No Successful Evidence on Pirate Bay AppealAdded: Tuesday, October 12th, 2010
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
Another day of the world’s largest BitTorrent tracker’s appeal started with the video of Carl Lundstrom’s previously recorded interrogations and simple screenshots displayed by prosecutors as evidence. However, all these efforts only exposed prosecutors’ technical incompetence.
Just as previous days, another morning in the court started with viewing material that was previously recorded at the District Court hearing. The day five of The Pirate Bay’s appeal started with the recording of Carl Lundstrom.
When asked by a prosecutor Roswall about the tracker’s operations, Carl Lundström admitted he knew about the tracker’s connection to piracy, understanding that the service was a “torrent, a file-sharing website”. As for the advertisements, he took responsibility for the strategy, explaining that its only purpose was to allow the website to pay for itself in the future.
Besides, the prosecution mentioned the hardware Lundstrom provided to the BitTorrent tracker. In his turn, he clarified that he never wanted to be a partner in the service, but just gave advice to the tracker’s co-owners several times. After that the defendant was also questioned why the 48 year-old Israeli businessman, responsible for advertising on the tracker, hung out with co-founders from The Pirate Bay. By the way, the Israeli businessman apparently preferred not to continue this practice and never showed up in The Pirate Bay’s appeal.
Another question on the agenda was a video of IFPI attorney, specializing in anti-piracy for 15 years now. He was collecting evidence against the tracker by downloading different music tracks through .torrent files obtained from The Pirate Bay via Internet Explorer and BitTorrent client. However, his technological ability casted some doubts when he found difficult to answer some technical questions. Besides, all his evidence only consisted of screenshots, while providing no logging of his sample downloads, which means he couldn’t verify that he contacted with the defendants’ BitTorrent tracker.
Aside from the fact that the screenshots for all sample downloads showed DHT and Peer Exchange were on, which makes impossible to prove that The Pirate Bay tracker was used, the IFPI attorney appeared to be unaware that Google can be used as a torrent search engine too, stating that he didn’t have any troubles with Google.
Thanks to TorrentFreak for providing the source of the article
October 12th, 2010Posted by:
Tuesday, October 12th, 2010
|THXS TF & SaM,|
I'm awaiting the decision of the appeal. Yea, try and take on Google :oD
Most Popular Stories