IFPI Wins Danish File-Sharing Case
Written by enigmax on October 21, 2008A man who was tracked sharing over 13,000 music tracks on Direct Connect back in 2005 has lost his appeal. The Vestre Landsret, one of Denmark’s higher courts, has ordered the middle-aged man to pay $24,400 (160,000 kroner) in compensation.
As far as anti-piracy headlines go, the IFPI would prefer those coming from Denmark recently to be kept as quiet as possible. Back in September, Danish ISPs rejected the IFPI “3 strikes” proposals and then the anti-piracy group lost two court cases where alleged file-sharers used the so-called ‘wireless defense’.
This week, however, the IFPI and Danish Antipiratgruppen achieved a small victory in the case of a middle-aged man from Aalborg who used Direct Connect (DC) to share around 13,000 music files in 2005.
According to a Comon.dk report, the IFPI/Antipiratgruppen tracked activity which it linked to an IP address registered to the man. Obviously – as in all such cases – it was not possible to positively identify the person at the keyboard simply via the IP address, but the man made some admissions in what appears to be a generally weak defense, and these seem to help seal his fate.
Having previously lost his case in the district court, the man appealed and the case went to the Vestre Landsret, one of Denmark’s highest courts.
The defendant claimed that he couldn’t figure out how to use Direct Connect but admitted visiting the software’s homepage, albeit on an old PC which dated back to the mid 1990’s. It was also made clear in court that the man did not operate any type of wireless network, eliminating a defense which proved successful in other cases.
The ruling from the Vestre Landsret which was announced yesterday morning, stated that the man was guilty of copyright infringement. “The Court held that no person other than him [the defendant] could have used the IP address, and therefore he was sentenced,” said Antipiratgruppen lawyer, Maria Fred Lund.
The defendant was ordered to pay 160,000 kroner ($24,400) in damages, which was substantially less than the 440,000 kroner ($67,200) the anti-pirates wanted. He was also ordered to delete the music files he had obtained illegally.
Although the damages are less than the IFPI would’ve liked, the defendant’s lawyer, Per OverBech, says they could appeal to get the damages reduced. The court calculated the damages based on the losses estimated to have been suffered following the breach of copyright. The Vestre Landsret set an amount of 80,000 kroner ($12,200) and used the principle of ‘double-up’ to reach a final figure of 160,000 kroner ($24,400).
The ‘double up’ provision in Danish law is comprised of two parts. The first part covers the losses estimated to have been suffered following the breach of copyright. The court then doubles this amount to cover the actual losses and the documenting of such losses, which Antipiratgruppen and IFPI did not do.
“It is worth noting that it certainly pays to deal critically with the requirements of Antipiratgruppen,” said Per OverBech. “But in this case, the Vestre Landsret applied the principle of double-up, and I do not think there is reason for this,” noting that Antipiratgruppen provided no evidence to prove that sales had declined due to the alleged file-sharing activities of his client.
OverBech admits that it is unlikely that he will achieve an acquittal for his client but could go to the Supreme Court to contest the ‘double up’ principle applied by Vestre Landsret.
Thanks Peter_Pan
Previously: Pirate Bay Tricks Anti-Pirates with Fake Peers
Next: Top 10 Most Pirated TV Shows on BitTorrent
20 Responses
Could be worse I guess. Imagine what would’ve happened if this case was in the US
i dont go sharing my 13,000 fuckin tracks thru an app.
fuckin idiot
did he have a shell?
lousy stuff all the same
then it would 13 000 x 200dollar or something…
Oh thats only 2 million dollars …
Ya i could be worse, but using DC++ Baah! :)
$1.87 a song. Which, all things considered, isn’t that bad considering in the US you can get fined up to $15,000 per infringement (ie per song) multiplied by the days on offer, coming to a multiple of $366,000,000.
Anyway, IFPI only won because there was a crap defence.
Lol, double-up without showing losses directly related to client, what a joke the courts are.
Also, he had to delete the files? I would hope after having paid all that money you would at least own the digital tracks.
Sucks for him :|
But yeah, it would’ve sucked more if he was in the US… too bad he isn’t from Eastern Europe. Here people not only that they don’t give a damn, they don’t see anything wrong in it!
When the cable guy from the ISP came to hook-up my PC he installed oDC and searched my HDD to find something good to share with other people (music, movies, games, etc…).
Piracy in the ee!
@5 – The IFPI only won because the defendant couldent keep his mouth shut. All those small “admissions” he made might of well have been him saying “Ya, i downloaded those songs, printed out the binary code for them, then wiped me own arse with the paper”.
The fact that they won a single cent is still unacceptable despite any weakness of the defense. I do think that retribution in some way is necessary.
Roze
http://www.28chan.org/fs/
@Crandom, not 15,000 (15k)… its max 150,000(150k) per track!
Sad, but as pointed out could be a lot worse even though this guy was not in the US, < $2 a song is a hollow victory for the anti p2p scum.
Any Danes reading this… put a little money aside and invest in a damn wireless router, a good one will set you back maybe 600kr,think of it as 300 songs ;) then give the middle finger to the IFPI.
Cheers!
http://www.eZee.se
Seems like a much more reasonable valuing of each song than in the US.
“per infringement” = “per song” is just ridiculous. if you’re offering a single album how can that be 15 different infringements? it’s one friggin product, you couldn’t buy every song on it’s own anyways.
this was a penal case though right? otherwise the rights owners of every single file would have had to press charges and in a penal case things are way more rational than in civil law. dunno about the US but where i live at D.A.s don’t take any action unless you’re sharing at least ~ a thousand files (IP isn’t enough proof and search warrant unproportional) while you could be paying thousands for way less in a civil case.
@ pew
It was a civil case.
You can buy the tracks individually (online).
All (99.9 according to their own stats) recorded music tracks are represented by the ifpi/koda here in Denmark, which is why they can claim damages for the whole thing, and not just the tracks from 1 record company. (If you think this smells like a cartel/monopoly, then you are probably right)
As it is a civil case, you are not innocent until proven guilty, the counterpart simply has to document that it is likely that you have done whatever they claim, and them you must in turn prove that it is unlikely if you want to go free.
wow then this “double up” thing seems like a really fair (if i wasn’t that subjective: too fair ) way to handle such cases. we got a similiar organisation here but usually it’s not them who sue individuals but rather lawyers who send out cease-and-desist letters on behalf of the recording companies.
is that “double up” system used in all cases or just this one?
I didn’t read all the comments, and i haven’t studied all of our laws in Denmark, but in the readings of prior threads on other danish filesharing sites, i think i once read that, evidence older than 1 year couldn’t be used in a case in court, because it was to old. I don’t know if this is true, if it is this case is really disturbing to me. Furthermore the fact that the APG as far as ive understood this case didn’t actually have to proof anything, which shouldn’t be able if you are innocent till the opposit have been proven.
I am confused xD
That’s under $2 a song. So basically, they made him buy the songs twice from iTunes store. I know this is not true, but it’s just putting it in perspective.
why would anyone sharing such huge number of songs (13,000) ? is this guy open business or something like charging membership .
“a good one will set you back maybe 600kr,think of it as 300 songs”
My bad above, 600dkk translates to something like 90~100USD so take it at 47 songs not 300.
“why would anyone sharing such huge number of songs (13,000) ?”
I guess you dont use /have not used DC much, many people share a _lot more_ than that on DC ‘hubs’, esp the ones here in Sweden.
Speeds are VERY good as well, I have had… umm, (*caugh*) seen some people download a song in less than a second each and movies @ around 9-12mb a sec.
http://www.eZee.se
it is taking the piss isnt it!
DC is direct downloads it is not filesharing as we know it p2p
DC is criminal piracy. rules for DC hubs are extreme, they are no better than topsites
and you title the article “filesharing” and not “piracy”?!
it is becoming very clear that torrentfreak is anti-p2p
torrentfreak is anti-p2p. stupid is as stupid does. you are not ignorant
http://www.h33t.com where legitimacy is earned
Well, I thought it would be around $250,000 but it was only $24,000. I mean, thats like half of a average yearly salary so he got it easy I tell ya’.
Thats like taking out a loan from the bank, paying the courts, then paying back to loan bit by bit.
I tell you again, he got it easy.
BIG TIME!! :D <3
11 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.