This should be put in context. This is no unassuming teenager who downloaded a film via a file sharing network and was caught "distributing" it, due to the nature of file sharing.
He uploaded an unreleased movie that has not been released otherwise, thereby causing significant damage to the original producers. Furthermore he got fined extra to due uploading the film in bad quality, thereby damaging reputation.
> He uploaded an unreleased movie that has not been released otherwise, thereby causing significant damage to the original producers. Furthermore he got fined extra to due uploading the film in bad quality, thereby damaging reputation.
What the... I find this highly amusing, as copyright holders have previously argued that high quality copies are also damaging.
> He uploaded an unreleased movie that has not been released otherwise
The movie was already released as SweBits only (with some exceptions) allowed scene releases. He was sentenced for the "uploading" to SweBits and not for releasing it onto the scene. It's fairly clear in the verdict.
> Furthermore he got fined extra to due uploading the film in bad quality, thereby damaging reputation.
Contrary Anecdote: The VCD Z Screener of The Matrix is terrible quality and was widely distributed prior to the release of the film, but didn't hurt the reputation of the film at all.
So if the damages for thousands to millions of copies of the movie are being blamed on the initial public seeder, does that mean nobody else in the torrent is responsible for any damages?
Fines are not just to recompense the apparent victim of an action, they are intended to deter others from repeating the action. If the risk of getting caught is small the fine needs to he high enough that ChanceOfGettingCaught*Punishment is far enough from zero that it figures in people's minds.
Unfortunately this only seems to apply to individuals: companies seem to get slap-on-the-wrist fines were individuals get send-you-to-the-poverty-line fines.
The word "fine" here is a mistranslation of the judgment. The court rewarded damages to be paid by the one sentenced. They did not issue any fines.
Fines and damages are two different concepts, because one is about restoration (damages), while the other is about punishment and repentance. The first is about the victim, and the second is about the state.
In this case, the court decided on $650,000 damages to be repaid to the rights alliance, and as punishment gave a suspended jail sentence and 160 hours of community service.
> If the risk of getting caught is small the fine needs to he high enough that ChanceOfGettingCaught*Punishment is far enough from zero that it figures in people's minds.
Thats not the point of either fines or damages. In a historical perspective, fines exist because other more inhumane punishments like beating, lashing and shaming were deemed inappropriate. In today's theory, (see http://www.criminology.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.74227.1328107386!...), it's more about providing a standpoint in society about what is acceptable and what is not.
It should also be mentioned that fines have a maximum of $600 per crime, or 150 days of a person's current income.
Damages on the other hand are only about restoration, and is not allowed to be issued as punishment. It is illegal for the court to issue damages as a form of punishment.
I find the thought of having punishment inversely proportional to chance-of-getting-caught disturbing. Because if the risk of getting caught is very small (which is the very case the system would be addressing), the punishment would necessarily be disproportionately huge. I can never agree with a disproportionately huge punishment.
He actually admitted to sharing 13 films illegally (accused of sharing a total of 517 films). He was an uploader on a private Swedish tracker called Swebits.org which is where the alleged crimes took place.
It's not the first time something like that happened. So, I wonder, what are reactions to such cases except for discussion on Internet forums? Were there any petitions to governments, maybe even some civil protest actions or, on the other hand, initiatives to replace non-anonymous BitTorrent with anonymizing networks?
[+] [-] kken|12 years ago|reply
He uploaded an unreleased movie that has not been released otherwise, thereby causing significant damage to the original producers. Furthermore he got fined extra to due uploading the film in bad quality, thereby damaging reputation.
[+] [-] Maakuth|12 years ago|reply
What the... I find this highly amusing, as copyright holders have previously argued that high quality copies are also damaging.
[+] [-] bobobjorn|12 years ago|reply
The numbers in general in the judgement are just made up and full of bad math.
swedish: http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.540098/hittepasiffror-bakom-rekor...
[+] [-] supersystem|12 years ago|reply
The movie was already released as SweBits only (with some exceptions) allowed scene releases. He was sentenced for the "uploading" to SweBits and not for releasing it onto the scene. It's fairly clear in the verdict.
[+] [-] acuozzo|12 years ago|reply
Contrary Anecdote: The VCD Z Screener of The Matrix is terrible quality and was widely distributed prior to the release of the film, but didn't hurt the reputation of the film at all.
[+] [-] e_proxus|12 years ago|reply
Complementary dictionary:
Hittepåsiffror - made-up-numbers
filmbranschräv - a sly old movie industry fox
ickebevisade - non-proven
svajjiga - shaky
[+] [-] orjan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeltz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dylan16807|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dspillett|12 years ago|reply
Unfortunately this only seems to apply to individuals: companies seem to get slap-on-the-wrist fines were individuals get send-you-to-the-poverty-line fines.
[+] [-] belorn|12 years ago|reply
Fines and damages are two different concepts, because one is about restoration (damages), while the other is about punishment and repentance. The first is about the victim, and the second is about the state.
In this case, the court decided on $650,000 damages to be repaid to the rights alliance, and as punishment gave a suspended jail sentence and 160 hours of community service.
> If the risk of getting caught is small the fine needs to he high enough that ChanceOfGettingCaught*Punishment is far enough from zero that it figures in people's minds.
Thats not the point of either fines or damages. In a historical perspective, fines exist because other more inhumane punishments like beating, lashing and shaming were deemed inappropriate. In today's theory, (see http://www.criminology.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.74227.1328107386!...), it's more about providing a standpoint in society about what is acceptable and what is not.
It should also be mentioned that fines have a maximum of $600 per crime, or 150 days of a person's current income.
Damages on the other hand are only about restoration, and is not allowed to be issued as punishment. It is illegal for the court to issue damages as a form of punishment.
[+] [-] tspiteri|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bberrry|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] drdaeman|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MichaelGG|12 years ago|reply