Swedish Court Backs ISP In Not Handing Over Data On Accused 'Pirate'
from the nice-to-see-some-sanity dept
Earlier this year, Sweden put its anti-piracy IPRED law into effect, and earlier this summer we noted that the ISP ePhone was refusing to give up a user's IP address, and appealing a court ruling ordering it to do so. The details of the specific case suggested a unique circumstance, involving a server that supposedly contained infringing material -- but which was never made public. It was always behind a password and thus, Ephone argued, there was no infringement. While the lower court disagreed, the appeals court has overturned the lower ruling, saying that probable cause for infringement had not been shown. Given some of the recent rulings in the Swedish court system on copyright issues, it's nice to see a court not just accept the entertainment industry's claims on some of these things...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Analysis of and thoughts about the decision
"Today Ephone won the appeal since the court didn't feel that it had been proven that anyone else than the Anti-piracy agency had accessed. In short, there can be no "making public" without the public having access.
The decision was not unanimous (3 against 2). One of the judges who supported the overturning of the previous decision was Kristina Boutz who has as of late been accused of bias in the Pirate Bay trial (although I think those allegations have been dismissed by a court now)."
It's also interesting to note that the two judges who opposed this decision used the same argument as the lower court: since the anti-piracy agency showed with their screenshots that there were many files (seemingly pirated judging by their names) on the server there are, because of this, probably also many users who have access to the server. Making the files available to these users counts as making available copyrighted works to the public.
How anyone could think that many files implies many users is beyond me. So although the decision turned out right this time there was considerable disagreement and some really twisted arguments involved.
ePhone had invested a lot of time and energy in their defense which was extremely well-written. Now the audio book companies will need to pay ePhone €20 000 to cover their legal expenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update: appeal to supreme court
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]