Pirate Bay Founder Arrested After Two Years on the Run

Peter Sunde is being held in solitary confinement, facing up to six years behind bars.

logo
Ultimate Guitar
0

Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde was recently arrested in Sweden after spending two years on the run following the 2012 eight-month jail sentence for breaching copyright laws.

According to the Swedish police spokesperson, Sunde was arrested after a farm raid in southern Sweden and is now being held in a solitary confinement. He is facing up to six years behind bars.

The 35-year-old hacker is one of the four co-founders of the popular website. When it comes to the remaining three guys, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundstrom have previously completed their prison sentences while the fourth defendant, Fredrik Neij, is still on the run, residing as a fugitive at an undisclosed location in Asia.

As Hollywood Reporter notes, Sunde's lawyer Peter Althin has stated that his client will now likely serve his eight-month sentence.

Although he was technically a fugitive, Sunde has very much remained in the public eye these years, recently running for the European Parliament as a candidate of the Finnish Pirate Party during the recent European elections. Despite being the most successful of the Pirate Party candidates, Peter didn't receive enough votes to win a seat in Brussels.

67 comments sorted by best / new / date

    Bollockser
    If he gets fined $2,250 per song illegally downloaded, that comes to a total penalty of 7.96 x 10^18 Quadrillion Dollars
    TheLiberation
    Wait, wait, wait. Solitary confinement? What the ****?
    Izzy-Sweet
    Yeah, that sounds a bit extreme. I doubt people in prison are gonna want to beat up the guy that basically gave them free movies/music/etc.
    haa666
    Okay: it's soilitary confinement in Sweden.. not that I've been in jail here in Sweden, but it's probably not as hardcore as the US or North Korea or similar..
    HUNDuffman
    solitary confinement in sweden is that you dont have facebook allowed on alienware computer in the cell
    esky15
    It's called punishment, you know, from evading the law for two years.
    TheLiberation
    Yes, because a hacker is the biggest and the most terrifying threat you can have in a jail. Solitary confinement is for the most dangerous criminals, can someone give me a single ****ing reason why is this guy being kept there? He broke the law, that's obvious, but seriously, he's not a murderer or something for ****'s sake. It's not even above the bottom quarter of dangerous crimes.
    Krieger91
    Wait..he was a fugitive for two years to avoid an 8 month sentence? Lol
    bobbyk1978
    I'm sure he was also running from the hefty fine he'll be facing moreso than the prison sentence
    RickyThomson
    I want to know how storing metadata for machine instructions to find a file, is considered copyright infringement. Does hollywood own the rights to a string of characters? (ie; magnet?= links). Even *.torrent files themselves contain nothing worthy of infringement. That is all TPB hosts. It does not store any of the files. TPB does what google does. It simply points to links where a file/page can be accessed. But oh wait, TPB doesn't have lobbyists and government sitting in it's pocket does it! As far as i remember, linking to content is NOT illegal under swedish law. Maybe that was changed recently, as with all the wikileaks charade, their government has been plagued by the US. The MPAA/RIAA lobbyists have probably paid off the swedish courts.
    TMoreau15
    In the words of David Lee Roth, "It is killing the music industry they say? Ok so you guys speared the big guys with the wrist watches then right?" More available content is good. People shouldn't need a lot of money to listen to music or even read a book or see a play. And labels are blood suckers, an strange "necessary" evil for artists. The most downloaded artists are so successful it doesn't hurt them because their money comes from the rigors of touring, largely. Iron Maiden has the most successful tours in South America and they are also the #1 DL'd artist in those areas. An artist that wants to sit back and collect royalties seems counter intuitive to me.
    djc707
    Listen, he's been behind a site which serves to bankrupt bands. The only reason people are mad about his arrest is because they like getting free stuff. Support this man and this site and you're basically taking dollars out of your favorite artists' pockets. Go buy a CD; do the bands you like a favor.
    postmortem2006
    I think you'll find that labels bankrupt bands in a far more distressing manner than piracy does.
    archangels
    Look, I know there's a huge portion of music sales that is lost to piracy, but the Pirate Bay has also helped launch the careers of smaller musicians, filmmakers, and game developers. It has helped people procure software and media that would otherwise be completely unobtainable by legal means, even when those people were willing to pay for those things. Yes, TPB may be used primarily for illegal activities, but to say that it's "a site which serves to bankrupt bands" is grossly oversimplifying and demonizing the impact of the website on the internet as a whole.
    Kueller917
    I'm all for supporting artists you like. I'm all for supporting the makers of the things you enjoy. But the amount of time and effort that has gone into persecuting people who make a file sharing website is ridiculous.
    Jazz1992
    TPB is just a big bittorrent tracker; it DOES NOT exist solely to "bankrupt bands".
    Izzy-Sweet
    STOP! Stop right there. We've all had this discussion before WAY too many times around here. All we can do now is add some bells, whistles and "quirky" metaphors.
    Everlong729
    While, yes, free music downloading sucks for new bands, I'm pretty sure Dave Grohl won't mind if I get an album for free. Most bands that people download are already huge and probably never need work again in there lives. It's not gonna really hurt too many people financially
    Thrash Addict
    No matter how rich they are, they worked hard to record an album. Its their art work and they deserve to get paid. You have no right to decide whether or not an artist would mind being stolen from. btw You plus 1,000,000 other people stealing album = 1,000,000 albums stolen!
    JelloCrust
    Well. . . here's the thing. Music sales don't give the artist shit for most labels. Sponsorships, merch sales, and touring end up being the money source. . . unless you **** up while touring, but sponsorships are what keep big musicians afloat.
    worshipthewitch
    Do you have any idea how much money touring costs? Bands hardly get any money from that. Digital downloading has hurt band income, you can look it up.
    a7xrocker201
    Do you understand how much it can help bands come to popularity too? And it may hurt them but trust me there are far worse ways to hurt a bands income and worth than illegal downloads. I'm fairly certain the record and label companies are the ones who hate it more.
    EpicRockstar
    Btw if you really think that those 1,000,000's of people would have bought the album if they weren't able to download it, than you're way to naive. I mean people hear about a band and download a album to check them out. I bet a huge part of the people downloading music wouldn't even check their downloaded album out if it wasn't free on the internet, so don't over react.
    EpicRockstar
    That fact that people can download a band's music from all over the world with only one click of your mouse is also a positive aspect. It's true that they lose the album source of income but it's easier for unknown bands to get picked up thanks to the internet. Btw there are still people who buy CD's and everyone is buying posters and T-shirts these days so the bands aren't really dependant on their album sales. If a band comes to town, the internet surely is a good way to spread the word, by making fb events and that kind of stuff. So if the whole world got acces to your music, you'll get more fans, sell more merch, and your ticket sale might go up (not that sure though depends on the genre of music i guess)
    Hamburger89
    It doesn't suck for new bands, it's pretty much proven that new bands benefit from illegal downloading since millions of people listen to their music that otherwise wouldn't. Also people have fought and died for the freedom of art, and nobody can put a price on it. You think the descendancts of daVinci get money everytime someone takes a look at the Mona Lisa? It's beautifully done by the record lables actually. They tricked people into thinking freedom is crime and they make a lot of money out of it. If a government starts fining everybody for every downloaded song the whole country is bankrupt. So I doubt it will ever happen, just one or two every now and than, to keep the population scared.
    worshipthewitch
    Even if it doesn't hurt the band, it should be the artist who makes the decision to give away free stuff, not some random dickwaffle
    Hamburger89
    The artists will make that decision once they realise you can't stop illegal downloading. Most bands who haven't changed their marketing plan are old bands who want to go back to the time without internet. They don't give away anything, it's not like they lose something when someone downloads their music. They just have the idea that they can make more money if there was no internet. Even though a lot of people wouldn't have even know the band existed if it wasn't for the internet.
    MegadethFan18
    You can spin anything any way you want. If art should be free why aren't concerts free? You could also argue bands should give merch out for free and pay people for wearing it since it's basically advertising. The Super Bowl doesn't pay Coca Cola for being graced with one of their adverts at half time.
    a7xrocker201
    You can view art online anytime you would like but you have to pay for an art gallery exhibition. Same as you can listen to a bands song uploaded on you tube but you have to pay for their concert. Your comparison doesn't hold any water.
    suicidehummer
    The reality is that most of those people couldn't afford the album or wouldn't buy them anyway, so not many sales are actually being lost. And they're not stealing tangible goods that cost money to produce, just files. The real problem is that the average joe doesn't have enough disposable income to support the bands he likes. Most musicians come from poor backgrounds, and this gives everyone equal access to music. It's one of the few ways out of poverty that still exists. However, if you have the means and you still download, you're a piece of shit. I'd rather have a million people listen to my album for free and have sellout shows across the country than get 100 people to buy it and still be struggling.
    bmw3231
    Why do people always point out rich music bands as the reason its okay to steal someone's work? There's a hell of a lot more people that are not rich that work for record companies, retail, recording that lost their jobs because cheap *******s want stuff for free. Now there is no music industry, music sucks, I grew up in the 70's when there was so much good music I had a hard time choosing what to buy. Now I can't find anything. I have to wait every three years for a new Mastodon album. Dave Grohl and Metallica are going to be rich regardless, its everyone else that suffers.
    JuteJute
    I used to download new music from piratebay long time ago and really got in to those bands. Then bought their albums, shirts and went to see them live. If there was no way to torrent music back then i dont know if i would even like the music i like now. Dont get me wrong, i clearly get why this guys is going to jail. But i thank pirate bay for introducing me to these fine artists.
    Jmoarguitar
    I stopped downloading music for free awhile back after I built my PC and decided I wanted to keep torrents off of it. Pretty much the result is that I buy a lot less music than what I used to download, and if there's wifi I almost always resort to apps like iTube to make playlists
    Artturi
    This is good news.
    fenderfrenzy101
    So why hasn't the site been taken down yet? I'm confused
    skyturnedred
    The servers are located in countries where copyright issues etc. aren't exactly illegal.
    Hamburger89
    Because not everybody lives in a police state. Since there's nothing democratic about the EU's elections it wouldn't surprise me if they waited with the arrest until the elections were over.
    ibanez124
    It's funy reading comments about whether downloading music hurts the artist or not. If it hasn't affected you personally, how the hell would you know?
    Benign94
    https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-loot... - "The court awarded the damages to compensate artists and rightsholders for their losses. However, it now turns out that artists won't see a penny of the money, as the labels have allocated it to IFPI to fund new anti-piracy campaigns." Artists aren't getting any reparations anyway! Labels need to find ways to adapt and move with the times instead of sitting there complaining about how it "hurts" the artists they either barely pay or have made millions off of already. They are NEVER gonna stop people torrenting.
    danRock222
    Yeah you right mate.....Some of the albums are not worth buying even downloading
    iammclovin
    I use torrents to sample an album, if I only like a song or two then there's no point buying the full album. I'd rather buy the album off of the band after seeing them live.