Module 9: Activism

Learning objective

Case Study #1: The Swedish Pirate Party

Challenged Law

On July 1, 2005, Swedish Parliament, the Riksdag, amended its copyright law to comply with a 2004 European Union directive requiring all member nations to ban downloads of copyrighted material absent the rights-holder’s consent. Before the end of the year, a Swedish court had already doled out the country’s first conviction and fine for an illegal download.

Local Factors

The new anti-downloading regime was particularly vulnerable to Swedish counter-mobilization. Neither U.S. business interests nor the supranational body they pressured into tightening copyright law accounted for Sweden’s sociolegal norms. The new law lacked local legitimacy, and Swedes were encouraged to organize against it because (1) the Swedish government was an early adopter of public high speed broadband, (2) Swedes were cultural predisposed to understand the property right as a dispensable tool for public good rather than a natural right of the holder, and (3) an “ad hoc” public think tank named Piratebyran (or “Piracy Bureau”) had been publically contesting copyright protection in Sweden since 2003.

The Process

On New Years Day of 2006, just months after the first filesharing prosecution, an IT entrepreneur named Rickard Falkvinge formed Piratpartiet, the Swedish Pirate Party. Neither Falkvinge nor his co-founders had any parliamentary experience when they made the decision to start the party. They did know that the party needed 2,000 signatures to formally register with the Swedish Election Authority, Valmyndigheten, so they hosted a website for citizens to publically declare their membership and then reached out in person to collect physical signatures. Once formally registered, the party recruited candidates for the Riksdag elections in September, drafted a party platform, fundraised, and built local organizations in both urban and rural areas throughout Sweden.

The Message

The Pirate Party articulated its copyright policy goals in the context of a larger set of goals related to freedom of access to culture and protection of fundamental rights.

It premised its platform on "technological determinism": the notion that technological developments are fated to overwhelm the controlling forces which govern intellectual content.

The Pushback

The United States and the Motion Picture Association of America were undeterred. Both had spent considerable resources shutting down U.S. filesharing services Napster, Grokster, TorrentSpy, and eDonkey. The Pirate Bay (designed by a former member of the Piratbyran) was the last globally conspicuous symbol of digitally downloadable defiance, and it was headquartered in Sweden. Recent commentary posited that “the Pirate Bay isnot only an institutional, collective actor of the pro-file-sharing copyleft; it is as tangible and visible as such an actor can currently become.” The MPAA’s work was laid out for them, as the July 1, 2005 EU Directive was already on the books, and the Riksdag’s implementing legislation was as well. To trigger enforcement, the U.S. threatened international economic sanctions against Sweden if the Pirate Bay maintained de facto immunity. On May 31, 2006, Swedish police therefore raided the Pirate Bay and seized its servers.

Mobilization

The clampdown provoked domestic street protests and international media attention, and the Pirate Party’s membership spiked. The evidence suggests that the underage, non-voting population represented the primary constituency of the sudden rise. All Swedish citizens can be party members, though they cannot vote until they are 18 years old. Swedish schools regularly hold mock elections, and the Pirate Party took approximately 40 percent of the mock vote. Though non-binding in 2006, the Pirate Party decided to invest its resources and political capital in the youth vote by organizing “Young Pirates” student groups. The boost brought the Pirate Party’s rank up to third in membership. Unfortunately, the voting age population was less inclined to support the Pirate Party, especially not at the cost of prioritizing one of the two biggest parties. Piratpartiet earned less than one percent of the vote and therefore failed to qualify for a seat in the Riksdag.

Present Day

Case Study #2: "Click Wrap" Licenses and the Uniform Commercial Code

Present Day

Lessons

Contributors

This module was created by Dmitriy Tishyevich. It was then edited by a team including Sebastian Diaz, William Fisher, Urs Gasser, Adam Holland, Kimberley Isbell, Colin Maclay, Andrew Moshirnia, and Chris Peterson.

Home

Introduction

Course Materials:

• Module 1: Copyright and the Public Domain
• Module 2: The International Framework
• Module 3: The Scope of Copyright Law
• Module 4: Rights, Exceptions, and Limitations
• Module 5: Managing Rights
• Module 6: Creative Approaches and Alternatives
• Module 7: Enforcement
• Module 8: Traditional Knowledge
• Module 9: Activism
• Glossary

The Rotisserie