There is not a shred of evidence anywhere that this computer has been in use, not for anything at all And in the end, I was convicted because of it. And yet, Roswall said after this, that I had been responsible for it. Therefore, my lawyer put no energy into bringing it up in his final statement. The owner had placed it in the rack by themselves just a few weeks prior to the raid.ĭuring the Appeals Court proceedings, prosecutor Hakan Roswall confirmed my story of this, that this machine had never been used in the operations of The Pirate Bay. The configuration I can say with 100% certainty would have proven that this computer had never been used for The Pirate Bay. The configuration I have created, beyond reasonable doubt, according to the Swedish Appeals Court. I cannot find the configuration I’ve been convicted of creating. The computer I’m supposed to have been responsible for isn’t mentioned with a single line of text, except in the seizing protocol from the raid. Computers he has been maintaining for clients. In some cases, the prosecutor has called owners of computers to ask them if they want to press charges of electronic trespassing against Gottfrid Svartholm, as they found that he has had access to computers. Some computers have been combed for details. Some computers have been investigated at the National Forensic Laboratory (Statens Kriminaltekniska Laboratorium). On the other hand, it wasn’t connected with a single wire or cable in any way. Such a computer did indeed exist in one of the racks that The Pirate Bay was located in. It reads clear as day in the Appeals Court verdict that I’m responsible for configuring this computer. And yet he was still convicted because of it.Īmong other things, I’m supposed to have installed a computer that operated as a so-called load balancer – a computer that makes it possible to distribute the workload of big web services among different computers. However, as Peter notes (1) he did not set up a load balancer, (2) the server in question was put there by someone unrelated to The Pirate Bay and (3) it was never connected to the internet anyway. He did not actually work on the technology of the site at all, but the prosecution needed to show that he did - so Peter accuses them of concocting a story about how he set up a “load balancer” for the site, because he admitted that he knew what a load balancer was. Remember, Peter’s role was as that of a spokesperson. He notes that he was specifically convicted of three things… which he did not do. However, even if we ignore all of that, Sunde’s detailed explanation for his conviction is really quite incredible. That multiple judges had strong connections to copyright maximalist groups or even competitors to The Pirate Bay should also be of great concern. The fact that the lead prosecutor was hired by the entertainment industry while he was still prosecuting the case, remains an astounding point that should have resulted in a clear mistrial. The serious conflicts of interests of many involved in the case have been covered before. Many of the points Sunde raises came out during the trial, but the key points - on why he didn’t actually do the things he was convicted of - were new to me, and should concern anyone who actually believes in the rule of law and an impartial judicial system.
#Banished the game thepriaeabay full#
Thankfully, however, Rick Falkvinge has posted a full translation in English. It was written in Swedish, and I wasn’t comfortable that the Google translation was accurate enough. Last week, I noticed that former Pirate Bay spokesperson Peter Sunde had posted the letter that he sent to the Swedish Administration as part of his plea to be pardoned.