One of the original founders of The Pirate Bay, Peter Sunde, is warning against the power American corporations have on the internet. After several copyright industry groups reported Sunde's domain registration service Njalla to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), branding it a "notorious market," Sunde wrote a letter to the USTR, not to defend Njalla but to warn against the threat major U.S. corporations present to the Internet. TorrentFreak reports: "Being mentioned, both by name, and also through some of my earlier performance pieces, I felt it would be justified that I also bring a comment for the good of the discourse," Sunde writes in his letter. Pirate Bay, one of my more known art pieces," Sunde notes, adding that the 'artwork' was exhibited at prestigious festivals, inspiring millions of artists and fans around the world.

Over the years Sunde has launched several projects to support Internet freedom, freedom of speech, and online privacy. At the same time, however, he watched major U.S. companies use their powers to centralize the Internet and restrict the free flow of information. As a result, the established differences in the physical world are more and more reflected online. Those with power and money, have the most influence and control. "This is something that is very much the fault of a few Central North American companies and their lobbying efforts," Sunde writes. "We're now living in a world with fake news and trolls as presidents. We can't take the rights to information for granted. We should not centralize the control over information, in any shape or form."

While powerful industry groups may claim to represent artists, Sunde believes that power and money are the true drivers here. "The same organizations that promise to protect artists and culture are the ones screwing them over; always fiscally (like with Hollywood Accounting), sometimes physically (Harvey Weinstein is not the first nor last one)." This comes at the expense of the public at large, who see their power and control over information diminish rapidly. "These organizations are willingly putting our global democracy in jeopardy. The legislation brought forward by their lobbying, to protect one business model affected by the internet, is also being used for stopping people in opposition from overthrowing dictators. "As long as these mafia-esque organizations are allowed free reign over the immaterial rights discourse, they will never relinquish their power nor money to the intended recipients," he warns.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday in a case that could lead to sweeping changes to America's controversial computer hacking laws -- and affecting how millions use their computers and access online services. From a report: The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was signed into federal law in 1986 and predates the modern internet as we know it, but governs to this day what constitutes hacking -- or "unauthorized" access to a computer or network. The controversial law was designed to prosecute hackers, but has been dubbed as the "worst law" in the technology law books by critics who say it's outdated and vague language fails to protect good-faith hackers from finding and disclosing security vulnerabilities. At the center of the case is Nathan Van Buren, a former police sergeant in Georgia. Van Buren used his access to a police license plate database to search for an acquaintance in exchange for cash. Van Buren was caught, and prosecuted on two counts: accepting a kickback for accessing the police database, and violating the CFAA. The first conviction was overturned, but the CFAA conviction was upheld. Van Buren may have been allowed to access the database by way of his police work, but whether he exceeded his access remains the key legal question. Orin Kerr, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said Van Buren vs. United States was an "ideal case" for the Supreme Court to take up. "The question couldn't be presented more cleanly," he argued in a blog post in April.