Use of BitTorrent technology by The Pirate Bay
The Pirate Bay; also known, as TPB is a website that works by BitTorrent technology to share files. TPB was begun in 2013 by Gottfrid Svartholm and Fredrik Neij. TPB has its roots traced back to the Pirate Bureau, which was regarded as a think tank towards the devotion of a culture that is copy free. At the time when the website was founded, a Swedish BitTorrent tracker was developed to provide the platform safe means of sharing content. On the contrary, the management realized that since TPB came with features that are unique, the use of BitTorrent technology would come with copyright regulation challenges (Geisler and Hoang, 2013, pg. 41). Otherwise, TPB has been subjected to a number of legal issues to have it closed down but the company still manages to resurface. Currently, the Internet is not conducive enough for video and music pirates to make a living since there are several laws that have been enforced against online pirating. Apart from that, the existence of wireless and mobile technologies ensure that online content of high quality can be streamed at a dismal fee. On that note, TPB is considered as part of a small political and social movement in Europe that demands the unrestriction of TV shows, music, videos, and other digital content as well as zero practice of pirating. Therefore, this organization does not operate database content that is copyrighted. The organization does not operate the member-owned computer systems or own, create, and distribute related software. Otherwise, the organization provides a search engine, which mostly responds to the queries, asked by users on music tracks and titles of movies thereby, generating a search result list (Hair, Et al., 2018).
From the perspective of copyright, the use of Bit Torrent technology was considered as disruptive in countries like Sweden among others. However, the law still granted it illegal for one to distribute free copies of content without the holder’s rights. However, it was unclear about the legality of letting individuals copy small pieces of content from a couple of sources then assemble the small pieces to create a full copy. By the fact that central servers need to access the loaded files, legal ambiguity is created. Then after, Gottfrid Svartholm, working from Mexico, came up with BitTorrent tracker for members of Pirate Bureau. Therefore, TBP engaged in evasive entrepreneurship from the start due to the exploitation of geographical inconsistencies. Such inconsistencies came because of poor copyright enforcement and legislation between Sweden and Mexico (Hong, Et al., 2013, pg. 26).
Legal challenges associated with the use of BitTorrent technology by TPB
Primary to this discussion, the provision of free digital content is more of a necessity in the current society even if world governments and the global entertainment industry fight against it through the incorporation of copyright laws. Why? Because almost nothing can be done to the issue. As mentioned before in the analysis section, The Pirate Bay facilitates peer-to-peer sharing of files among users. TPB works by providing links that are magnetic and are accessible through “leeching” download and access protocol. However, it is illegal to download contents of the site or make them available to others though many individuals who do so never face any kind of prosecution (IDC, 2016). On the contrary, there have been incidents that are rather isolated regarding copyright lawsuits all of which have been spurred by complaints in the entertainment industry. On the same issue, companies that provide Internet services like Time Warner and Comcast have been given directives by regulating bodies to have connections of those who illegally download content scrambled. However, the providers have not been successful in performing such acts. On the other hand, even for regions that TPB is blocked, there are proxy servers that are erected for the provision of quality access to online content. Apart from that, the international society has been pressing the government of Sweden to stop copyright law and intellectual property infringement (Jarvenpaa and Todd, 2017, pg. 60). Afterwards, the Swedish government decided to raid TPB as well as the founding members of the website. The government then seized all the technical equipment, confiscated the servers, and even shut down the site. Two days after the raid, TPB began its operations once more with a logo in which a pirate ship shoots its cannons at the sign of Hollywood. The site then decided to have its sites’ servers backed in Russia and Belgium making the possibility of it ever being seized again quite unlikely. In recent times, the Swedish authorities have made the torrenters of TPB to develop cold feet as the police again raided the offices of the website in Stockholm. Afterwards, several computers and servers were taken off-line once more with TPB being forced to create alternative interim sites. Again, TPB ensured that the expectations of users are fulfilled by bouncing back to full operation with a new logo; this time the Phoenix (Kim, Et al., 2013, pg. 227).
With multiple numbers of raids, most individuals would wonder how the site still managed to operate. To answer the question, there are two important issues worth noting. First, TPB does not provide torrents for shared files to more than ten individuals though it is known as a torrent directory. Instead, the organization provides magnet links that are identified by data and content and not the location to enhance encryption, security, and protection of user IP addresses. Second, the site moved the entire infrastructure to several providers of cloud hosting worldwide. In such an attempt, TPB was able to improve speed, cutting costs, and enhancing user security. The website could otherwise, seamlessly operate internationally since the servers no longer exist in the same provider with providers of commercial cloud hosting not recognizing the fact that they are hosts in themselves. The prosecution then becomes almost impossible while load balancers and transit-routers are features for the sustenance of the site (PC World, 2013).
Ethical concerns surrounding TPB’s operations
Second, to this discussion, the site has moderators, an administration, and a community that ensures that operations are ethical as per the requirements of TPB society. Otherwise, most of the time that TPB is raided, it does not come back to full operation immediately because of the manner that the web is administrated. This site is not entirely run by the community but an administration as well as moderators that are charged with policing the site’s content. For instance, when an individual upload a sketchy magnetic link or rather describes a camera-recorded content as 1080p; the officials won’t hesitate to pull the links down. However, these managers and administrators are currently the targets of numerous copyright investigations and charges thus, creating fresh administrative problems for the site (Burke and Lavonne, 2014, pg. 71). With such pursuits still haunting the management of TPB, most leaders have decided to pull out of the organization’s endeavours with TPB being operated without its core leaders and administrators. According to the administrators, legal complaints are entangled with compound issues with regards to the cloudware used by TPB that most individuals believe creates a chance for the FBI to trap users through the provision of links that are faulty. Even though the site announced the use of cloudware with insufficient moderation being temporary, users still asked several questions regarding how the site would have such security concerns solved. At that time when TPB had many security concerns and leaders were quitting, many music and film industry made people believe that the time to take down the copyright giant for the last time had reckoned. The president of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry once said that TPB is a huge problem for the industry. According to him, the site carried out an explicit violation of intellectual property and international copyright laws yet no serious prosecutions were undertaken (Ganesh, Et al., 2015, pg. 63).
Third, to this discussion, there are ethical concerns from different stakeholders and organizations regarding TPB operations. According to some, ethical issues facing TPB are diverse and not that simple a matter. Such individuals argue that international copyright protections entirely exist for the protection of nations that are already powerful and rich and that the online access to legal content is tedious and expensive. Apart from that, there are some content providers with different views from those of ABBA and IFPI (Dowling and Jeffrey, 2015, pg. 127). The best-selling author of “The Witch of Portobello” and “The Alchemist”, Paulo Coelho has attributed his soaring access to the existence of torrents. According to Paulo’s argument, provision of free album samples and access to content is a way that customers are enticed thereby, encouraging increased content access and eventual sales. Even if many individuals do not pay for the products, the market will still exist inevitably. Individuals who can afford the content would pay for them with those who wish not to break the law avoiding TPB. Paulo then sums up his argument brilliantly by stating that the entertainment industry should relax since humans have felt the need to share since the dawn of time art and food included. It is part of the human condition to have things shared. Those who find it difficult to share are not only lonely and bitter but also selfish. Overall, though The Pirate Bay is illegal, the question of its ethical existence is another debate on its own (Dean and Katie, 2013).
As identified in the case study, TPB is not illegal in itself. Apart from that, opening the site to have the content viewed is okay according to law. However, whatever is done on the site is the real deal; and of which could land the administration of the site into trouble (Ganesh, Et al., 2015, pg. 65). On the other hand, The Pirate Bay is but a site that hosts links that connect users to hosts of networks with copies of copyrighted contents. Therefore, when a user looks for his or her favourite album, several links will pop with details of the individuals who own the sites and the distributed content. In the same line, individuals who torrent content to other individuals are considered as lawbreakers. These individuals have no right to distribute content. Otherwise, individuals who download content that is copyrighted without the consent of the content owners (Ekman and Ivar, 2016).
As mentioned before, the first legal concern is downloading contents from the site, which are otherwise not consented by the original owners to be provided free. TPB makes links to pirate content free thereby facing charges for pirating. In relation to the same, there have been incidents regarding copyright lawsuits all of which have been spurred by complaints in the entertainment industry. Therefore, European countries like Sweden have blocked the access of TPB with the international society has been pressing the government of Sweden to stop copyright law and intellectual property infringement (Drazen and Allan, 2016, pg. 26). Since the international body has been pressing on such legal matter affecting TPB, the Swedish government decided to raid TPB as well as the founding members of the website. As mentioned before, the government then seized all the technical equipment, confiscated the servers, and even shut down the site. In recent times, the Swedish authorities have made the torrenters of TPB to develop cold feet as the police again raided the offices of the website in Stockholm. Afterwards, several computers and servers were taken off-line once more with TPB being forced to create alternative interim sites. Again, TPB ensured that the expectations of users are fulfilled by bouncing back to full operation with a new logo; this time the Phoenix (Dowling and Jeffrey, 2015, pg. 129).
With multiple number of raids, most individuals would wonder how the site still managed to operate. To answer the question, there are two important issues worth noting. First, TPB does not provide torrents for shared files to more than ten individuals though it is known as a torrent directory. Instead, the organization provides magnet links that are identified by data and content and not the location to enhance encryption, security, and protection of user IP addresses (Douhan, Et al., 2016, pg. 630). Second, the site moved the entire infrastructure to several providers of cloud hosting worldwide. In such an attempt, TPB was able to improve speed, cutting costs, and enhancing user security. The website could otherwise, seamlessly operate internationally since the servers no longer exist in the same provider with providers of commercial cloud hosting not recognizing the fact that they are hosts in themselves. The prosecution then becomes almost impossible while load balancers and transit-routers are features for the sustenance of the site (Dillon, and Reif, 2014, pg. 7).
In relation to Australia’s Copyright Amendment Bill 2015 on Online Infringement, the law is designed to restrict Australians from accessing websites from overseas such as The Pirate Bay. Copyright Amendment Bill of 2015 will not really stop individuals from downloading online content that is illegal but intends to reduce the number of accesses. First, this amendment means that intellectual property rights holders are given the chance to launch cases on pirating activities. The Carriage Service Provider is thus, required to take steps that are reasonable towards blocking of access to overseas copyright websites (Dean and Katie, 2013). Unlike the Copyright Act 1968, which explains the purpose of Internet Service Providers, the amendments made do not provide explanations to whether ISP needs to have IP addresses blocked. According to the explanatory memorandum provided by the bill, Australia’s Federal Court has the mandate to order parties to develop a page that would inform users about the reasons why the website was blocked. In such instances, Virtual Private Networks are not considered as targets of this law since the explanatory memorandum states…” but towards the protection of VPNs; which are not part of this amendment” (Dahlberg and Leif, 2015).
As aforementioned, TPB came with features that are unique, the use of BitTorrent technology would come with copyright regulation challenges. Otherwise, TPB has been subjected to a number of legal issues to have it closed down but the company still manages to resurface (Coyne, Et al., 2014, pg. 241). Currently, the Internet is not conducive enough for video and music pirates to make a living since there are several laws that have been enforced against online pirating. Apart from that, the existence of wireless and mobile technologies ensure that online content of high quality can be streamed at a dismal fee (Cammaerts and Bingchun, 2015).
As a personal opinion and in relation to the discussed issues, we cannot penalize TPB for its evasive entrepreneurial activities. An evasive entrepreneurship is an organization that is aimed at circumventing formal institutions to have an edge over other firms in the market, exploit an arbitrage opportunity, or facilitate change. Evasive entrepreneurship occurs in areas that are legally grey. Such kind of institutions may be misunderstood or underestimated but are sources of innovation in this modern economy (Burke and Lavonne, 2014, pg. 75).
Therefore, the operational framework of The Pirate Bay is that of an evasive entrepreneurial organization. Such frameworks are notable and thus, trigger responses from regulators and lawmakers. The Pirate Bay in itself is a venture with evasive and clearly innovative features. Though the platform is radical, it applies widely accepted innovations that have changed the landscape of the Internet (Buchanan, Et al., 2013). However, the founders of this envied site were convicted as criminals because they proposed and applied an evasive entrepreneurship framework. In this case, we understand that the relationship between entrepreneurship and policymaking in the current digital age creates the first step to the determination of appropriate responses for law-makers and regulators that confront evasive entrepreneurship. We can argue that TP has the benefit of institutional contradiction because of enforceability. Otherwise, if the sharing of files is to be regarded as a crime, it would not be TPB’s but instead, for all the users that upload and download torrents. The enforcement of laws and regulations in the appropriate manner would require right holders and authorities to engage collectively in legal processes against every individual who uses TPB. That means that world governments would have the entire technological generation labelled as criminals (Baumol and William, 2013, pg. 897).
On top of that, it is observed that laws on copyrights have no meaning unless they are interpreted in observation of the effects and impacts they hold on the individuals that they are to apply to. In other words, the laws will only apply of the people consider them legitimate (Baker and Steven, 2016). There are a number of people that take part in the sharing of files and they do not view copyright infringement to be wrong considering moral and ethical aspects discussed herein. Just to take note, in as much as the government of Sweden stands at ill terms with the management of TPB, there are few Swedes who view sharing of files as a heinous crime. Therefore, the view of the people is an important factor towards the success of TPB. Apart from that, the attention provided by the media on the issue that TPB received a profit boost before and during the trial of its founders, is because of the shape of public opinion. As a result, TPB is profiled as a benevolent organization and that its founders are not rebels (Andersson, 2013).
Reference
Andersson, J. (2013) “Det dumma nätet.” In Jonas Andersson and Pelle Snickars, eds., Efter The Pirate Bay. Mediehistoriskt arkiv 19. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden.
Baker, S., R., N. and Steven J., D. (2016) “Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, forthcoming.
Baumol and William J. (2013) “Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive.” Journal of Political Economy 98(5), 893–921.
Buchanan, J. Robert, T. and Gordon, T. (2013) Towards a Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
Burke and Lavonne (2014) “International Media Pirates: Are they making the Entertainment Industry Walk the Plank?” Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law 4(1), 67–91.
Cammaerts, B. and Bingchun, M. (2015) “Creative Destruction and Copyright Protection: Regulatory Responses to File Sharing.” Media Policy Brief. London: London School of Economics
Coyne, Christopher, J. and Peter, T. Leeson (2014) “The Plight of Underdeveloped Countries.” Cato Journal, 24(3), 235–249.
Dahlberg and Leif, (2015) “Pirater, partisaner och ekollon.” In Jonas Andersson and Pelle Snickars, eds., Efter The Pirate Bay. Mediehistoriskt arkiv 19. Stockholm: National Public Library of Sweden.
Dean and Katie, (2013) “Upload a File, Go to Prison.” [Online] Wired. Available at: https://www.wired.com/news/ [Accessed 14 Oct 2018]
Dillon, T., and Reif, H. (2014) “Factors Influencing Consumers’ E-Commerce Commodity Purchases”. Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal. 22(2), 1-12.
Douhan, R. and Magnus, H. (2016) “Entrepreneurship and Second-Best Institutions: Going beyond Baumol’s Typology.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(4), 629–643.
Dowling, B. and Jeffrey, P. (2015) “Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational Behavior. “Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136.
Drazen and Allan (2016) “The Political Economy of Delayed Reform.” Policy Reform, 1(1), 25–46.
Ekman and Ivar, (2016) “Politicians Smell Votes in Sweden’s File-Sharing Debate.” [Online] International Herald Tribune. Available at: https://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/18/ business/levies.php [Accessed 14 Oct 2018]
Ganesh, J. Arnold, M. and Reynolds, K. E. (2015) “Understanding the Customer Base of Service Providers: An Examination of the Differences between Switchers and Stayers”, Journal of Marketing, 64 (3). 65-88.
Geisler, E. and Hoang, W. (2013) “Purchasing Information Technologies: Behavior Patterns in Service Companies”. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management. 28(3), 38-42.
Hair, J. Anderson, R. Tatham, R. and Black, W. (2018) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th Edition. New York: Prentice Hall.
Hong, Se-Joon, Lerch, F. Javier (2013) “A Laboratory Study of Consumers’ Preferences and Purchasing Behavior with Regards to Software Components”. ACM SIGMIS, 33 (3), 23-37.
IDC, (2016) “It’s Gut-Check Time as Disruptive Business Models Gain Traction” [Online] “IDC Predictions. Available at: www.idc.com/ExecutiveInsights.htm [Accessed 3 November 2018]
Jarvenpaa, S. and Todd, P. (2017) “Consumer Reactions to Electronic Shopping on the World Wide Web”. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. 1 (2), 59-88.
Kim, N., Han, J. K. and Srivastava, R. K. (2013) “A Dynamic IT Adoption Model for the SOHO Market: PC Generational Decisions with Technological Expectations”, Management Science, 48 (2), 222-242.
PC World, (2013) “Notebooks, LCDs Get Sales Edge”. Available at: https://www.PCWorld_com-NotebooksLCDsGetSalesEdge.htm [Accessed 03 November 2018]
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
