Careless talk costs wives
|
|
|
Unlucky Swedish filesharer found guilty of copyright infringement
A SWEDISH MAN who became the first in the country to be accused of multiple counts of copyright infringement using Bittorrent has been found guilty.
According to Torrent Freak, a Swedish court found him guilty but did not send him to jail. The man, who was fined 6,000 kronor ($900), was accused of illegally sharing at least 60 films using Bittorrent.
The case featured plaintiffs including 20th Century Fox, Sony and Paramount, assisted by Universal, Warner and Disney.
It is unusual for rights holders to pursue Bittorrent users in Sweden, as it's technically difficult to prove more than an individual case of unauthorised filesharing and small copyright infringement cases aren't considered worthy of criminal prosecution.
However, unfortunately for the unlucky filesharer, the prosecution had possession of his computer because police had seized it when he was house sitting for a friend who they were looking for on an unrelated matter.
When his computer was searched, authorities found a client loaded with torrent files and movies, which was reported to the prosecutor and movie studio copyright holders. Then the decision was made to press charges.
Prosecutor Frederick Ingblad was unhappy with the decision and is expected to appeal. He said that the offences were equal to "going into a store every week for a year and shoplifting" and should not be considered as a single act. µ
Tags: Internet
Share this:
Share
Shoplifting is theft. Copying is not theft:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4
He was fined $15 a movie - or about the cost of buying them. A bit harsh really as no doubt if he had to pay for them he wouldnt have bothered with most of them.
Punishment for a crime is meant to be a deterrent, not a repayment for theft. If a person robs a bank and then gives the money back, does he still go to prison? Yes, because he is a moron who committed a crime. It's impossible to fix stupid, but you can certainly punish them for their crimes.
So he had 60 illegal copies of movies.
He should only be charged for the exact value of the movies as they are sold at the store and not a cent more.
If downloading films (which I don't do, by the way) is "shoplifting" then everyone with a television is "shoplifting" all the time, with the only difference being that the cashier is helping them all out of the supermarket with the goods.
The content cartels can't have it both ways. Pump stuff into people's living rooms for "free" and those people will put a $0 price tag on that stuff and expect to be able to get it for free at their own convenience.
The comment is neither serious or hilarious, it is just stupid. It is the result of brainwashing.
If you video is not copyright protected then people can use it for what ever they want - unless you specifically post notice that the video can not be used without your written permission.
It's not a deterrent if no one knows about it. You need to go after high profile copyright thieves and imprison politicians who've used songs in their campaigns without permission, and corporate TV execs who use YouTube clips without obtaining international broadcast copyrights from the original creator (not just the poster).
After all, if Viacom broadcasts my video of a singing obese woman sitting on the toilet, posted to YouTube without my permission, it's exactly the same as a TV exec. breaking into my house and stealing all my stuff.
Anyone care to explain what makes filesharing different from copying, since the end results are the same. You still have your copy and now someone else has one.
Is Doug on the other comment really serious or hilarious? I hope for him that's the latter!
As I recall another pirate felt that an appeal was a good idea and the fine was raised about ten fold. I hope the presecutor gets a competent judge this time who understands the implications of piracy and sends this criminal to jail and imposses a fine of $10K per copy. That will send a clear message to pirates that crime does not pay. Punishment is meant to be a deterrent, not a re-imbursement for piracy.