I don't know anything about Swedish law so I can't comment, if the backlash is because it didn't follow or adhere to Swedish law then okay, but I have a strong feeling when it infringes on other national entities (such as American publishers and developers or those from other countries) it impacts more than Sweden. I'm not a legal expert however.
Regardless, there is decency and then there is immorality and again anyway you spin it, even if something is 'legal' in a municipality does NOT inherently mean it is the right or correct thing, it just means it's legal there.
Using the above logic, all it would take is for any country to pass a law that says 'digital thievery of foreign assets is legal'. Then suddenly the Pirate Bay can rip off foreign country assets and it would be ok. I still don't think it makes it right.
The Pirate Bay was aiding and abetting thievery right? And in general most people agree thievery is morally wrong (I think, or thought, sadly this may not be so true?), so, regardless of Sewdish law or any other law, it's wrong, right? Not to the criminals I guess, one way or another, they feel entitled to what others create, which is an awful shame.

I'm sure he would be, if he were Sweedish.
Pirates think they are invincible just because they can hide behind LCD screens. If the fall of The Pirate Bay proves anything, it's that pirating's days are numbered. I wouldn't be suprised if BitTorrent is skinned so it's impossible to provide illegal downloads, along with Kazaa and LimeWire.

Props and best wishes to TPB crew for the appeal, this is only positive advertising for them and the site itself....

The BitTorrent protocol and file format are open standards; even if the major clients were forcibly clamped down to not be able to download illegal material anyone can throw one together with a bit of work, and there are several that are open source (so even if one was shut down another could start up from the last source release).
Even if BitTorrent could somehow magically be defeated altogether the pirates would simply move onto some other method of distribution which may well not exist yet, and the whole process would start all over again. Piracy can't be stopped.

You're a funny guy.

As stated, I am not an expert in law so I can't really even comment. However, what is it exactly that consumers 'create'? Any way you try to skin this issue, it boils down to someone created something and it doesn't make it right that you don't agree with how they choose to publish or sell the thing. Not to mention we're primarily talking about purely entertainment products, things you don't even NEED to sustain your life (like water, food and shelter), so there's really no valid justification for stealing, copying, infringing etc, the product.
Bottom line, if you don't like the terms and limitations of a product, don't purchase it, you aren't entitled to dictate to the creator how they will sell, produce, distribute or license their product, all you can do is not partake in that which you don't agree with and just not purchase it. (Actually you CAN, though indirectly, if you don't buy the thing and lots of others don't buy the thing based on DRM or some other thing you don't like.. then you've as a collective, sent a message and voiced your opinion and oftentimes that does in fact change their behavior, and all legally, amazing huh?).

I was referring to the producers, though I suppose I could extend that to mention excessive claims of derivative works and control of associated content that some overly-broad licensors have asserted.
I didn't say it necessitated infringing on their rights; please go back and attempt to read my post again. I was trying to explain to you how copyright infringement is a separate issue from theft due to the differences in law which differentiate 'IP' from other products, mostly to the benefit of content producers in the wake of the WIPO Copyright Treaty.
That's not quite how consumer-protection laws are designed to work, and it is equally distant from current industry practice. Many licensing schemes are designed so that you can't access the terms until after you've 'bought' it and may not return it, which is of less-than-questionable legality. Again, it's due to the legal differences between goods and abstract works that this approach remains in use; it's these same differences that make infringement a separate issue from theft.

Werd. Asshat. :D

There are many laws that are not decent or moral, or that when applied tend to lead to indecent or immoral outcomes, either because they were made that way or because they failed to adjust to a new world and a new reality. Nevertheless, those laws must be respected untill decent and moral laws are written to replace them.
I'm also not an expert, and i don't know much about Swedish Law, and that's why i said that 'it feels like' and not that what indeed happened.
Just like you, i also wondered if the fact that they didn't limit the acess to their site to Swedish residents makes any difference in any of this.
But using your municiplality example, i can agree that such a law would be immoral, but the only moral way to do anyhting about it, would be to have it replaced with a better law, and not use power, money, and politics to 'bypass' that law in order to reach a favorable/wanted outcome in trial, because that's opening the door to do the same, even when the law in question is moral and decent.
And remember that those 'criminals' that 'feel entitled to what others create', are the people who actually download the content. Our friends, family members, co-workers, clients, etc, millions of people all around the world. Do they all deserve to go to jail or have their lives burdened with heavy fines that in many cases they'll never be able to afford ?
The TPB is/was just making things easyer for all those people, but in the end, from a practical point of view alone, they're not really all that relevant. People will adjust and keep on doing it just the same. In fact, lots of people share files every day without ever using a .torrent file, so for them, TPB was never a factor.
And even if the spirit of copyright law was to protect the content creators rights, and to allow them to benefit from their creations, it's not being used for that purpose in most cases today. Today copyright is protecting mainly the interests of the big corporations that hold those IP's, big corporations that managed to 'grab' those rights from the actual creators. And more often than not, for 'peanuts', because those corporations are the ones who have the infrastucture in place to produce, market and distribute that content, infrastructure that the content creators don't have acees to, unless they 'give up' or 'sell' their rights the IP, partially or completely.
So, instead of going on a crusade to put million of people in jail (many of them very nice people even if they do download a movie or a game or whatever), why not addmit that the law needs to change and work towards that end ?

the law is the law regardless who breaks it. :/
If you want to see a movie, earn the right to do so.
If you wish to listen to music, use the radio.
There's no reason to share copyrighted material to just anybody. if it's the case that you actually wish to do something creative with it, talk to the copyright holders and see if they'd allow you to do so.
Otherwise, when you share copyrighted material, you are allowing the material to be accessed without those people paying the price. Even if you don't share, using the link, keeps the link alive for people who will share, or who didn't buy the product to begin with.

A little repetition from the other thread... and Zhirek posted a link to this very good presentation by Larry Lessig.
The internet has opened up the world for those lucky enough to have it, and every time we see how easy it is for pirates to provide high quality, quick and easy access to content we must look to our media companies and ask, why can you not provide this for us legally?
The law is obviously not working for the rights holders, and it isn't working for the consumers, so why not change it? Why not make it more applicable to the modern world?

Actually it is often the case that the only reasonable way to get a law changed is to have enough people breaking it that politicians can no longer pretend that there's no problem with the law. Additionally, when looking to challenge laws through the court system you typically don't have standing to challenge the law unless you can claim you've been harmed by it, which typically means that you've violated the law and someone is attempting to punish you for doing so.

Like I said on creativity, not every one who wants the high quality stuff is doing it to create, if you want to create something, contact the copyright holders and ask for permission, if they deny your permission, then don't farking use it.
it's like if I ask to ride your bike, you say no, and then I ride it any farkin' way. :P

Wouldn't it be more like creating an exact duplicate of the bike and then riding that?