Swedish court fines file sharer $2000

I just posted the article Swedish court fines file sharer $2000.

A 28 year old
Swede prosecuted for sharing the movie Hip Hip Hora (The
Ketchup Effect) on the Direct Connect network was fined 16000 SEK (about
$2000) by Swedish court today. Screen…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/11035-Swedish-court-fines-file-sharer-2000.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/11035-Swedish-court-fines-file-sharer-2000.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

“From July 1st it’s not only illegal to upload copyrighted work in Sweden but it’s also illegal to download copyrighted work.” Then I guess it’s now illegal to download trial copies of shareware. That’s copyrighted material and if the law is taken to its strict conclusion, that would amke such activity illegal. Come on legal beagles, strike this mess down!

Quit being pedantic, you know what is meant.

until legal president is established, the law can mean whatever you want it to mean. so yes, the comment about shareware being technically illegal as being copywritten work is true, as it is currently worded in the law. but as in any legal or political jargon, it is filled w/ wordiness that isnt required except for those little “loopholes” that everyone tries to get through to not be guilty. so they have to be overly cautious in what exactly how they word any law.

the ruling is pretty much a two-edged sword for us Swedes on one hand as the article states, the crime of sharing one movie is now considered so insignificant that ISPs are now legally barred from submitting any information about who uses a specific IP address to the police which essentially makes the bittorrent network a safe zone however, the downside here is that the court accepted a screenshot provided by a private interest organisation, the APB (Anti-Pirate Bureau), as evidence, which is quite detrimental to the entire justice system it’s still undecided wether the sentenced man will appeal the ruling

This confuses me. They decided to catch someone on the Direct Connect network and the best they could do was find a user sharing one movie?! I wonder how much they would’ve fined one of those users sharing over 1 TB.

Incorrect, shareware gives you a license to use the copyrighted works offered for a limited time. That’s why you often see “limited license” flash by your eyes when you speed through the install. Especially in open source apps that use public licenses such as the GPL. Like bcn_246 said, stop being pedantic, you aren’t even techinically correct.

Undoubtedly they ran it as a test case to see if they could get a conviction (and fine) for the user sharing just one single movie (rather than having the charge tossed out for being trivial). This will have been a quite deliberate ploy to establish a precedent and whoever it was that got charged, convicted and fined just happened to be the unlucky one chosen for the test case. Of course, if the decision is not successfully appealed, they now have their precedent so they’ve got what they were after.