Legal and Ethical Issues in The Pirate Bay Case Study

This report evaluates the legal and ethical issues raised in The Pirate Bay case study, identifies stakeholders, and suggests possible solutions. It also discusses relevant legal and regulatory issues and provides an Australian legal perspective.

P a g e | 0
E-commerce

P a g e | 1
Table of Contents
Introduction...............................................................................................................................2
Identification of Stakeholders....................................................................................................3
Identification of Ethical Issues...................................................................................................3
Possible Solution....................................................................................................................5
Legal and Regulatory Issues.......................................................................................................6
Relevant cases........................................................................................................................7
Australian Legal Perspective..................................................................................................7
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................9
References................................................................................................................................10

P a g e | 2
Introduction
The Pirate Bay (TPB) is a website that allows its users to download copyrighted content from
its portal without paying any fees or charges. It is referred as an online index which contains
a large number of digital content relating to entertainment media and software (Laudon and
Traver, 2017). The website was founded in 2003 in Sweden, and it allowed its users to
search, download and contribute magnet links and torrents files for pirated content. The
company also provided the facility of peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing for its users through the
BitTorrent protocol (Poort et al., 2014). The objective of this report is to evaluate the legal
and ethical issues which are raised in this case study by evaluating a wide range of factors.
This report will identify the key stakeholders and analyse the ethical issues which are raised
in this case along with an evaluation of their impact on stakeholders and recognition of
potential solutions. Suggestions will be made regarding potential solutions and
implementation of ethical principles that might assist in justifying the arguments. Legal
issues which are raised in this case and their impact of stakeholders will also be identified
along with the evaluation of any potential violation of Australian laws. Lastly, this report will
make arguments against TPB and support those arguments by relevant research.

P a g e | 3
Identification of Stakeholders
There are a number of stakeholders who are affected in the case of TPB due to the number
of ethical and legal issues which are presented in this case. The music industry is the key
stakeholder that was adversely affected in this case because the corporations operating in
this industry were facing challenges relating to their profitability because people were using
their content without paying for them (Larsson, 2013). Along with music content, TPB also
allowed its users to download videos and movies which also adversely affected production
houses that invested millions on those videos and movies since they were pirated on the
internet. Other stakeholders were the users of TPB who were able to get access to pirated
content due to the freedom of the internet. Although the users were exercising their right to
access free content on the internet; however, it was also illegal for them to consume such
data without paying for the same (Laudon and Traver, 2017).
They were engaging in illegal practices which were affecting the interest of music and film
companies since their profits were reduced. The government is also a key stakeholder in this
scenario since it becomes difficult for the government of Sweden to impose a ban on TPB
since the company was always able to find another way to host itself on the web (Larsson,
2013). The government failed to implement policies and laws that govern the actions of TPB
by imposing an obligation on the organisation to make sure that it did not engage in
unethical practices (Poort et al., 2014). TPB is also a stakeholder in this scenario since the
company was engaging in unlawful and illegal actions in order to generate profit for itself.
The company was not focusing on the negative impact of its actions on a diverse range of
stakeholders.
Identification of Ethical Issues
One of the key ethical issues is that TPB was providing a platform to people from all across
the globe where they can find illegal and pirate movies and music which resulted in harming
the interest of music and film production houses. Although TPB claimed that it is only a
search engine; however, the developers of this website knew how this website is used in
order to illegal pirate music and videos; however, they did not do anything to stop these
practices (Poort et al., 2014). It shows the negative implications faced by the companies that

P a g e | 4
produce music and videos since their profits were affected. Another ethical issue was that
many of the users that did not download the content were also held liable due to the
actions of the company. For example, the names and address of people that were suspected
of downloading the content from the websites were used in order to impose legal penalties
on them; however, most of them did not visit the website which shows violated of ethical
principles. The operations of TPB also adversely affected small artists since their songs and
videos were downloaded by people through torrents and direct links, and they were not
getting paid for their hard work (McKelvey, 2015).
The ethical issues in this case can be analysed by using different ethical theories in order to
justify why the actions of TPB were unethical. In this regards, the principle of the
Deontology ethical theory can be implemented which is a part of normative ethical theories.
This theory emphasises on the importance of complying with the duties of an individual by
providing that actions which are taken by parties while violating their duties are considered
as unethical (Dion, 2012). This theory argues that the actions of a person justify whether
his/her actions are ethical or not. It focuses on the ‘maxim’ of people when they take a
particular decision to determine the morality of the situation. In the case of TPB, the
company was violating the legal duties which were imposed by the government to make
sure that it did not pirate the content of parties. The maxim of the company was to
generate more revenue through advertisements by providing people a platform where they
can easily find torrents and direct links to illegal and pirated content. Thus, the actions of
the company are considered as unethical based on the principles of the Deontology ethics
theory (Dion, 2012).
Another relevant theory that can apply in this scenario is that Utilitarianism ethical theory
which is also a normative ethical theory. This theory provides an opposing view than
compared to the Deontology ethical theory since it emphasises on the consequences of
actions of parties while determining the morality of a situation rather than the actions
themselves (Shafer-Landau, 2012). This theory argues that actions that have positive
consequences are considered are ethical. This theory provides that parties should focus on
achieving greater happiness for a greater number of people in order to make sure that their
decision is unethical despite the fact that their actions adversely affect the interest of a few
people (Shafer-Landau, 2012). Although TPB provided a platform to a large number of

P a g e | 5
people who were able to get access to content without paying for the same which achieved
greater happiness; however, the company was harming the interest of millions of others
who were engaged in the practices of making and producing such content. People’s jobs
relied on the fact of how good a movie or music video performs among the public since they
received their pay based on these factors (McKelvey, 2015). Due to these factors, the
company was not able to achieve greater happiness for a greater number of people based
on which its actions are considered as unethical.
Possible Solution
There are different alternative solutions to address the legal issues raised in the case of TPB.
The government should have implemented stricter copyright laws which assisted them in
ensuring that websites such as TPB are not able to harm the interest of music and video
makers by providing an option to people to download them without paying for them.
Stricter piracy laws would have resolved this issue by imposing legal penalties on TPB which
would have terminated the operations of the company (Larsson et al., 2012). This would
have eliminated the ethical issues raised in this case by protecting the interest of different
stakeholder. This option is considered as ethical based on the provisions given by the
Deontology and Utilitarianism theory because it would have to make sure that TPB complies
with its duties and its actions achieve greater happiness for a greater number of people.
Another alternative solution is that the government should have enforced TPB to pay those
corporations, artists and other parties whose contents were pirated by the organisation
(Laudon and Traver, 2017).
Although the actions of the company were still be considered as unlawful if it did not take
prior permission of those parties; however, it would have been more ethical for the
company to distribute its profits with those parties to reduce its negative impact. This
solution did not comply with the provisions of the Deontology ethical theory since the
company was violating its duties towards artists and corporations since it was using their
content without their permission and violating the laws (Dion, 2012). However, this solution
complies with the principle of the Utilitarianism ethical theory since it would have assisted
in achieving the greater happiness for a greater number of people by making sure that
people have access to free content and artists and companies are getting paid for their work

P a g e | 6
(McKelvey, 2015). It is suggested that the first solution is the most ethical decision in this
case since it complies with the ethical principles while also making sure that legal provisions
are not violated by the organisation as well.
Legal and Regulatory Issues
Along with ethical issues, there are many legal issues as well which are raised in the case of
TPB. In the trial of The Pirate Bay v Sweden is considered as a major high profile case in
which four people were held liable for violating various laws by the court. One of the key
arguments which the company made was that it did not engage in any illegal practices itself
since it is not hosting pirated and illegal content on its website (Larsson, 2013). It is simply a
search engine that allowed people to access other websites which provide pirated and
copyrighted materials without permission. The company claimed that other search engines
such as Google and Bing did not hold liable for the same reasons. It was held that the
company did not violate the provisions given under the Copyright law of Sweden which is
regulated by the act from 1960. The provisions regarding the protection of copyrights are
given under the Swedish Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works which applies on the
operations of TPB (Larsson et al., 2012).
In its verdict, the court found the company liable for violating the provisions given under
this act since it allowed users to gain access to pirated and copyright data which was illegal.
The decision given by the trial court was upheld by the Supreme Court as well include the
four defendants were found liable for breaching the privacy laws (Fung and Lakhani, 2013).
In this regards, the government of the United States has also implemented relevant laws
that prohibit the actions of TPB. The Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act
(PIPA) are good examples of regulatory policies which apply on the operations of TPB when
it offered its services in the United States (Belleville, 2012). In this case, the key parties that
were affected were the four defendants who started the service of TPB since they were
found guilty by the court. The court sentenced them for the imprisonment of one year, and
they were also subject to a penalty which they had to pay to media production corporations.
The music and film production corporations were also affected in this case since they get
paid for copyright infringement which resulted in compensating their losses.

P a g e | 7
Relevant cases
There are many other cases as well in which the court upheld the copyright laws in order to
hold peer-to-peer file sharing corporations liable for their actions. A good example is the
judgement given by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of MGM Studios,
Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005). This is a relevant judgement in which the court
unanimously held the peer-to-peer file sharing corporations liable for copyright
infringement by making the file-sharing software that allowed users to access and download
pirated content (Justia, 2005). Another good example is the case of Arista Records LLC v.
Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) in which the court issued an injunction
in order to stop the peer-to-peer file sharing software to make sure that the defendant is
not able to infringe copyrights (Harvard, 2010). However, the court did not hold these
corporations liable in all cases such as the case of Atari Europe S.A.S.U. v. Rapidshare AG in
Germany (Legal case: OLG Düsseldorf, Judgement of 22 March 2010, Az I-20 U 166/09. This
is a relevant judgement in this regarding because it was held by the regional court in this
case that the users that rely on the services of Rapidshare were using the website for legal
cases only based on which it was not held liable for copyright infringement (Saudara, 2010).
However, these actions are considered illegal by the court, and legal penalties are imposed
on parties that engage in these practices.
Australian Legal Perspective
Australia is one of those countries that have blocked access to TPB since it violates the
copyright laws of the country. The decision was given by the Federal Court of Australia in
which an order was issued for ISPs (Internet service providers) to block access to the
services of TPB and many other websites as well that provide similar services (Larsson et al.,
2014). The Australian Copyright Act 1968 provides provisions that apply on a national level
in the country to make sure that corporations such as TPB did not engage in any practices
that lead to copyright infringement. This decision as given by the court under section 115a
of the Copyright Act that recognises the rights of parties to request ISP blockades for
infringing websites that leads to copyright infringement (Austlii, 2019). The government has
taken the right step to make sure that corporations such as TPB are not able to infringe
copyrights of corporations and parties which negatively affect their interest. These services
should be banned completely to reduce their negative impact on stakeholders.

P a g e | 8

P a g e | 9
Conclusion
In conclusion, the services of TPB resulted in violating copyright laws on a global stage by
allowing its users to download pirated music, videos and movies. The services of TPB are
illegal that resulted in violating many ethical and legal provisions which adversely affected a
number of stakeholders including music and film production corporations, users and
governments. The case of TPB is analysed by using ethical theories such as the Deontology
and Utilitarianism ethical theory which identified that the actions of the company are
unethical. Possible ethical solutions in this case are also evaluated to identify an ethical
action in this scenario. The actions of the company also resulted in violating many legal
provisions due to which its founders were held liable by the court. The decisions given by
the court in other cases are also analysed to understand how these issues are handled
legally. The Australian legal provisions that apply to the operations of TPB is also analysed to
determine how the government protects copyright in the country. Conclusively, the actions
of TPB are unethical and illegal, and it adversely affects a large number of stakeholders
based on which a ban should be imposed on its services to make sure that the company is
not able to harm the interest of its stakeholders.

P a g e | 10
References
Austlii. (2019) Copyright Act 1968 - Sect 115a. [Online] Available at:
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s115a.html [Accessed
13/05/2019].
Belleville, M. (2012) IP wars: SOPA, PIPA, and the fight over online piracy. Temp. Int'l &
Comp. LJ, 26, p.303.
Dion, M. (2012) Are ethical theories relevant for ethical leadership?. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 33(1), pp.4-24.
Fung, W.M.J. and Lakhani, A. (2013) Combatting peer-to-peer file sharing of copyrighted
material via anti-piracy laws: Issues, trends, and solutions. Computer Law & Security
Review, 29(4), pp.382-402.
Harvard. (2010) Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F.Supp.2d 481 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
(Excerpts). [Online] Available at: https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/3071 [Accessed
13/05/2019].
Justia. (2005) Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005).
[Online] Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/913/ [Accessed
13/05/2019].
Larsson, S. (2013) Metaphors, law and digital phenomena: the Swedish pirate bay court
case. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 21(4), pp.354-379.
Larsson, S., Svensson, M., De Kaminski, M., Rönkkö, K. and Alkan Olsson, J. (2012) Law,
norms, piracy and online anonymity: Practices of de-identification in the global file sharing
community. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 6(4), pp.260-280.
Larsson, S., Wnukowska‐Mtonga, S., Svensson, M. and De Kaminski, M. (2014) Parallel
Norms: File‐Sharing and Contemporary Copyright Development in Australia. The Journal of
World Intellectual Property, 17(1-2), pp.1-15.
Laudon, K.C. and Traver, C.G. E-Commerce 2017. 13th ed. London: Pearson.

P a g e | 11
McKelvey, F. (2015) We like copies, just don’t let the others fool you: the paradox of the
Pirate Bay. Television & New Media, 16(8), pp.734-750.
Poort, J., Leenheer, J., van der Ham, J. and Dumitru, C. (2014) Baywatch: Two approaches to
measure the effects of blocking access to The Pirate Bay. Telecommunications Policy, 38(4),
pp.383-392.
Saudara. (2010) Legal aspects of file sharing. [Online] Available at:
http://www.saudara.web.id/IT/en/1782-1679/Legal-aspects_19870_saudara.html
[Accessed 13/05/2019].