is upon those who supply to the demand is it not? They profit from it also, considerably so. By your Organisation's reasoning, this is the path we should take. Can I quote you on that stance?
If I cannot I must ask why, should you be successful in this prosecution, why not? If the precendent applies for one, surely it must apply across the board? Will you be seeking manufacturers of recordable CD/DVD media next? They supply the means to copy the products of your members afterall. How about ripping/burning software? The list does go on so I would most humbly request the answers to the following questions;
1). Do the views Mr Roswall expressed in the media comply with those of the IFPI?
2). Does the IFPI, should they obtain a judgement in their favour in this case intend to expand the list of people they seek to prosecute?
3). Would the IFPI advocate full application of the precendent Mr Roswall seems to be putting forward?
4). Does this potential precendent meet with the aims of the IPFI as an organisation?
5). How far does the 'net' the IFPI wishes to cast go? What other activities will be classified as potential copyright infringements in the future?
6). Is providing the means an actual crime?
thank you in advance and I look forward to recieving a promt and well-considered response.