Slashdot Mirror
Swedish Man Fined $650,000 For Sharing 1 Movie, Charged Extra For Low Quality
An anonymous reader writes "A 28-year-old man in Sweden has been fined 4.3 million SEK (~650,000 USD) for uploading one movie. 300,000 SEK of that was added because of the upload's low technical quality (Google translation of Swedish original). The court ruled that the viewer watching the pirated version of the movie had a worse experience than people watching it legally, thereby causing damage to the movie's reputation (full judgement in Swedish)."
How does fining someone many times their net worth accomplish anything?
Someone could fine me $5 million or $50 million dollars. It doesn't change the fact that I can't ever hope to pay it.
Are these numbers just meant to scare people, or do they *actually try* to collect many times a person's net worth from them?
From the second paragraph of TFA:
The then 25-year-old was a moderator and uploader and between April 2008 and November 2011 allegedly obtained huge quantities of content from the warez scene and shared the titles with the site’s users.
ONE Movie!?? C'mon Slashdot.
Everyone knows that copy infringement is stealing - that means they must have stolen (and therefore possess) that much worth of property and so are perfectly capable of paying such a fine. Obviously.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
I'm surprised at this coming from a Scandinavian country. It sounds much more like something you'd hear from a U.S. court. Common sense tells me they'd have tacked on the extra fine either way though: low quality = damage to reputation, high quality = damage to profits. There was no winning move in that sense.
The judge, that made that "UNWISE" ruling, should be "punished" by his peers (judge colleagues), for lowering the image of the whole judiciary system in the eyes of normal (sane) people :-)
Sorry, there is (naturally) nothing in the article or the court ruling about adding an extra fine for low quality. Would have been nice, though. =:)
Excellence: Moderate (mostly affected by comments on your karma)
[T]he court ordered the now 28-year-old to pay $652,000 in damages for the unauthorized distribution of just one of the movies in the case. For the other 517 the man was handed a suspended jail sentence and ordered to complete 160 hours of community service.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Yes, it is about setting an example. You may have nothing but many have at least some wealth (House, Car, investment etc). This all can be gone.
How does fining someone many times their net worth accomplish anything?
It's a death penalty.
In many cases, it can't be. Unless they can claim that you bought the house with illicit funds, they can't take your house in the US, and I'm sure they are even more lenient in most of Europe.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You mean by taking stuff from the public domain, making a movie of it and then petitioning to have the copywrite extended for ever, that sort of theft from the public domain?
The message the judge is sending is this:
If you pirate movies then you shall do it properly! No cam, webrip, telesync or other crap! All releases that does not match BRRip quality will be punishable by law!
Judge is obviously very tired of all that poor quality and out-of-sync crap out there. We all are!
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
The solution clearly is to allow repayment in the form of $650,000 worth of movies downloaded by the MPAA from the defendant.
I thought Sweden was civilized?
This is absolutely barbaric.
Both presumably. By collecting them they scare people. The judgement was $650K, even if that is above his net worth (it may or may not be), they may be able to garnish it from future wages. $650K is below the lifetime earnings of a lot of people.
This is not to say that the ruling isn't completely unreasonable.
Piracy is tricky. People who produce content do have some right to keep other people from stealing it. It is very difficult to track down individual pirates, so most get away and reasonable fines are not a deterrent. This leads to a sort of reverse-lottery where lots of people take a chance at disastrous penalties.
Part of the problem is that the public is very split on what is reasonable.
Some people believe ALL content should be free.
Some people believe that small payments for content are reasonable, but that some industries charge "unreasonable" rates for content.
Some people believe that the industry should make all content available at the same time everywhere at the same rates.
Some people do not mind paying the rates industry charge, but prefer to download for reasons of convenience, lack o tracking, lack of advertising, or others. (many of the people who pirate Game of Thrones would purchase the content if they were allowed to without creating a subscription that they know may be difficult to cancel).
Some people are happy with any arrangement that industry wants because the purchase is voluntary .
It would be interesting to see a survey of opinions on this and see how well public opinion matches the law.
I concur. One low-quality copy ought to do it.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Don't count on the judicial branch to come riding in on a White Horse. legalzoom
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Unfortunately you can have your home seized in a forfeiture if you default on paying back a judgement, so if the judgement is large enough, yes, you can lose your home.
Maybe all file sharers should incorporate into Subchapter S or LLCs ;)...
Loading...
Hardly true. Plenty of asset forfeitures based on simply being involved with illegal activity. Oh, that car with the completely empty secret compartment? Ours now. The house you bought with your inheritance that we caught you dealing drugs from? Ours now.
For example:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Yea5RW9iAJYJ:ij.org/how-a-philadelphia-family-lost-their-home-to-asset-forfeiture-3+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
(Cached, the original site wasn't answering...)
Next it's the computer you uploaded it from and the house your computer was in.
>they can't take your house in the US
No, but in the US they can file a lein on the house which puts them ahead of you whenever the house is sold. And if you have a mortgage, some lenders add a clause to the loan that allows them to require full repayment of the loan immediately if a lein is attached, with foreclosure to follow soon after.
So no, technically they cannot take you home, they just get the bank to do it instead.
This case was in Sweden, but at least in the U.S. as long as media companies can buy extensions of copyright terms from politicians and prevent anything from ever becoming public domain, I don't feel too bad about their work being stolen. They have, in effect, stolen untold millions in works that should have been free for all to distribute, extend and enjoy. Copyright was not meant to extend until Disney gets tired of buying updates to the law.
I don't like to see people breaking the law. But what I really don't like to see is a torrent search where the only results are 480i DivX versions. Good grief, people. Can't you see how this damages a movie's reputation? If you must upload pirated movies, upload 1080p x264 encodes or I will double the damages when the case comes to court. Now, please excuse me; I need to get some more popcorn.
--Christina Brobacke, Västmanlands Tingsrätt
I detest the RIAA, MPAA, and all the rest of the organizations
which screw both the artist AND the end user. For example, as a matter of
principle I will never use anything from Sony again, after the root kit
fiasco they perpetrated.
But at some point reality has to set in, with respect to everything being "free".
Quality films or music or books cannot be produced for free.
And it is unreasonable to expect artists to work without being paid.
You or I can't work without being paid -- we would starve and be homeless.
Only a person who is detached from reality expects others to work for free.
It is a model which DOES NOT WORK.
However, most of the stuff offered these days IS crap and is not worth watching
or listening to even if it IS free. So it's not worth downloading, sharing, or any of the
rest of it. If anything, those who sell such crap should be punished for wasting resources.
Myself, when I find a genuinely good film I am happy to pay to watch it, and the same
goes for music I enjoy. I pay because good stuff enriches my life and I believe those
who produce good stuff should be rewarded for their efforts, in part because if they are
rewarded I then have a greater chance of enjoying more of their work. Viewed in this
light paying for good work can be viewed as a selfish act because it tends to ensure the
flow of that which the payer enjoys.
The notion of free movies and / or music is a concept embraced by people who have
not joined the adult world. Argue against this all you like, but all you will have done in
the end is prove you are still a child who fails to grasp the realities of economic exchange.
_
When was Sweden ever cool?
don't be so sure about that - there are cases where something in the public domain has been recopyrighted and removed by changes to the law
And further, there is no legal basis for seizure of a computer because in the U.S., copying for personal use is not a crime. A court can theoretically fine you the statutory amount for that civil infraction, but that's in the form of dollars, not property. There is no "forfeiture of assets used in the crime", since there was no crime committed.
...but nothing short of a script rewrite could help them.
"snow white" is still public domain. so is pinnochio. What isn't public domain are the seven dwarfs happy through dopey, jimminey cricket, and others. These are new characters that Disney created. you're free to make your own pinnochio XXX or whatever you want to do.
Note that the original snow white had seven dwarfs, but they didn't have names. you can't use the Disney names.
A 64x64 pixel MPEG is so low quality that it would be worth millions!
You wouldn't steal a handbag.
No, but I stole a handjob once. But then I had to give it back.
A derivative of a public domain work can be copyrighted. Unless retroactively copyrighted by Congress, the original work is not.
I wonder if they give MacGuffin releases less of a fine.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
That's why I live in Texas. Unlimited homestead exemption, plus generous allowances for things like pets, sporting equipment, even boats and firearms. And there is no wage garnishment in Texas.
Tell it to youtube, I used a public domain classical recording and the video got taken down.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
While that's true in theory, you're forgetting that copyright law exists only to benefit Disney. The Wizard of Oz is also in the public domain, but Oz the Great and Powerful needed Disney lawyers on set to approve what shade of green they painted the witch.
If you had the audacity to attempt filming a Snow White movie without the Mouse's explicit, written consent, their legal team would relish driving you to bankruptcy--even though you'd be perfectly within your rights.
DATABASE WOW WOW
So does the value of the movie approach infinity as the resolution approaches zero?
Smuggling is a better analogy. Piracy involves the theft of good from another by force. Theft here should be understood to indicate that the victim is no longer has his property. Smuggling involves the circumvention of government enforced artificial scarcity. The victim of smuggling is often a government backed monopolist (though, sometimes it's the exchequer given how often smugglers circumvent tariffs) and will resist the end of lucrative scarcity.
I say therefore that those who now claim the title "pirate" would better serve their cause by using the term "smuggler." Besides better reflecting their views, it'd be good p.r. After all, would you rather be compared to the Somali guys who went after Tom Hanks in "Captain Philips" or would you rather be compared to Han Solo?
You mean like using Hollywood accounting to stiff the talent despite the fact that the film in question is one of the highest grossing movies of all time.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
First, in 1996 a large swath of works were "retroactively copyrighted by Congress" in the United States. Second, one company that makes derivatives likes to sue other companies that make derivatives. Third, one company that makes derivatives often applies for trademarks for dolls and the like based on names of characters in the original public domain (according to copyright) story, so that no other company can make and sell merchandise based on the original public domain (according to copyright) story.
I wouldn't steal a car, but if a mate of mine rang me up and said "I just got myself a Bugatti Veyron, would you like me to burn you a copy", I don't think I could refuse.
You can try to rationalise it as much you want it, however they dont have the right to wreck some poor sod life just to make an example of it for the rest of us. And then fining it extra because it is low quality...yes honour, he deserves the double of the fine, because he wrecked up our mercedes and he is giving a bad image of our brand?? To the hell with them I say.
They are using the courts to making money of it, and apparently quite easy money, and the courts are sucking it up...
In Canada mortgage interest isn't tax deductible so there is more incentive to pay down the principle. It isn't buying homes from cash on hand but it is a little different from the American environment.
If I was an American I might still have a mortgage because it would have made relatively more sense to invest money other ways than it would to pay down my mortgage.
As a Canadian paying down my mortgage had a relatively low ROI but it was risk free and I wasn't giving up any tax exemptions. Canada doesn't allow people to walk away from mortgages and only lose the house either, so that part of the risk equation is different.
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
You live in Texas so you can loose judgements and not forfeit property?
The Wizard of Oz is also in the public domain, but Oz the Great and Powerful needed Disney lawyers on set [techdirt.com] to approve what shade of green they painted the witch.
This was only because they were using a character created by Disney. Frank Baum's wicked witch was wildly different than the one created by Disney, but the move Oz the Great and Powerful decided to use elements of the Disney's wicked witch instead of Frank Baum's. This is why they had to walk a very fine line to avoid copyright issues.
If Oz the Great and Powerful has used an old hag with an eye-patch and a golden cap (like the book) then they would have had nothing to fear from Disney.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Granted.
Define "stealing" in this context. Because "stealing" patents by utilizing the underlying ideas in more or less spelled out ways in a patent application are the basis of most industries in their foundations. It's only much later is there any real recognition of patents, generally, as companies (and people) feel a need to create artificial barriers of entry to preempt competition.
Now, the case in point is copyright, and certainly there's a much greater view of respect for that field precisely because it is, in theory, supposed to be of a much more narrow scope. But, we're so far down that rabbit hole--the very definition of a derivative work has become so warped and the time span for a copyright to last has grown so large--that the respect for copyright at all has really had a falling out.
Which is the problem, full stop. If reasonable fines are not a deterrent, well, they're simple not a deterrent. Sometimes justice and punishment aren't a deterrent. That's life. Strive to correct this in some way only makes the situation worse. I mean, by the logic stated, jay walking should carry perhaps 20 years or even a death sentence. That's absurd.
A more major part is that those writing the laws are being effectively bribed with money from copyright holders into writing laws beneficial to copyright holders. So, that there is a "split on what is reasonable" is true. But, we live in a democracy, and I'm quite certain that way more than 90% of people are not in the "fine a person into oblivion". Hell, ever time you see a story showing the vast majority of a nation are committing piracy, it's a good sign you should rethink your laws to decriminalize it more, not try to crack down harder on it. That doesn't inherently mean that content creators won't be paid at all--although they may have to come to terms with the idea that even fewer will make a living wage from it. But, it may mean devising another system than copyright to facilitate it.
Piracy is voluntary too, between two consenting people to copy some bit of data. The rub is of course that it's piracy that's the issue, not whether people are somehow obtaining content from the industry directly without paying.
See above. I'd say Napster was a good effective opinion poll of a sort. I am wary, though, of how any survey may be stacked one way or another to distort the message people wish to express. After all, most people may feel guilty about piracy, but that doesn't mean they feel they should be punished for it. Self-guilt happens in lots of circumstances which are clearly entirely victim-less, so it's important to not extrapolate unwarrantedly even if surveys did suggest that some sort of fine or whatever would be appropriate.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Uh, hang on. Oz the Great and Powerful was a Disney movie. The Wizard of Oz (1939) was an MGM movie. Just wanted to clarify that for anyone that's confused, like the previous two posters.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
Imagine the damages for a single pixel image!
No THAT is art!
Imagine the damage when they realise your monitor is displaying over 2 million single pixel movies!!!
FWIW the film in question (Beck - Levande begravd) was a total fiasco at the box office... The fine (if ever paid) would likely provide a higher income than the film netted at the cinema.
4.3 million SEK is probably a large portion of the movie's total revenue, if not surprassing what it has already made. ...
It was made for ad-funded free TV for Chris's sake
It got low reviews from critics, and the series was already a trite.
Would filesharing it at low quality really degrade it's quality? Sorry, but you can't polish a turd.
(No offence to my cousin's husband who plays the lead in this movie. He's got to eat too...)
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
By the rules of Homeopathy, dilute the video until there is nothing left, not a single pixel, and it will have the most value!
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat