AfterDawn: News

Swedish file sharer guilty of copyright violations

The man at the centre of a file sharing debate in Sweden has been found guilty of copyright violations and find 16,000 kronor ($2,000) by Västmanland district court in Västerås. The 28 year old made newspaper headlines in Sweden as the country has over 800,000 file sharers. He had originally admitted to Police that he had made the movie Hip Hip Hora available for download from his computer on a DC++ hub. However, in court he withdrew the confession and said it was just a misunderstanding.

The court considered that his backtracking was a fabrication and dismissed attempts by his lawyer to discredit the evidence put against the man. In the judgment the court pointed out that file sharing could cause serious damage to the film industry and that it should be a crime that is taken seriously. The fact that he didn't profit off his activity was the reason for the court's decision to simply hand down a fine instead of handing down a prison term.



"I am satisfied that it was stated that this is a criminal offence and that it can be seen as public distribution," Prosecutor Chatrine Rudström said. However, apparently since the crime only ended up leading to a fine, the police cannot request person details from Internet Service Providers or carry out raids on homes as a result, since they wont know who was using the IP address. Rudström said she was going to wait to see similar cases before she draws conclusions about what this means for file sharers in Sweden.

Another similar trial is to be held on Wednesday in Sollentuna district court.

Source:
The Local

Written by: James Delahunty @ 26 Oct 2005 13:36

• Previous article

• P2P is iTunes' biggest competitor?

• Next article

• Samsung wants its own iTunes?

• 31 comments

• JXP2307

  I am glad to see he did not have to go to jail.
  
  What proof did the Judge have when he said that it was Hurting the film industry?
  
  Hurting in what way?
  
  I am sure the people in the film industry are starving to death...

  26.10.2005 14:00 #1

• mkaseatgb

  Is anyone but me sick of seeing people like this who get screwed over for uploading one movie? Quote:The court considered that his backtracking was a fabrication and dismissed attempts by his lawyer to discredit the evidence put against the man. In the judgment the court pointed out that file sharing could cause serious damage to the film industry and that it should be a crime that is taken seriously.So if I decide to download a movie instead of paying $10 to go see it in theaters, all the major movie corporations are going to go bankrupt? Its bullsh!t. If they are going to take down one guy, then go for evenyone who does it. (Although I really hope they dont ;)

  26.10.2005 14:00 #2

• mystic

  Again Sweden finland and others are bowing to the over welming presure from the us companies the RIAA and MPPA both ar running the new order of other countries... they are probbly offering the law makers a deal change the laws and we wont go after you or your children... sweden being the home of public prostution and hiden bank accunts and not to mention a place frequented by people who want to smoke hash on the streets has a lot of nerve... their new slogin should be like come get high and get some desiese that scares penacillin but dont download american music or movies because then you go to jail.. what a farce... really if they wanted to clean up their act they could go after the nazi money siting in their banks.... and fixthe laws... make it like from this point on anyone uplaoding copyrighted material will get busted.... its like the horse is outof the barn and now lets fine the guy who happen to see it run over the hill for not catching it......downloading is what everyone is incouraged to do drivers and patches and updates..... if you have an internet connection they will come to see whats on your system and in your house... remmber when XP first came out faster downloading and they told you now you can get your music off the internet and this was befor any pay sites for music were availible...and now they want us to pay Bill Gates should pay for providing the software... to everyone

  27.10.2005 04:46 #3

• S2K

  o if I decide to download a movie instead of paying $10 to go see it in theaters
  but dont download american music or movies because then you go to jail..
  
  this decsion has nothing to do with downloading, of which the man was never accused. it has to due with distribution or uploading
  

  27.10.2005 14:08 #4

• mystic

  then why arnt the people hosting the sites that let you upload eillegal content paying for it or the webmaster... the end user (aka the downloader) is the one also getting nailed... took at there trackrecord bit torrnt gets nailed and they give up the logs so other can take their heat... why not stop there ... no the greed over music sales and movies are just overwheming... my take is to wait till I can rent it and then if I want it then Ill buy till then the movie hall can bite me and take the $5.00 jelly beans and stick it where the sun dont shine....

  28.10.2005 08:16 #5

• S2K

  without regard to your sentiments, I am correcting your usage. anyone familiar with the net would know uploading and downloading are different things.
  
  No downloader has been criminally prosecuted nor been civilly sued for downloading.
  
  whether you are on p2p, http or pop, there is no way to prove the downloader knows the information is under copyright without an admission.
  
  took at there trackrecord bit torrnt gets nailed and they give up the logs so other can take their heat
  
  please point to a prosecution or suit of a downloader for downloading that rsulted?
  
  You are confusing downloading (accessing) vs uploading (distributing/publishing).
  

  28.10.2005 09:26 #6

• mystic

  http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/6011.cfm
  http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/5739.cfm
  to start but being sued and settling out of court are the same a twelve year old got nailed but kazza paid because she had a subscription theere are alot more....

  28.10.2005 09:42 #7

• DaOsT

  damm this aint good news
  

  ::LivE ForeveR OR DiE TryiN!!::....::DonT FinD US WE WilL FinD YoU::..
  ChecK OuT ThE PenguiN GamE AnD PosT YouR HighesT DistancE ON ThE ForuM
  http://www.gazholland.co.uk

  28.10.2005 12:20 #8

• jin666

  Aggreed!

  28.10.2005 14:01 #9

• jin666

  Aggreed!

  28.10.2005 14:01 #10

• S2K

  mystic said http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/6011.cfm
  http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/5739.cfm
  to start but being sued and settling out of court are the same a twelve year old got nailed but kazza paid because she had a subscription theere are alot more....
  
  On two threads you keep refering to this, which you obviously never ever looked at yourself. the girl was accused of UPLOADING. she was sued for UPLOADING and settled for UPLOADING.
  
  No one has ever been sued, or settled, for downloading in the US so stop suggesting it.
  

  29.10.2005 12:03 #11

• kersmere

  i'm sure its publicity for the film/music industry
  the cost of films and music prices in the stores have beecome stupid and cost effective is in their pockets not ours we have to work hard for our wages and we get played hell with the way we spendit too iff the goods where a lot cheeper then the buying power would be increased so they would endup with more sales and less
  fidling on the internet

  30.10.2005 03:20 #12

• mhelms1

  What's the big deal? Hell, I'm from California, where the ethic dictates that all material on all machines belongs to everybody.

  30.10.2005 04:34 #13

• Jack2005

  Instead of complaining, fight back. Don't go to the theater, wait for the DVD. Rent the movies you like, make a copy, watch the movie, then give the copy away to a friend. Have the friend to the same. Keep the process going indefinitely. Have movies that you want passed to you.
  
  Don't keep a library in case you are singled out for a raid. You will be clean. When the movie industry feels sees that they are ACTUALLY loosing income, they will back off.
  
  This fight is not about money from movie rentals, but about power; the power to control what you watch and how much you pay for the privilege. On the surface this may sound like a frivolous statement, but consider this: if the movie industry ever gains complete control over sharing movies the next step is complete control over what you're watching.
  
  If the movie industry gains control of your government, you can be required to pay for the privilege of watching a movie that you have recorded off the air. you'll have to sit through commercials in order to avoid paying for a recording of the service that you have already paid for. In addition You're video recording device may be required to have chips installed that monitor your activity. Attempting to override this chip will cause a report to be sent back to your provider. Your cable or satellite service. By law your provider will be required to report your activity to the movie industry . You will then be subjected to invasion of your home , seizures, fines and possibly imprisonment.
  
  Whatever country or in, vote against any legislation that con trolls your right to watch or share movies. Let your party leaders know that if they will not support you on these issues then you will vote against them the next elections. The power of one person a small but the power of many people is great when they are unified. Don't allow the movie industry to take away your rights by lobby or bribe of your leadership.
  
  JTR

  30.10.2005 05:04 #14

• kersmere

  very good i put it wronge slightly
  the internet must remain a free highway
  not controlled by any body
  music films or polatics either or individuals
  
  we as parents must accept that we must educate and be aware of what our children are upto BUT alwaysd with an open mind moms and dads need educating too the new techical advancements today are fast changing sorry for putting it quite right to all conserned.

  30.10.2005 05:20 #15

• duckNrun

  re: BitTorrent and the whole suing for uploading/downloading debate earlier in this thread.
  
  When you are using BT you ARE an uploader even if you started out only as a d/l. This is the whole premise of BT. Therefore when you download material using BT if it is copyrighted then you are, in reality, uploading and distributing copyrighted material. It may only be the small fraction of material that you yourself have just downloaded, but you are still uploading it to the swarm none the less.
  
  This is the major pitfall that BT offers people who use P2P to d/l copyrighted material.

  30.10.2005 06:29 #16

• jdcope

  <i>No one has ever been sued, or settled, for downloading in the US so stop suggesting it. </i>
  
  Denial doesnt mean you are right...
  
  This lawsuit thing happened where people have been sued by the RIAA as "John Doe" defendants, then the RIAA goes for their personal info from ISPs. Then they strong-arm them into paying the $2000 to $3000 blood money, along with a promise to "never download again."
  
  There is also a lady here in Oregon that countersued the RIAA under RICO, and her suit alleged that she "downloaded rap music".
  
  It is happening...
  
  
  

  30.10.2005 07:41 #17

• gooses

  this whole thing is just a bunch of crap. for heavens sakes, it's not like the recording industry or the movie industry needs any more money. btw, im not sure, but werent people who downloaded songs from the old napster sued? at least some of them? file sharing is... it's not that bad. the movie and recording industry are just a bunch of greedy S.O.B.'s... i get mad thinking about it...

  30.10.2005 12:48 #18

• gooses

  Jack2005 speaks true words of wisdom. damn it, this makes me mad. the whole thing about the new laws in the US letting the cops get ur info from ur ISP is also crap. damn it.
  

  30.10.2005 12:54 #19

• Nihilator

  There are economists who think anomolies like the amount of money made by huge corporations always will eventually reach what they call "equilibrium." That simply means either the demand or supply will react so that eventually, outrageous profits (even a 1.00 profit is considered inefficient to economists) will be curtailed, if not, label them a monopoly, and regulate them.
  I always, and I don't know why, use The Passion of Christ as an example. Somebody can check my figures, but I think that movie netted 100 million dollars. NETTED. Not gross sales. Many movies make this much money in all of 5 months of production. I don't see movie companies being regulated anytime soon Mr. Economists. But, Mr. Economists, what you are seeing is something that has nothing to do with supply and demand, but all to do with what is right and wrong.
  
  Why do we care about copyrights, and what is legal when
  it is`the movie companies executives themselves who should be in jail. Please don't blame the movie theatres for the price of pop-corn, they have no say what cut they get from the Box Office, and it ain't much.
  
  "Hurting in what way" I too wish to know the answer to that question. All filesharers are doing is dealing with the inequities created by the movie companies themselves. Maybe file sharing is hurting the movie companies, because 90 million isn't enough for 5 months work. Without filesharers, they can get back to 100 million profit per movie, per 5 months of work.
  
  First on my list to prosecute is the judges who fail to see this. Yes, judges must follow the law. How often are their decisions based on the law, versus interests
  of others. It is the citizen, you and I, who are supposed to be protected by the law, not victimized by greed and clearly blatant criminal activity created by the movie companies, not the citizens. Filesharers are reacting to an injustice. Why? Because nobody else will.
  So Judges, economists, there is your answer to the problem. Go fix it, and initiate your investigations where the problems lay. 100 million dollars per movie. Yet it is okay to put GM workers in jail because they can't afford a 50 dollar trip to the movis. They lost their jobs because their company finally got their due. Shame on each and every one of you who supports and claims that movie companies are being harmed. In what way?
  Quote:What proof did the Judge have when he said that it was Hurting the film industry?
  
  Hurting in what way?
  
  I am sure the people in the film industry are starving to death...

  30.10.2005 15:12 #20

• dogoneit

  So, just from a point of curiosity, how much should a movie company be allowed to make from a movie? If not a hundred million, what?
  
  What is the threshold where paying for someone elses work is fair?

  30.10.2005 17:11 #21

• Nihilator

  Purely from an economic standpoint, supply and demand determines the fair price. And in most cases does just that, even though it is just a model. Personally, I believe a company should make as much as they want. But what happens when companies who develop monopolistic power, abuse that power? A little ethics comes into play. Does that company have a duty to it's citizens, customers, to not rip people off? Staying on the theme of economics for a second, when Bill Gates empire developed, did he not take down a lot of people along the way? Did he do anything illegal? Of course he did, and we all know it. If you had something to sell, say an operating system (which he stole btw) and did everything in your power to hinder or stop the competitive nature of a market economy, would you feel good about yourself? You just broke every anti-trust law ever made to protect the consumer. Is that okay with you? (by "you" I mean you plural no one in particular) You can sleep as well as Bill Gates does? Then you are nothing more than slime. I'm sorry, but his cost per each additional unit of output, (back to economics)is the cost of a cd, manual, and box, all together about 2.50? and sets the price at 500? Do you condone that? Price it as high as you can, simply because you can? Who here would go back to Bill and buy his products to remain loyal to him, when say China and IBM cut a deal that wipes out MS completely. I would hope to see demand decrease when the price of goods and services increase. We obviously do not see this happening in the operating system and movie industry, maybe, as in GMs case, the movie companies will get their due. We know Bill will. I don't know why people still go see movies, and frankly, it's none of my business. Certainly that will change over time.
  When we are able to transfer a complete movie in the blink of an eye right to our own video setup at home, bigscreen or small, I surmise that will hurt the movie companies far more than filesharers. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about that.
  
  I do know that we can learn from history. For those of you who remember OPEC's oil embargo, 1973 I believe, did we as citizens react to that price increase of gas and reduce demand? It wasn't the Japaneze automakers that decided to make fuel efficent economy cars, we as people demanded it. So much for supply side economics.
  
  Isn't that one of the most incredible things we as American citizens did, by saying "okay fine, take our gas away, you slimy greedy middle eastern oil companies, we don't need it as much." We as people, normal folks, not Bill, completely shut down a monoploly simply by choosing a different product. A fuel efficient car. The magnitude of that is staggering. Members of OPEC began to collude, and under sell at OPEC's price, because we citizens came together, reduced the demand for gasoline and oil products, while Mr.Oil field owner scrathes his head and says what happened? What happened is what exactly is going to happen to the movie industry. They know it. We know it. Now they just want to turn the knife with one last effort to squeaze every dollar they can get from the consumer. Trust me, when the technology evolves to beam the new films into our homes, we won't be paying 10 dollars a ticket. That, you can take to the bank. If we look at history again, and see what VCRs did to the "second run movie and theatre business"
  (for those who remember) remember what happened when you say to yourself, "oh,, yeah, well we still will go to the theatre and watch movies." They said that whe VCRs came out. Second run movies; wiped out. 2.00 to have a new premier beamed in to your home, or 10.00 to drive to the theatre with the crying babies.
  
  Quote:So, just from a point of curiosity, how much should a movie company be allowed to make from a movie? If not a hundred million, what?
  
  What is the threshold where paying for someone elses work is fair?

  30.10.2005 19:13 #22

• dogoneit

  Gee, I only asked how much you think they should be allowed to make, not for a diatribe that attempts to justify theft. Since you believe they should make as much as they want why complain if they make 100 million net. As you said, it's a matter of supply and demand. Problem is I think your idea of supply and demand is you want them to supply it and you don't want them to demand anything for it. It's not a monopoly; go make your own movies. If you think they are charging to much you don't have to pay for it; but that doesn't justify stealing it.
  
  You can print all the BS you want to try to bury your guilt but you will never change the fact that your a lazy thief and your wrong.

  30.10.2005 19:33 #23

• pplleetty

  Whats the point in having a high speed internet conection that costs a lot of money, if you cannot download what you want, ie: Films, Music, Games,.
  I for one will go back to a SLOWER and CHEAPER internet connection if all i have left is the normal internet (No p2p sites)
  If MILLIONS Of people do the same, where will that leave the telecon and isp's who have spent millions if not billions installing supperfast internet connections
  around the world.
  BROKE!!!

  30.10.2005 23:58 #24

• ralfsolo

  Hello , my opinion about it ,and beware my english is today very bad :
  
  90 % of the movies and music suck a** , most of the movies are just a joke and robber the ones who go to theatre , the story are stupids , and they build a movie only on spécial effects . If you get 2 nice song in a cd ,it's christmas .
  
  Most movies I download ,I even stop to watch in the middle or zap strait to the end because they hurt the intellect from a regular guy like me . The price for a dvd , 20 $, a music cd , 20 $, a theatre place, 10 $ or a video game , 45 $ ,are obsenes for the low quality they dare to offer to us.
  
  We are just cows , they suck our milk and laught about our stupidity to like such film like ALIENS vs PREDATORS or THE WAR OF THE WORLDS .
  
  Every years they got more money producing crapest stuff , ho my , they get only a 15 % instead of 16 % rise because P2P , there is people dowloading their craps for free , ho my godness. What a joke !
  
  They have to understand than they will never stop us even if they stop internet or make hard protected dvd .
  
  at the worst, if they make every thing possible to stop us WE HAVE hard drive video recorder to tape from tv or even digital camera and so , we can share from friend or organise private party to watch a movie and split the price for a rental by 10 or more .
  
  What i mean it's we can for ever enjoy free stuff what ever they will try to do . The solution for them make better products AND offer reasonable price , they will get more customers then.

  31.10.2005 02:32 #25

• badwulf

  All this anger on both sides of the equation will burn you people up inside if you let it. Just do what you do and feel no guilt or shame about it. If you download movies or music or whatever use programs to protect to your identity, do not use a static ip address and deny, deny , deny.

  31.10.2005 02:36 #26

• Lencar

  I'm glad i live in canada... We have a little bit more legislation to protect us....

  31.10.2005 03:02 #27

• mystic

  1 September 2005 18:05 by Dela
  
  The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on Wednesday filed yet another 754 lawsuits against P2P users it alleges to be illegally uploading copyrighted music on the networks. This is not surprising news anymore as the RIAA continues to believe that these sue-em-all tactics are actually working. They were filed in district courts all across the U.S.
  
  On the RIAA hitlist to date have been some strange candidates for pirates, including a 12 year old girl and a dead grandmother (83). This has made many experts uneasy and sceptical about the tactics the RIAA is using to gather the information required to file a lawsuit. Some legal experts even believe that an IP address is simply not enough evidence to sustain a lawsuit, and that's all the RIAA has to go on while filing these John Doe suits.
  
  There has also been numerous concerns raised about privacy and whether spying on people's shared folders on P2P networks is actually legal. Nevertheless, the RIAA's infamous lawsuits against 10,000+ Americans have never been challenged by even 1 single person who was sued.
  
  this was just so everyone knows even here in the states we are being chased by the wolves(riaa +mppa) its to a point that now that they offer a legal manner of downloading song through paces like itunes to mention one that what should be spewing from their mouth is from this point on anyone who aquires their music illegally will be hunted and then they could set up a place to download movies the same way ... pay as you play .. then go after those who upload to the web movies that are stolen... as consumers we needed to organize years ago and say we want a diffrent type of media not just what your willing to offer.... making all content web based cant be that hard its just that they dont want to put forth the effort to make it happen..... and why do we alow them to continue doing this to us?

  31.10.2005 05:31 #28

• Lencar

  well said...But battling the tactics that are used is fruitless and exhausting. Its best to keep yourself informed of the changes and/or lawsuits that are presented and make your own decision if the risk is worth it to you. And something like what Afterdawn Provides is the best way to keep informed. Share files and assume the risk that comes with it....simple.

  31.10.2005 05:38 #29

• Steve83

  The comment about copying TV programs is now moot - HDTV wasn't mandated by the people who wanted better resolution; it was mandated by MPAA lobbyists who want to control what your TIVO can do, and they HAVE that control now.
  
  
  ...assuming people are dumb enough to buy the new TIVOs with that functionality, and history shows that: they are that dumb.
  
  
  As to the fruits of all the MPAA's labors: the natural result will be that so-called "pirates" simply won't share movies/music/whatever over the internet. It will still happen - prohibition proved that. The kicker is that: "pirates" who share movies in their homes are not "pirates". They're simply availing themselves of the "fair use" clause of the copyright laws. So then why is sharing a movie with my next-door neighbor over the internet a FEDERAL OFFENSE, but inviting him/her over to watch it is NOT? And if it's OK to share it with him, what's the geographical range??? What will that range be in 50-200 years when we begin to explore & populate space?

  31.10.2005 13:49 #30

• mystic

  S2K heres a new one just off the press thought Id keep ya up on it ..... http://apnews.excite.com/article/20051102/D8DKC5080.html
  
  its going to get wild for downloaders when the one s they should be after are the uploaders and yeah I know that bittorrence and most p2p software means your really doing both but the masses dont know it and are being mislead......

  2.11.2005 06:25 #31