>Essentially, that's what it boils down to. It's a representation of the
>work. Whether representation and copy are the same thing or not I'm not so sure.

What is relevant from a copyright perspective is if it is a copy or not. If it is considered a copy the creation of it (the torrent) or various forms of making it (the torrent) available to the public (may vary between country what exactly is included) can all be infringing acts. If it is not a copy it can't be infringment when you for example copy the torrent. Claiming that information about a work is actually copies of the work seems bizare to me. Claiming that information about how to obtain a work is also a copy of the work is even more bizare.

>Why not? A torrent file has no purpose other that
>to recreate the file from its various pieces.

First of all, not all creation of copies of a work are nessecarilly infringing. Second, the infringment is acts you do with the work, not acts you do with tools that describe a work or tells were the work is.

>Used normally it will recreate the file.

Which is the act that can be, but doesn't have to be, an infringing act.

>If Alice provides Pete with a list of words (a file of all words in English),
>Bob provides Pete with a computer program to decode a data file, and Charlie
>provides Pete with a data file of indices into words.txt to be used with the
>computer program. Combining the three would give you a Harry Potter book.
>Who has infringed copyright?

The one that actually created the copy of the book (for example Pete if he uses all the tools provided to create a copy). Of course, the creation of that book might not at all be an act of infringement to start with, many countries for example allows such copying for private use. It is still the act of creating a copy that can or can not be an infringment.

Of course, your example actually lacks an original copy which is what you in the end copy from dirctly when you go through a torrent file, but still, it is the act of creating a copy that can be an infringment in your example. In the case of torrent files, it is also the one creating a copy (and in addition then ones that makes copies of the work available for you to copy from, at least if we look at Sweden as a case).

>Why in the world is it taking them over
>a month to announce the verdict?

Well, I suspect som translation issues here. The "verdict" reffered to is not just the guilty or not guilty but the complete decision, motivations and reasons including reference to evidence and such, and should be in writing. So appart from actually deciding the outcome, it includes everything up to preparing and printing the decision. Not sure what would be the proper english termonology here.

>The question is whether the torrent files
>of infringing works are. I would argue that
>they are.

Not sure I follow you, but are you claiming that a torrent file is actually a copy of the work (or works) of the files it conatin info about? Otherwise I can't make sense of your claim. I don't know about the laws of your country but at least in Sweden a file (or any copy of a work) can't itself be "infringing" or an "infringement". The act of copying a work can be infringment, The act of public performance of a work can be infringing, the act of making a work available to the public over internet can be infringing. In all cases it involves acts with actual copies of the work or the work itself (as in displaying or performing it). Dealing with a torrent file can't be infringing in any way unless you claim that the torrent file itself should be treated as a copy of the work which doesn't make sense.

>Because the site was created specifically to
>facilitate the violation of copyright law?

Was it? Based on what? Or is it set up as a generic site for others to upload torrents it index and for people to connect to each other through the tracker and so on? The fact that people can use it for illegal actions is not the same as the purpose being it, not even if most do it. Should someone setting up a generic service automatically be responsible for the actions of its users?

Also rememeber that it is not the site that is under trial, it is 4 different individuals that are on trial and their individual actions. You have to look specifically at the actions of each individual and see if it was ilegal. Having a general idea of purpose is not in itself nessecarilly illegal. Do remember that none of them are accused of copyright infringement themselves. It is an issue of aiding an dpreparing (or whatever the exact terminology in english might be) and were the limits of that exist. Just generally facilitating is not nessecarilly illegal.

>Surely any content I create with an application belongs to me,...

It belongs to you in that the copyright to it belongs to you. Copies of the work belongs to whoever owns them. Typically you would first own them as you create the copies, but as soon as you give them away or sell them, those copies no longer belongs or is owned by you (you still retain the copyright though, it is not tied to the ownership of copies).

>So then with a sufficient social network, there
>really isn't a need for the pirate bay.

To a certain extent, true.

>Kinda bizarre tho-- you could make a couple
>hundred copies of a song this way in a week socially.

Well, a person is just allowed to make one or a few copies for private use. So one can't make a copy to each of ones friend. However, you can make a copy for your friend who in turn make a copy for another friend and so on.

>By the way, the trial of Pirate Bay is a criminal one.

Small correction to what I said. It is a criminal case were the civil one is merged into it.

>Hate to break it to you man but "Copy songs
>from friends and family" is infringing and not legal.

What are you talking about? It is completely legal! At least were I live which happens to be in Sweden which is also were the trial of the Pirate Bay is going on. The relevant section of the copyright law is 12.

>As I read it, copying almost any publically released
>work for private use is not an offence at all in Sweden
>(Article 12, Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works).

Well, depends. In 2005 there was added some extra requirements. Shortly, the original has to be "legal". The long story is that the original can't have been made available to the public, or created aginst the 2 of the copyright law. So if the original is made available to the public without permision of the copyright holder (and there are really much exceptions here), which happens typically when made available on the internet, you can't make a copy of it for private use. In addition, the original can also not have been created in an illegal way (against 2 of the law).

But otherwise, yes, you are free to copy most everything for private use. Some important general exceptions though are that computer software can't be copied at all for private use. In addition, complete books (or litterary works) can't be copied ffor private use either, only sections. Private use includes giving a copy for a friend or to your family. A further exception is that you are only allowed to make one or a few such copies. So you can't make a copy to all your friends.

So, the copying people are making in the case of Pirate Bay, often doesn't fullfill the requirements for "private use".

Copying of computer prigram for private use, although not legal, is not a criminal crime though, it is however a civil one and one basically would have to pay for its use.

By the way, the trial of Pirate Bay is a criminal one.

>As far as I know the "Upploading is part of the various
>forms of making a work >available to the public for example
>public performance or available by wire or wireless to
>someone at another place. " wasn't present before 2005.

Correct, it wasn't present in that form. That whole section was reconstructed and in part that specific section now includes more than before. However, the part about display (Swedish: visning) did as you later say in part include what is now part of "överföring". One can of course argue that it is not always the same thing but in much it was and as you mention, the conclusion was that the "uploading" especially when there was actually an uploading and not just "making available" was not allowed due to the "visning" section but now called "överföring".

I think the best way to see the discussion of this is in the "proposition" of the law. It can be found in electronic form on the goverments home page.

>Unless MS promises to monitor and try and prevent
>people from sharing copyrighted material. Something
>pirate bay does not do.

Then Microsoft will have a problem in Europe. The fact that Pirate Bay does NOT monitor and interfer with what users transfer is according to an Eu directive what makes them not responsible. If one starts to monitor and control what users can transfer then one DO get responsible for it. So it would be the other way arround of what you say, at least in Europe.

>Eh, "TPB" is general enough to refer to the site, the company,
>the people running the company, or any combination thereof.

What company are you refering to? There is no "The Pirate Bay" company. It is a site only.

>Up until recently Swedish Law didn't view it differently,
>copying for personal use was legal regardless of source.

True. But I was commenting on the current status.

>I can't remember exactly how they changed the law but I think
>downloading is still legal but uploading is not.

Not really. First, downloading IS the part that relates to copying. Upploading is part of the various forms of making a work available to the public for example public performance or available by wire or wireless to someone at another place. The last one covers for example making it available over the internet while not covering laying a copy down on the street for everyone. This part got somewhat restructed in the change in 2005 but is basically the same. So the uploading has really been illegal even before the change.

The change in 2005 related to the copying, that is done by anyone that download. One added an extra requirement in that the original of any copying (and this doesn't only relate to things downloaded from the net but all copying for private use) should not have been made available to the public in violance of the copyright law or created in violance of the copyright law. This made much of such downloading from internet illegal.

>no one except the wealthy can legally fill even a small IPOD.

Relatively easy. Copy songs from friends and family. Reocrd songs from radio. And so on, probably many other legal ways as well.

>So if you state that TPB are innocent entirely
>because the downloaders are guilty, then TPB
>should be ordered to hand over IP addresses
>of everyone connecting to download the stuff right?

At least for the moment there is nothing requiering them to keep such logs though.