“It requires very strong and concrete evidence to have these people convicted. We simply could not lift the burden of proof,” said Antipiratgruppen lawyer Mary Fredenslund when explaining the decision to Politiken.

In just a year, four cases against alleged pirates have come before the High Court in Denmark and the overall result for the copyright holders has been negative. Three of the defendants were acquitted due to insufficient evidence, and in the one case where a file-sharer was convicted, the defendant had confessed.

Defense attorney Per Overbeck says that in addition to these outcomes, cases against two of his clients have been dropped in recent years. “Antipiratgruppen has acknowledged that they can not get people convicted without either catching them in the act or threatening them to confess,” Overbeck said. “In practice, this means that without a confession there is no case,” he added.

Per Overbeck and Antipiratgruppen’s assessment that recent High Court rulings make it virtually impossible to get individuals convicted for illegal file sharing are supported by a recent Government report from the Ministry of Culture.

According to the report, IP-addresses can only be used to identify the person paying for the Internet subscription, not the person who actually downloaded the files. The courts have ruled several times that in terms of evidence, an IP-address alone is insufficient to prove guilt.

In one case a defendant walked free after arguing that that someone else must have accessed his wireless router to download copyright infringing material.

Despite these legal setbacks for copyright holders in Denmark, it is worth noting that Danish anti-piracy tracking company DtecNet remains the main partner of the RIAA and other music groups in countries where governments are looking to implement three-strikes policies to get alleged file-sharers disconnected from the Internet.

The evidence DtecNet gathers also consists of just an IP-address. Indeed, there is no known anti-piracy method to discover who is sitting at a particular keyboard, on any particular computer, at any given time.

In the on-going trial of AFACT v iiNet, DtecNet gathered the evidence used in the case. Under cross-examination a computer forensics investigator – who was previously a key witness in the 2004 KaZaA trial – admitted that any ISP account could have multiple users in the same household, and could have other unauthorized 3rd-party users if a wireless router was compromised.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

“I’ve started this because i don’t want to be a criminal,” Henrik told TorrentFreak.

“As the law is today, you can not have a media center without breaking the law. When I think of a media center it is a place where you have all your movies, pictures and music together. You can only do that by having a digital copy of the movie.”

“In my media center I have digital copies of my legally purchased DVD movies,” he writes in his confession. “Overall, I suppose I’ve made digital copies of approx. 100 films and 10 seasons of TV series,” he added.

On the surface this should be fine, since Danish copyright law allows for the private, non-commercial copying of purchased DVDs.

12.–(1) Anyone is entitled to make or have made, for private purposes, single copies of works which have been made public if this is not done for commercial purposes. Such copies must not be used for any other purpose.

Unfortunately the law does not allow for the circumvention of the DRM on the disks in order to do so.

75.c –(1) It is not permitted to circumvent effective technological measures without the consent of the rights holder.

“Since the above copying is a violation of Danish law, I would therefore like to declare myself in violation of section 75 of the copyright law,” Henrik told Antipiratgruppen.

While previously acknowledging this catch 22 situation, Denmark’s Ministry of Culture felt that the situation would shortly rectify itself.

“…it is expected that in future copy protection will be designed in such a way that it will be possible to take one or more copies for personal use, and this is certainly the intention of the law,” they wrote.

However, as Henrik points out, while this might be the government’s plan, the movie industry has failed to live up to this vision, hence his intended piracy martyrdom to draw attention to the issue.

“As the culture minister sees no reason to change the law, she must, in my opinion, not understand the problem, therefore I choose to confess to you, to see whether you are prepared to get the legislation tested in court,” says Henrik as he concludes his confession.

Henrik has given Antipiratgruppen until December 1st to respond. Even given a prosecution on a plate, it’s extremely unlikely they will take him up on his offer.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

In Denmark, negotiations between copyright holders and ISPs are underway, with ITEK (the Danish information technology, telecommunications, electronics and enterprise federation) acting as intermediary in the setting up of a ‘Pirate Board’, designed to settle disputes without the need for lengthy court battles. According to Computerworld, examples of the type of extended litigation they would like to avoid in future are the domain-blocking cases against AllofMP3 and The Pirate Bay.

On the rights holders side are companies such as Sony and EMI, with ISPs TDC, Telenor and Telia on the other. ITEK spokesman John Kristensen confirmed that that talks are underway. “I can confirm that we are working on a joint industry initiatives. But I can’t be precise on the details yet,” he said.

Although negotiations are reported as “intense” there are areas where the two sides remain far apart, mirroring the situation in other countries in Europe where these type of discussions ended without agreement. At the moment the summer is being eyed for a conclusion, but that seems very optimistic since at the moment, Denmark’s ISPs seem determined not to become Internet policeman on behalf of the copyright holders.

Other proposals involving the ‘Pirate Board’ surround the hot issue of a 3 Strikes-style regime for file-sharers, but with a twist. Rather than rights holders sending warnings to alleged file-sharers via ISPs, instead these would be issued by the Pirate Board. If the recipients of these warnings then fail to respond, they wouldn’t be disconnected from the Internet but instead find themselves in a traditional court case.

Which is the exact place this Pirate Board aims to prevent everyone ending up. Stay tuned….

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

“We are pleased that we now have the opportunity to find out whether it is Internet Service Providers responsibility to ensure the closure of a website,” said Telenor’s regulatory chief Nicholai Kramer Pfeiffer.

Referring to the court’s decision last year ordering it to block the world’s largest tracker, Pfeiffer added, “We have always been highly skeptical when we receive subpoenas in this type of case.”

Pfeiffer told Computerworld that he believes taking the case to the Supreme Court will result in a clearer picture for those dealing with these types of cases (blocking sites) in the future. “We seek a clarification of whether we have a responsibility to help the stuff flowing through our networks, as we have no commercial interest in the individual sites,” said Pfeiffer.

Pfeiffer also said that it makes “good sense” to get as close as possible to the source of a problem. Indeed, if the Swedish authorities could close down The Pirate Bay, then there would be no need for Telenor to block anything at all, since there would be nothing to block.

Earlier this year Pirate Bay’s Peter Sunde told TorrentFreak that they are seriously considering suing the IFPI for unfair competition. “They have had a monopoly on distribution and we’re breaking that monopoly, and in turn they sue people that allow access to our distribution method,” he told us at the time.

The IFPI is not scared of yet another confrontation. “Peter Sunde is welcome to sue us,” Jesper Bay, the head of the Danish IFPI said when the news was announced. Ironically, one of the websites explaining how to get around the Danish blockade carries Jesper Bay’s name.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

“It must be assumed that it is already in accordance with current Danish law that in principle it is possible to close an Internet connection that has been used to infringe copyrights,” says Peterson. “But the law does not take into account the very significant conflicting interests that will prevail in such a case,” he added.

The problem is the unbalanced approach to a potential disconnection. In Denmark an Internet user’s interests are not considered when making a decision to close a site or connection – they are not even involved in the process and therefore have no opportunity to defend themselves. Furthermore, should a connection or site be closed in error, there is little chance for claiming compensation. “It’s obvious that this runs counter to some basic legal principles,” says Petersen.

One of the problems lies in the way the Danes implemented the EU 2001 ‘Infosoc directive‘, which differs greatly from the manner in which other EU countries have handled it. Under Danish law, ISPs can be made responsible for the copyright violations of their subscribers, which is why ISPs can shut down a customers Internet connection or close a website so easily.

Now, according to Comon.dk, in the latest draft report from the Ministry of Culture Conference on piracy, having previously ignored the problems the Danish government has now included the concerns of Professor Petersen, as it tries to decide whether or not to introduce new legislation against users who share copyright material on the Internet.

The draft is also set to look at some of the demands being put forward by the IFPI and other similar groups, including their 3 strikes initiative. Another IFPI proposal is that individuals should be made responsible for whatever happens on their Internet connection, whether they carried out any infringements or not. This suggestion was put forward after legal action by IFPI against two women failed last year, with the pair successfully arguing a ‘wireless defense’. The women said they had no knowledge of the alleged infringements and therefore shouldn’t have to pay any damages. The court agreed and acquitted them of all charges.

To avoid this type of outcome in future cases, the IFPI wants to change the burden of proof so that instead of the rights holder having to prove that an individual engaged in piracy, it is up to the individual to prove that he didn’t and that the responsibility for infringement lies with a 3rd party.

The final version of the report will be published in the spring.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Peter Sunde, co-founder of The Pirate Bay told TorrentFreak that they are seriously considering suing the IFPI for unfair competition. “They have had a monopoly on distribution and we’re breaking that monopoly, and in turn they sue people that allow access to our distribution method,” he said.

Meanwhile, all other BitTorrent sites are still accessible in Denmark, and thus far the IFPI hasn’t announced it will go after any of them. This, together with the fact that there are several tricks to get around the block, make their legal strategy look like a personal vendetta against The Pirate Bay instead of an effective measure against piracy.

Before The Pirate Bay takes action against the IFPI, they will first await the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal that the three ISPs – DC, Telia and Telenor – announced earlier this week. If the appeal is unsuccessful, and when they find the perfect lawyer to represent them, The Pirate Bay will sue IFPI.

The IFPI seems to be looking forward to yet another confrontation. “Peter Sunde is welcome to sue us,” Jesper Bay, the head of the Danish IFPI told Comon.dk in a response to the news. Ironically, one of the websites explaining how to get around the Danish blockade carries Jesper Bay’s name.

For now, the Pirate Bay team has another court case to focus on. In two weeks their trial in Sweden kicks off, where the IFPI will also be one of their opponents. To be continued.

Update: Initially we reported that all Danish ISPs have to block the Pirate Bay. This is not the case. The latest court decision is a preliminary injunction against DMT. This means that it is only binding against ISPs owned by DMT (thanks Ole).

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

IFPI welcomed this proclaimed landmark decision, and put other Internet providers on notice that it would go after them too, warning them to block The Pirate Bay – or else. These threats now appear to have borne fruit. As of today, the largest ISP in Denmark (TDC) is blocking access to The Pirate Bay. This precautionary measure has been taken before the appeal has been handled by the Supreme Court.

For the IFPI, this is just the beginning. They have already tried to use the ruling to force ISPs outside Denmark to take similar measures, even attempting it on The Pirate Bay’s home ground, Sweden. However, this attempt failed. In fact, it seems that filtering traffic to The Pirate Bay is actually illegal according to European law.

The Danish case is currently being appealed, and Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde told TorrentFreak earlier: “We’re confident that Tele2 will win in the Supreme Court, when they [the court] really dig into the technology and try to understand the whole concept. It’s important for net neutrality and it’s also important for file sharers in Denmark to have this tried (and won).”

Meanwhile, as the IFPI continues to put pressure on ISPs worldwide, it also suffered a recent failure in Italy. In their recently published Digital Music Report they call their dealings with ISPs ‘cooperation‘, but so far they have yet to show their cooperative side.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Consequently the court ruled that access to The Pirate Bay had to be blocked. Tele2 appealed this decision, but lost again two weeks ago.

The court case was initiated by the IFPI – the infamous anti-piracy organization that represents the recording industry. The IFPI later tried to use the “landmark decision” to force Swedish ISPs to do the same, but failed. In fact, it seems that filtering traffic to The Pirate Bay is actually illegal according to European law.

The fight is not over yet though. Since this case could have huge implications for other ISPs and websites, Tele2 has announced that it will take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Fortunately for them, they won’t be alone either. They are backed by the telecommunications industry association. Jens Ottosen, president of the association told Computerworld that, if this decision is upheld, Danish ISPs might be forced to block other sites as well.

In a response, Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde told TorrentFreak: “We’re confident that Tele2 will win in the Supreme Court, when they [the court] really dig into the technology and try to understand the whole concept. It’s important for net neutrality and it’s also important for file sharers in Denmark to have this tried (and won).”

When the appeal is successful, The Pirate Bay will claim damages from IFPI. “I hope that they [Tele2] win so we can demand retribution from IFPI.” Peter said. “As I’ve stated earlier we would like them to have to pay damages to us. In that case we would help set up a fund for Danish aspiring musicians that in turn would release music using a Creative Commons license.”

The Supreme Court still has to accept the appeal before the case can go on. Despite the outcome, blocking The Pirate Bay didn’t have the effect that the IFPI was hoping for. On the contrary, traffic from Denmark went up, instead of down. However, this case is about more than just The Pirate Bay, it is about censoring the Internet.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

In common with many other countries, in September the Danish Ministry of Culture received proposals from the IFPI for the ‘Graduated Response Scheme’, aka ‘3 Strikes’. Now, according to Comon.dk, just a matter of weeks later, the possibility of Denmark adopting such measures are dead.

Comments from politicians which seem to indicate that the IFPI will not succeed in Denmark have been leaking out recently. This has forced the organization to accept defeat: “We have to deal with the political reality that there will be no 3 strikes [in Denmark],” said IFPI’s Jesper Bay.

Stating the obvious reasons why these proposals aren’t being welcomed across Europe, and have been wholly rejected by Danish ISPs, Jesper Bay notes: “3 Strikes is an extremely far-reaching solution and we have said that we must continue to discuss it. We still need to see proof of the allegations of legal security problems, as critics of the 3 strikes have put forward.”

However, the IFPI won’t give up trying to force through something in Denmark. “I think we can find a solution which the Consumer Council can live with,” said Bay, although if warning, limiting and disconnecting file-sharers is too much, there doesn’t seem many places left to go.

Not everyone from the IFPI is in favor of the ‘3 strikes’ proposals. Recently, Peter Schønning, a lawyer working for the IFPI, came out and said he wasn’t in favor of the model, which is notable since the organization usually speaks with one voice. Interestingly, up until March 2008 Schønning worked for the government’s Ministry of Culture as the head of Media, Author and Sport, with a responsibility for copyright law.

The IFPI’s Jesper Bay said he was unaware of Schønning’s comments and refused to comment.

Thanks to Peter_Pan

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

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

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The IFPI also accused two Danish women of being Internet pirates, after they claimed to have monitored illicit file-sharing activities on an IP address registered to one of them. The IFPI demanded $62,000 in compensation from the pair, stating that even if their Wi-Fi had been used without their knowledge, they are ultimately responsible for what happens on their Internet connection. Eventually a court ruled in favor of the women and acquitted them of all charges, much to the displeasure of the IFPI.

Now, the IFPI has suffered another defeat, again in a ‘wireless defense’ case. Previously, a middle-aged man from Randers, Denmark, was found guilty of Internet piracy in a case brought by the IFPI on behalf of music copyright holders. The man was ordered to pay compensation of around $11,000 and told to delete the infringing files from his computer. The defendant denied that he had done any of the alleged infringing and claimed that he operated an unencrypted wireless network which anyone could access.

However, in the Vestre Landsret, one of Denmark’s higher courts, the decision of the Municipal Court in Randers has been reversed, according to a Comon.dk report.

The court found that the IFPI held no proof that the IP address owner – the defendant – was the same person that carried out the infringements. This fact – that an IP address does not positively identify an infringer – is the same worldwide.

The lawyer for the defense, Per Overbeck, who also successfully defended the two women who won their ‘wireless defense’ case in another of Denmark’s higher courts, noted a difference in the cases, but one which didn’t affect the outcome for the defendants:

“The two women who were acquitted by the Østre Landsret, were in a household with multiple computers, so more people in the household had access to them,” he said. “The man in Randers was living alone in his apartment and had only one computer, but his apartment is in a complex so in principle many others can access his Internet connection.”

Although IFPI lawyer Torben Steffenson has yet to comment on the ruling, he is expected to say that the IFPI does not accept the decision of the High Court, and that they will take the case to the Supreme Court in order to win the case.

That is unlikely to change the fact that in these cases the burden of proof is with the plaintiff.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The IFPI wanted to be able to hunt down file-sharers, report them to their ISP and have them implement a so-called “3 strikes” policy. They proposed that the first time someone got caught sharing copyrighted files, they would receive a warning from the ISP, the second time they would have their Internet connection slowed down. After a third warning, or strike, the user would be disconnected from his ISP and banished from the Internet.

ISPs in the UK recently reached an agreement with the IFPI to send out warnings to alleged file-sharers, but rejected any further sanctions against their customers such as speed capping or disconnection. However, according to a Comon report, the Danish ISPs have rejected the proposals completely. They say they will not take part in “detection and monitoring activities” and believe that the proposals would constitute a contravention of the law, and would upset the balance between the interests of the individual and economic interests.

“The Internet must be protected as a credible media, where each citizen can feel comfortable with the certainty that he will be on an equal footing with other media, such as confidentiality of correspondence in the mail, etc,” said the statement. “The proposals that have been seen by others in the European debate, which have also been raised in Denmark – for example, to disconnect users or deny users Internet access – will counteract this objective, and is in no way proportionate to the situation.”

President of the Telecommunications Industry Association Jens Ottosen says the plan presented by the IFPI to the Ministry of Culture has a number of serious weaknesses. He believes that the rights holders cannot accurately identify people who are engaged in unauthorized file-sharing. Among other things, the IFPI model of warning/slowing/disconnecting an IP address, NOT a person, means that even if the owner of an Internet connection did nothing wrong, they would be the one who got punished. Those who are the victim of a wireless hacking are equally vulnerable, something which the ISPs aren’t prepared to accept, and neither are the courts.

“We are very divided,” said Ottosen. When asked if there is a chance of reaching any type of voluntary agreement with the music industry, he added, “I can’t imagine.”

Thanks to Peter_Pan

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The cases went to court and were heard this Friday, and to the file-sharing masses of Denmark, it turned out to be a very important day. The women did not deny the claims that unauthorized file-sharing had taken place on their Internet connections but stated clearly that they were not the ones carrying it out.

They claimed that their Wi-Fi had been piggybacked by persons unknown but the music industry didn’t care. Rather like the lawyers chasing the UK’s alleged pinball pirates, they asserted that an Internet subscriber is responsible for what others do on their connection, and it was up to the women to prove that they had not shared music with others. The court didn’t agree and acquitted the women of all charges.

Lawyer Per Overbeck told Ritzau: “It is an unusually clear and precise judgement. It is the plaintiff, who has the burden of proof. Many who have received letters with claims have been given the impression that they were required to pay. But we now have the court’s word for that, they do not [have to pay]. It is not enough to say that you are guilty of piracy due to owning a particular Internet access point.”

Piratgruppen, a pro-sharing group and antithesis of Antipiratgruppen, was delighted with the verdict, with spokesman Sebastian Gjerding inviting the anti-piracy outfit to drop all claims of compensation against file-sharers.

“They can not continue to send these demands to people. Antipiratgruppen and the IFPI should send an apology instead. It is an absurd claim that an Internet subsciber must take responsibility for the actions of others. Many networks can be attacked and abused.”

Antipiratgruppen, on the other hand, thinks this is a bad decision by the court and refuses to send out apologies. Their lawyer, Torben Steffensen, says this is a matter for the Supreme Court to decide. “We do not believe that this law is appropriate and we disagree with this decision,” he said. “There should be a law that protects artists from losing income due to piracy. Therefore we would like to have the Supreme Court deal with the issue.”

However, lawyers for the two women doubt the case will end up in the Supreme Court, since a lower court and now the High Court has ruled in the same way – it is the plaintiff who has the burden of proof.

There was a similar decision in Germany recently, and if Topware Interactive and Davenport Lyons have the guts to take on a defendant in the UK who actually fights back with a ‘wireless defense‘, there could be one there too:

“The onus is on the party bringing the action to convince the court on a balance of probabilities that the person being sued is responsible for the infringement,” says Struan Robertson, a technology lawyer with prominent law firm Pinsent Masons. “The legal wrong isn’t that you left your network open, it’s the file-sharing.”

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

A crucial factor in the ruling is thus that the ISP commits copyright infringement in their routers when they allow access to The Pirate Bay. An absurd claim of course, and even more serious, it opposes the Infosoc Directive, that formed the basis of the Danish copyright law.

In in Article 5 of the Infosoc Directive it is clearly stated that “copying in routers” is allowed, as an exception to and a limitation of the rights holders’ exclusive rights. Even more so, this is non-negotiable, and every member state of the EU must accept it. Oscar Swartz, an Internet pioneer and writer in Sweden who has been researching the case extensively rightly argues that the Danish court misinterpreted the Directive in this case.

The misuse of the article in question has been confirmed by Cecilia Renfors, a Swedish judge and special governmental investigator who had the assignment to propose new legislation to combat unauthorized file-sharing. “She refers to the former opinion by the Swedish government and reconfirms that a Danish model would NOT be compatible with Article 5.1 in the Infosoc Directive. She also repeats the opinion that the Danish way actually nullifies the whole purpose of that Article,” Oscar writes.

The Danish ISP Business association has decided that they will challenge the decision in court. Ib Tolstrup, the director of the association said in a podcast interview with Computerworld that Tele2 is going to challenge the ruling, as they realize they are the only nation in Europe that talks about “copying in the routers”. Tolstrup further said that, if Denmark wishes to be a top IT nation, the topic must be put on the political agenda because a Google block is not far away if they do not challenge the courts decision.

In a comment to TorrentFreak Swartz said: “I am surprised that the Danish ISPs have simply accepted the rulings in Denmark when they are so obviously illogical and dangerous. The courts say that any network provider performs “copying” in their routers. If that is correct the consequences are enormous and The Pirate Bay and the two other cases in Denmark would just be the beginning.”

Swartz continues: “I think the case shows that we have to fight all the time. Stand up. Not back down. Work hard. Make research. Try to get the message out to media. What I miss in Sweden, and Denmark of course, is professors and lawyers who are also participating in the fight for communications freedom. Like in the EFF in the U.S. where top professors and lawyers donate time and knowledge to support cases in court. Where are they here?”

In a response to the courts decision, The Pirate Bay launched jesperbay.org. The site is named after Jesper Bay, the head of the Danish IFPI, and gives detailed instructions for affected customers on how to regain access to The Pirate Bay.

Interestingly, it turns out that the block by Tele2 didn’t have the effect that the IFPI was hoping for. On the contrary, Pirate Bay traffic from Denmark went up, instead of down. However, this case is about more than The Pirate Bay, it is about censoring the Internet.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

The Pirate Bay team has already asked other BitTorrent admins to stand up against the IFPI lobby, and arranged a meeting with Tele2 to discuss the current events. Pirate Bay co-founder Brokep told TorrentFreak in a response: “I hope the torrent community understands what this will do to Danish people. It will also act as a very bad precedent for the European Union, and I hope everybody will fight this.”

At the moment, The Pirate Bay team is registering new (Danish) domains, to make sure people can still download .torrent files from the Bay when the ban is activated later today tomorrow. In addition the Pirate Bay will launch a campaign website, together with the Danish pro-piracy lobby “Piratgruppen”.

Sebastian Gjerding, spokesperson for Piratgruppen, a pro-piracy lobby whose goals are to reform current copyright law and protect consumers’ rights, is not pleased with the news. He told TorrentFreak: “The verdict is absurd. It will block access for danish users to the worlds largest distributor of culture and knowledge – copyrighted or not. It’s true that you can access copyrighted material through The Pirate Bay, as you can with Google or Rapidshare. Should they be blocked as well?”

“It’s very frightening that IFPI can get through the courts with something like this. In Turkey and China its the state that decides what information the people can access and what should be censored. In Denmark its apparently the record industry,” Sebastian adds.

This is not the first time a Danish ISP has been ordered to censor the Internet. In December 2006 A Danish court ruled against Tele2 in a similar case, and ordered the ISP to block all access to Allofmp3.com. According to the ruling, the ISP was willingly infringing copyright if their customers use AllofMP3 to download music.

IFPI has announced it will continue it’s battle against BitTorrent sites in Europe. Last month they tried to convince European lawmakers that ISPs should block access to websites such as The Pirate Bay, and block filesharing protocols, no matter what they’re being used for. Luckily, these proposals were rejected.

We will follow this campaign, and the response from Denmark closely.

Stay tuned for updates!

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.