Feeds

back to article IFPI aims legal broadside at single filesharer

The IFPI has made its first request to the Swedish courts to force an ISP to hand over details of an alleged file sharer. In April, Sweden brought in its IPRED legislation, designed to rein in the apparently rampant filesharing conducted in the country. It did this by allowing record cos and the like to track down filesharers, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Grenade

So, the IFPI downloaded illegally?

How do they justify that? Do they have police-type search powers? Don't know but didn't think it was legal in Sweden to commit an offense to snare someone else committing an offense. Or is it because they are not a Swedish citizen that they suddenly can get away with that?

1
0
Paris Hilton

@ AC

Presumably they obtain the permission of the copyright holder to download the song.

Remember this isn't wrong because you do it. It's wrong because you do it without permission. And you get that permission by paying money.

Paris, cause El Reg has permission to use her image...

0
0
Alert

Interesting point...

If the IFPI is allowed to download their own songs, then uploading their songs is allowable.

Or: Sharing songs with the IFPI is a legitimate, legal use of filesharing software. Therefore, sharing music is not, itself, illegal.

If the IFPI isn't allowed to download songs, then if they download a song owned by an artist NOT under their domain, they are themselves breaking the law. Make a song, get the IFPI to download it, then sue THEM for infringement, and demand that they be denied internet access under the same laws they are abusing.

0
0
Welcome

Really?

"The move has been credited with a massive drop in filesharing"

Why no mention of the massive rise in revenue for the music industry that MUST have occurred hand in hand with the massive filesharing drop? Surely they must match perfectly?

I for one welcome our new privacy invading ISP overlords.

3
0
Flame

Mall Cops

Given that in the US Big Media representatives have turned up at private home with bogus documents and conducted illegal searches, it looks like Swedes will soon be getting a taste of 3 Strikes justice as well. The Social Democrats don't look so bad now, do they?!

2
0
FAIL

IFPI downloaded illegally

It isn't illegal to download. It is an infringement of the license issued with the meeJa. I'm sure for the purposes of Law enforcement/entrapment downloading from filesharers is perfectly acceptable.

It's not the technology which is illegal it's the stuff people are moving which is a copyright infringement.

Jees I boring myself with this shit.

Can't catch a pedo but we can sure as hell track pirates down. Funny when THE MAN's money is at stake how effective internet tracking has become.

Epic fail because the hinterWebs is becoming THE MAN's playground spoling it for everybody else.

1
0
Thumb Down

Dig out that ABBA track...Money, Money, Money!

Yeah well saving a few kiddies from being abused will not give Brittney, Jay-Z and their record company execs new Ferraris for crimble will it?!

Tch! Stuff the the fact that some poor kids will get nothing Xmas but smack across the face for speaking out of turn, so long as a few file sharers get put in clinky and the record-company execs get to celebrate and slap each other on the back for saving the world from the evil P2P menace, all is well in the world.

Makes me physcially sick just thinking about how utterly pathetic the whole situation really is.

1
0
WTF?

Record cos?

What do large lettuces have to do with any of this?

3
0
Silver badge

Cue a lot more Swedish...

... spoken on Freenet and co in 3, 2, 1...

0
0
Alert

Selective Enforcement = Discrimination?

I fail to see how they can fairly pick-n-choose who to pursue. Aren't they OBLIGATED to prosecute every single person if they prosecute any, even the first one? The potential for abuse, if their conduct is allowed to continue, seems quite high.

NO(!) I say, you can't let the first 20 million people *steal* (ok, ok, it's not stealing it's copyright infringement) something then start getting litigious when the next joe sixpack steals 20 of the same thing, nevermind that we already knew the damages from the one individual could not be as high as they claim as you'd have to have an independent 3rd party make an impartial assessment of real annual losses and divide that by # of TOTAL uploaders and # of uploads.

Makes me think the liability per copyrighted work really ought to be closer to $1 per, but nevermind fairness or justice, we're on a freakin' crusade!

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.