Soon after IPRED became law in 2009, five book publishers aided by anti-piracy group Antipiratbyrån handed a request to a local court for information on the owner of an FTP-server that allegedly stored more than 2000 audio books, a couple of dozen of which breached their copyrights.

There was a problem though. The FTP-server was private and password protected so the audio books it contained could never been made available to the general public. Nevertheless, in June 2009 the court ordered ISP ePhone to hand over the details of the person behind the server.

ePhone protested that the publishers who filed the lawsuit had not been able to prove that anyone other than Antipiratbyrån had ever accessed the server which contained 27 allegedly infringing audio books. The court of appeal agreed with ePhone that there was no proof the books had been made available to the public or anyone else for that matter.

That case is now with Sweden’s Supreme Court which has asked the two sides to consider whether it might be necessary to request that the European Court issue a preliminary ruling, but in the meantime something else needed to be cleared up.

If the FTP-server was private, how did Antipiratbyrån ever gain access to it in order to gather the evidence to put its case together? For many onlookers the answer to that question was simple – Antipiratbyrån must have illegally hacked into the server.

However much those in the file-sharing community would love for this to be proven true and Antipiratbyrån’s name dragged through the mud, it seems those hopes are over. Prosecutor Björn Ericson has announced that there will be no investigation into the notorious anti-piracy group despite many allegations made about them to the police.

“We have received reports of intruders. They were unclear so we supplemented them with interviews with those who notified us. But there are ways to get the data and they need not be criminal in nature. There is not enough concrete information about a specific crime,” said Ericson.

So how did Antipiratbyrån get access to the server? In all probability we’ll never know. In arriving at his decision to drop the case, the prosecutor did not ask the anti-piracy group how they gained access. Of course, they had no incentive to tell.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The law is intended to make it easier for copyright holders to obtain the personal details of alleged file-sharers from ISPs, but the ISPs are not handing information over without a fight.

This April, five book publishers handed a request to a local court for information on the owner of an FTP-server that allegedly stored more than 2000 audio books. Although it was a private server and the audio books couldn’t have been made available to the general public, the court ordered the ISP Ephone to hand over the details of the person behind the IP address.

In a response to the negative decision Ephone consulted its customers, asking them whether they should appeal the case or not. Of the 20,000 customers who responded, a massive 99% were in favor of an appeal, so Ephone duly took the case to the Appeal Court.

Yesterday the Appeal Court announced its verdict, which turned out to be a win for the ISP and the alleged copyright infringer. The Appeal Court nullified the earlier decision of the District Court against the ISP, and ruled that Ephone does not have to hand over the details of the FTP owner to the book publishers.

The Appeal Court argued that, even though the FTP server contained copyrighted works, probable cause for copyright infringement had not been proven. Since the server in question required login credentials there was no distribution to the public, the Appeal Court said.

The decision of the Appeal Court was received with huge disappointment by the book publishers, but welcomed by Ephone and the majority of its customers. Still, this decision may not be the end of the first IPRED case as it may still be appealed at the Supreme Court.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

This April five book publishers handed a request to a local court for information on the owner of an FTP-server that allegedly stored more than 2000 audio books. Although it was a private server and the audio books couldn’t have been made available to the public, the court ordered the ISP Ephone to hand over the details of the person behind the IP address.

Ephone refused to comply, instead deciding to take the case to the Appeal Court. Interestingly, the company decided to follow up the case based on feedback from its customers through an online poll on its website.

In total, over 20,000 visitors voted on the question of whether or not the company should appeal or not. The results didn’t leave room for much doubt. A massive 99% of the respondents were in favor of appealing, and some even offered to cover a part of the court costs.

Ephone’s CEO Bo Wigstrand said the company’s management had discussed their options internally, but what they really needed was input from their customers. “That was what finally led to our decision,” Wigstrand explained.

Besides the support from customers and the public, Ephone’s appeal is also backed by Swedish Member of Parliament Karl Sigfrid, who previously asked his ISP to delete all personal information linked to his IP-address to prevent him being chased down by copyright holders.

According to Ephone the evidence that the copyright holders had presented in the book case was incomplete and insufficient. It mainly consisted of screenshots and log files, Ephone’s lawyer said. Weak evidence aside, CEO Bo Wigstrand said that his company has to do all it can to protect the privacy of its customers.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.