Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Swedish Man Fined $650,000 For Sharing 1 Movie, Charged Extra For Low Quality

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the do-your-illegal-sharing-in-full-HD dept.

Piracy 366

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)."

cancel ×

366 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45720845)

Good. Maybe then you shitheads will stop stealing people's work.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721015)

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?

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721121)

You can't "steal" from the public domain. Something in the public domain means that it can be used by anyone for any purpose.

Re:Good (4, Informative)

Ragzouken (943900) | about 8 months ago | (#45721397)

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

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721717)

You familiar with the Disney catalogue?

Re:Good (5, Interesting)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 8 months ago | (#45721767)

"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.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721377)

a kickstarter comes to mind

Re: Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721579)

that's funny. i was going to say the same thing to these shitheads.
You shitheads think stealing is ok .
what else do you expect out of shitheads.
now watch as they make a bunch of shithead excuses.
shitheads.

What the hell is the point of these huge numbers? (5, Interesting)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 8 months ago | (#45720855)

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?

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (5, Funny)

Kell Bengal (711123) | about 8 months ago | (#45720875)

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.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721039)

The solution clearly is to allow repayment in the form of $650,000 worth of movies downloaded by the MPAA from the defendant.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (5, Funny)

Kell Bengal (711123) | about 8 months ago | (#45721101)

I concur. One low-quality copy ought to do it.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (1)

alexhs (877055) | about 8 months ago | (#45721109)

The solution clearly is to allow repayment in the form of $650,000 worth of movies downloaded by the MPAA from the defendant.

That could be a great idea, as long as he can get the copies back [bash.org] :)

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (1)

qzjul (944600) | about 8 months ago | (#45721129)

http://youtu.be/ALZZx1xmAzg?t=3s [youtu.be]

You wouldn't steal a handbag.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45720935)

Why do you answer your own question and still act like you don't know the answer? Are you that stupid? Or is this some shallow attempt at outrage?

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45720937)

Humans are stupid?

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (2)

ark1 (873448) | about 8 months ago | (#45720957)

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.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (3, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 8 months ago | (#45720993)

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.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (4, Informative)

Assmasher (456699) | about 8 months ago | (#45721111)

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 ;)...

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 8 months ago | (#45721115)

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 [googleusercontent.com]

(Cached, the original site wasn't answering...)

Next it's the computer you uploaded it from and the house your computer was in.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 8 months ago | (#45721315)

"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."

That's not a court judgment. Asset forfeiture is a completely different thing, and is totally irrelevant to the situation at hand.

In the U.S., I am pretty sure that the courts don't (can't?) force you, in a judgment, to give up one home and (I am also pretty sure) one car, or the tools you need to make a living. For example, if you're a carpenter they could not touch your toolbox in most circumstances.

In regard to asset forfeiture: I think in the long run, seizure of assets that weren't directly part of, or derived from the proceeds of, illegal activity will be ruled illegal. It has certainly been abused, and I know of no real, legal basis for it.

If a house was bought with, say, money from illegal slave trade, or was used in same, that's a different matter. Then there is justification for seizing the property.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721567)

I am pretty sure that the courts don't (can't?) force you, in a judgment, to give up one home and (I am also pretty sure) one car, or the tools you need to make a living.

The laws (called homestead exemptions [wikipedia.org] ) vary state-by-state. I remember hearing about Florida having laws like you describe, but I think that's not the case in most states.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 8 months ago | (#45721411)

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.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721133)

>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.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (1)

willy_me (212994) | about 8 months ago | (#45721855)

Only in the states is it popular to mortgage your house and minimize payments. Something about interest and taxes? Is it just in California? Hopefully an American homeowner can bring me up to speed. But my point is that other countries have different forms of taxation which encourage homeowners to actually own their house. I do not know what it is like in Sweden, but in Canada you have a much higher percentage of people who own their house when compared to, for example, California.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45720989)

How does fining someone many times their net worth accomplish anything?

It's a death penalty.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45720999)

It's a brainwashing attempt to push all justice into a zero tolerance system, where all crimes will be a lifetime fine.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (5, Insightful)

joe_frisch (1366229) | about 8 months ago | (#45721071)

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.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 8 months ago | (#45721083)

write a promissory note, copy right it. when they take it sue them for x+1

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721155)

Yeah and face contempt of court charges while you're guffawing about how funny you thought you were being.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721179)

I believe these numbers are more for their end of period reports. These accountants know they'll never get that money, but they also don't care. They know the movies and media aren't worth the numbers they claim. Their reports can now claim greater losses for the studios, and thus have a stronger argument towards further regulation and control.

Re:What the hell is the point of these huge number (1)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about 8 months ago | (#45721185)

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?

They do try to collect, because the numbers are adequately large to make it worth their while. Numbers are numbers, they don't lie.

It's those damn statisticians that lie ...

ONE movie? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45720865)

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.

Try reading past the third paragraph (5, Informative)

alexhs (877055) | about 8 months ago | (#45720951)

[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.

Re:Try reading past the third paragraph (5, Informative)

alannon (54117) | about 8 months ago | (#45721231)

This entire thing really only makes sense if you take a look at it in terms of court costs. He was being prosecuted on 517 counts, which makes him, in my mind, much more than just a casual media pirate (as suggested by the summary). If the evidence was pretty much equally clear on each of the 517 movies, it probably saved a lot of court time and money to pin all of the substantial penalties on a single count and then suspend the rest of them. The downside for the court is that a huge amount of publicity it generated because of the "$650,000 for one movie" angle, whereas this might have caused less outrage if it had been a $1250 fine per movie, even if the total had been the same. If somebody else has another explanation as to why they would choose this bizarrely lopsided penalty, I'd like to hear it. Okay, scratch all of that. I read the related article, http://torrentfreak.com/largest-ever-bittorrent-tracker-movie-uploader-trial-concludes-131120/ [torrentfreak.com] and it says that only a single producer seeked damages. What an asshole, destroying someone's life for the sake of a 25 year old shitty horror movie.

Re:Try reading past the third paragraph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721609)

It's not that one movie was worth $652,000 and the other 500+ were each only punished with about twenty minutes of community service. The sentence is for the totality of counts. They just account for it in a single count and suspend the rest because the court doesn't care how the plaintiff divides the money among the infringed titles.

If it had been just one movie instead of over 500, there's a strong chance the outcome would have been different (or the suit not even filed).

The same thing happens in property crimes. Say you're charged with 30 counts of vandalism. They might order you to pay $10k in restitution on the first count and then give a suspended sentence and community service for the rest (pretty much just like here), because it saves them the waste of court resources on an elaborate and long sentencing hearing. The money gets divided according to local practice.

Re:ONE movie? (2, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | about 8 months ago | (#45720997)

Nobody here wants to hear how he was part of an organized criminal scheme; they just want to seem clever by explaining how copying isn't theft.

Re:ONE movie? (5, Insightful)

Adam Colley (3026155) | about 8 months ago | (#45721213)

It /isn't/ theft.

Theft is defined (at least here) as taking someone's property with the intention of permanently depriving them of it.

Nobody has been deprived of anything, it's a copy, the originals still exist.

There might be /some/ argument that it's depriving the already super rich hollywood producers of their revenue but generally that assumes anyone who pirated something would have otherwise bought it which is certainly not the case. Most piracy is by children who don't have any money and could not have bought the content anyway.

There's also the rather thorny issue of determining which user of a particular IP address pirated the content, some people have open wifi networks, should they be responsible for the actions of others simply because they chose to be a good neighbour? I think not.

Re:ONE movie? (3, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | about 8 months ago | (#45721403)

The copyright cartel are very skilled at propaganda; it follows that they would invent emotive and abusive terms for copyright infringement, like 'theft', 'stealing', 'piracy', 'criminal', etc.

What's truly criminal, is is the abusive, corrupt practice of bribing lawmakers (sorry, 'lobbying', or 'campaign contributions') to buy favourable laws and regulations to prop up failing business models.

This guy gets to be yet another example.

Re:ONE movie? (2)

fisted (2295862) | about 8 months ago | (#45721417)

GP neither said nor implied it was theft, so basically all you did now is trying

to seem clever by explaining how copying isn't theft

Re:ONE movie? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721785)

Yeah! He trying to seem clever!

Re:ONE movie? (0)

pspahn (1175617) | about 8 months ago | (#45721507)

So many damn people use this argument when they should know full well that piracy *is* theft and that an archaic definition doesn't change things.

Yes, there may be cases where leniency is considered (your example of a child doing it), but that doesn't change the fact that they did something against the law.

You sound like the type of person who also believes it's okay to steal from large corporations because "well they won't miss it" or "they already have so much". I used to think that way when I was a teenager, as I'm sure many teenagers do. If you're still believing this once you reach maturity, you should probably revisit an ethics class.

Re:ONE movie? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721775)

"Piracy is theft" the same way "diamonds are forever".
Its not archaic, the legal definition is depriving property from its rightful owner.

Theft - is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

If they want it to be "theft" they should bribe congress to have the term changed.

It is copyright violation which they are trying to "upscale" into harsher and greater punishmenet.

Re:ONE movie? (1)

LocalH (28506) | about 8 months ago | (#45721737)

+4? Really, Slashdot? This AC obviously didn't read the article, and neither did anyone who modded them up.

Sweden? (3, Interesting)

Gavrielkay (1819320) | about 8 months ago | (#45720877)

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.

Re:Sweden? (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 8 months ago | (#45720969)

I'm surprised at this coming from a Scandinavian country. It sounds much more like something you'd hear from a U.S. court.

Evidently, no single country has a monopoly on ludicrous.

Re:Sweden? (1, Insightful)

Knacklappen (526643) | about 8 months ago | (#45720979)

Sorry, but the low-Q fine is someone's joke. It's not in the ruling or the article.

Re:Sweden? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721261)

Yes it is. From the ruling:

"Skada på filmens anseende
Omdömet av en film påverkas tydligt av den tekniska kvalitet, ljud och bild, som
den visas i. En film tillgängliggörs först i de sammanhang de tekniska
förutsättningarna är bäst, bio eller dvd/bluray och därefter tv och lagliga
nedladdningstj änster. Att se en illegalt nedladdad film, ofta på datorskärm med
väsentligt lägre upplösning än dvd/bluray och med undermåligt ljud, försämrar
filmupplevelsen betydligt. Den som har sett någon av de illegalt nedladdade
filmerna far typiskt sett en sämre filmupplevelse än den som har sett originalet och
detta påverkar de omdömen som skrivs på internetforum av dem som har sett de
illegala filmerna. Dessa omdömen sprids mycket snabbt på internet och far ett stort
genomslag. Sammantaget innebär detta en skada på filmens anseende. Denna skada
har värderats till 300 000 kr."

Google Translate because I'm lazy:

"Damage to the film's reputation
Reviewed by a film greatly affected by the technical quality of sound and picture, which
it appears in. A movie is made available first in the context of technical
conditions are best, cinema or dvd / bluray and then television, and Legal
nedladdningstj eft. Seeing an illegally downloaded movie, often at the computer screen with
significantly lower resolution than the dvd / bluray and with substandard sound, impairs
movie experience significantly. Anyone who has seen any of the illegally downloaded
movies father typically a worse movie experience than those who have seen the original and
this affects the ratings given on internet forums of those who have seen the
illegal movies. These reviews are spread very quickly on the internet and father a large
impact. All this means an injury to the film's reputation. this injury
have been valued at SEK 300 000. "

Re:Sweden? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721459)

Are you trying to demonstrate your cuntpaste abilities or what makes you believe anyone who actually wants to see that gibberish wouldn't be able to fire up google translate themselves, you obnoxious fuck?

Re:Sweden? (5, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 8 months ago | (#45721001)

I wonder if they're also going to fine negative reviews of that movie. Because, you know, they also damage its reputation. ;-)

Re:Sweden? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721067)

You do realise that the court system may have already been bought by US interests.

Re:Sweden? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 8 months ago | (#45721751)

Be careful. Issuing a negative review of a Scandinavian country might get you borked by a Swedish judge!

April Fools??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45720879)

So that added fine is not for copyright infringement and thus illegal.

Probably ... (-1, Offtopic)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#45720887)

a Dizney movie, their scrips are dreadful these days.

Re:Probably ... (1)

dk20 (914954) | about 8 months ago | (#45721797)

There are still a lot of public domain stories, or old comic books to transform into movies which is about all they do these days.

Perhaps a respin of "the A-Team" is in order? (not Disney, but you get the point)

And now the judge should be fined! (2)

jankoh (2547488) | about 8 months ago | (#45720901)

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 :-)

heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45720913)

...and *these* and the people that want to be trusted with all the worlds data. Rofl.

Re:heh (1)

furbyhater (969847) | about 8 months ago | (#45720953)

Not sure if joking or really confusing Switzerland with Sweden like the stereotype.

Low Q? (2, Insightful)

Knacklappen (526643) | about 8 months ago | (#45720933)

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. =:)

Re:Low Q? (1)

fatphil (181876) | about 8 months ago | (#45721225)

This paragraph looks like the nearest in subject-matter (quality and fine mentioned), but to my eye says almost the exact opposite!

"""
Nordisk Film A/S har till grund för skadeståndsanspråket åberopat följande.
NN har uppsåtligen eller av oaktsamhet gjort filmen Beck, Levande
begravd tillgänglig för allmänheten och har därigenom gjort intrång i Nordisk Film
A/S:s upphovsrätt till filmen. NN är till följd av intrången skyldig att
utge dels skälig ersättning dels ersättning för ytterligare skada till följd av
intrånget.
Skadeståndskravet grundas på den uppladdning som ägde rum den 25 oktober 2010.
NN har även laddat upp samma film den 15 maj 2010 men denna
uppladdning utgjordes av en avfilmning av biofilmsversionen och var av dålig
kvalitet, varför målsäganden valde att beräkna skadeståndet utifrån ett senare
tillgängliggörande.
"""

~= He earlier shared a poor quality version, but the copyright holder chose to make the complaint about the high quality one that he shared later.

The judgement makes mention of the *tracker site* Swebits trying to maintain a reputation (rykte) for quality (kvalitet). But that's completely different from what's claimed.

Disclaimer - I've never learnt any Swedish or any Scandinavian language at all, this could be total bollocks.

Re:Low Q? (1)

fatphil (181876) | about 8 months ago | (#45721249)

And in other news, fuck you slashdot for being, well, erm, how can I put this nicely? Fucked?

Re:Low Q? (3, Insightful)

fisted (2295862) | about 8 months ago | (#45721839)

No, this is pure PEBKAC. With your 6-digit uid you're supposed to know /. is latin1-land(*).
You're doing it wrong on multiple levels.
starting with a 2-byte UTF8 char (say, 0xc3a4, the UTF8-equivalent of latin1's 'ä') first you break the sequence up into 0xc3 and 0xa4, already removing all meaning, which you then convert into html-entities, apparently TWICE, so what you end up sending to slashdot actually looks like: { where 123 is half of a utf8 char value, on a site expecting latin1. Ehm.

And then you loudly whine about slashdot being broken, when it (correctly) renders your input like you told it to: {
I suppose you're one of the people who curse the their TV, as in, the actual device, if nothing good is on air.

And there's even a preview function. Dammit. You are broken.


(*) That's not to imply I'd support that shit. Slashdot should be UTF8 (but your comment would be broken regardless)

Re:Low Q? (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 8 months ago | (#45721859)

For completeness:

Nordisk Film A/S har till grund för skadeståndsanspråket åberopat följande. NN har uppsåtligen eller av oaktsamhet gjort filmen Beck, Levande begravd tillgänglig för allmänheten och har därigenom gjort intrång i Nordisk Film A/S:s upphovsrätt till filmen. NN är till följd av intrången skyldig att utge dels skälig ersättning dels ersättning för ytterligare skada till följd av intrånget. Skadeståndskravet grundas på den uppladdning som ägde rum den 25 oktober 2010. NN har även laddat upp samma film den 15 maj 2010 men denna uppladdning utgjordes av en avfilmning av biofilmsversionen och var av dålig kvalitet, varför målsäganden valde att beräkna skadeståndet utifrån ett senare tillgängliggörande.

Re:Low Q? (5, Funny)

alexhs (877055) | about 8 months ago | (#45721287)

What part of:

I fallet med Beck-filmen beräknas skadeståndet bland annat på kostnaden för att licensiera filmen, på att delningen slagit mot försäljningen och för att den delade filmens kvalitet försämrat filmens rykte.

can't you understand ? :)

In preview mode, UTF-8 codes for å, ä and ö are displayed correctly. I used HTML entities in this note.

Re:Low Q? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721461)

You're wrong. The low quality added 300,000 SEK in damages.
The plaintiff wanted a total of 7,050,000 SEK divided as follows:
5,500,000 hypothetical licensing fee. 2,750,000 was awarded
700,000 loss of profit, 700,000 awarded
500,000 "marknadsstörning" (market disruption), 500,000 awarded
[b]300,000 damage to the movie reputation, 300,000 awarded [/b]
50,000 non-profit damages...?, 50,000 awarded

From the complaint(p.34):

Att se en illegalt nedladdad film, ofta på datorskärm med
väsentligt lägre upplösning än dvd/bluray och med undermåligt ljud, försämrar
filmupplevelsen betydligt [...] Denna skada
har värderats till 300 000 kr.

Translation:

Seeing an illegaly downloaded movie, often on a computer screen with considerably lower resolution than dvd/bluray and with inferior audio, lessens the movie experencience considerably. [...] This damage has been valued at 300,000 SEK

The district court agrees with this on p.38:
Tingsrätten finner att utredningen i målet ger stöd för att bestämma ersättningen till
de belopp som yrkats, sammanlagt 1 550 000 kr.

Translation:
The district court decides that the investigation in the case supports the decision to set the reward to the sum that has been specified by the plaintiff, in total 1,550,000 SEK

This includes everything except the first row in the calculation above.

Re:Low Q? (1)

alexhs (877055) | about 8 months ago | (#45721531)

Well, your nickname suggests that you might speak swedish, so it would make my previous comment not that funny for you :) Is this an issue of mistranslation, or did you miss the relevant parts ?
In the court ruling, the relevant part seems to be pages 33-34/41, and here are excerpts (and I guess it answers my question):

(All translations are by Google translate, corrected for a few obvious mistakes, including typos in the swedish text)

Ersättning för annan skada
[...]
Marknadsstörningen har värderats till 500 000 kr.

Damages for harm
[...]
Market disruption has been valued at SEK 500 000.

Skada på filmens anseende
Omdömet av en film påverkas tydligt av den tekniska kvalitet, ljud och bild, som den visas i. En film tillgängliggörs först i de sammanhang de tekniska förutsättningarna är bäst, bio eller dvd/bluray och därefter tv och lagliga nedladdningstjänster. Att se en illegalt nedladdad film, ofta på datorskärm med väsentligt lägre upplösning än dvd/bluray och med undermåligt ljud, försämrar filmupplevelsen betydligt. Den som har sett någon av de illegalt nedladdade filmerna far typiskt sett en sämre filmupplevelse än den som har sett originalet och detta påverkar de omdömen som skrivs på internetforum av dem som har sett de illegala filmerna. Dessa omdömen sprids mycket snabbt på internet och far ett stort genomslag. Sammantaget innebär detta en skada på filmens anseende. Denna skada har värderats till 300 000 kr.

Damage to the film's reputation
Reviewed by a film greatly affected by the technical quality of sound and image, as it appears in. A movie is made available first in the context of the technical conditions are best , cinema or dvd / bluray and then television and legal download services . Seeing an illegally downloaded movie , often at the computer screen with significantly lower resolution than the dvd / bluray and with substandard sound, impairs movie experience significantly. Anyone who has seen any of the illegally downloaded movies father typically a worse movie experience than those who have seen the original and this affects the ratings given on internet forums of those who have seen the illegal films . These reviews are spread very quickly on the internet and father a big impact. All this means an injury to the film's reputation. This damage is valued at SEK 300 000.

Ideell skada
Att ett filmverk olagligt tillgängliggörs på ett sätt och i en form som helt strider mot skaparnas och rättighetshavaraas vision innebär en ideell skada. Denna har värderats till 50 000 kr.

Material damage
A film being illegally made available in a manner and in a form that is completely contrary to the creators and rightholders vision implies a moral damage. This is valued at SEK 50 000.

Re: Low Q? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721631)

one more of you fuckers copy and paste that unreadable shit here and i'm gonna get mad.

I'm sure many here first saw Star Wars Episode 1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45720941)

in grainy 320x240 encoding with an occasional Z going up and down.

Re:I'm sure many here first saw Star Wars Episode (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721309)

It would have been such a great movie otherwise.

Almost Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45720943)

Almost Funny.

So... (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 8 months ago | (#45720955)

When is George Lucas writing a fat check for his Star Wars re-releases?

Dumb 'Murica sucks! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721013)

I'm moving to Sweden where you have a right to pirate anything you want and not read any articles!

Lesson (1)

adiposity (684943) | about 8 months ago | (#45721025)

Lesson: always upload in 4K to minimize punishment.

Re:Lesson (1)

jimshatt (1002452) | about 8 months ago | (#45721601)

You can't even get an animated gif in 4K, let alone a whole movie!

HQ Only, Please! (5, Funny)

Elixon (832904) | about 8 months ago | (#45721035)

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!

Yet again, slashdot champions a criminal (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721053)

Yay, another chance for the slashdot community to show their support for piracy. I wouldn't know what to think of Disney and the judicial system if the slashdot groupthink didn't fill me in on how important it is that people be allowed to distribute other's works for free. Until the last thread like this one, I didn't know how those evil organizations are hellbent on keeping the economy going the old-fashioned way, preventing the new communist entertainment utopia. I can't wait till all movies are youtube quality at best. Vive la revolution!

Re:Yet again, slashdot champions a criminal (3, Interesting)

Gavrielkay (1819320) | about 8 months ago | (#45721153)

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.

Re:Yet again, slashdot champions a criminal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721159)

um, have you read the news lately? there have now been multiple studies showing torrents and file sharing actually increase sales and revenues, for movies and music.

the "groupthink" you're talking about isn't even what you say it is. please pay attention to slashdot, since clearly you haven't lately.

many of us are now championing file-sharing, not because we feel like we have a "right" to it, but because it is measurably better for all parties involved, content producers and content consumers.

or perhaps you don't actually care about the truth, you just like to feel clever by using phrases like "slashdot groupthink".

Re:Yet again, slashdot champions a criminal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721203)

um, have you read the news lately? there have now been multiple studies showing torrents and file sharing actually increase sales and revenues, for movies and music.

There are also studies that show the opposite. But those studies are lambasted but the ones that confirm the groupthink are always accepted without question.

I thought Sweden was a civilized country (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721061)

I thought Sweden was civilized?
This is absolutely barbaric.

Re:I thought Sweden was a civilized country (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721311)

I thought Sweden was civilized? This is absolutely barbaric.

As someone who has worked for Ericsson for many years, I can tell you that many Swedes are idiots. If not all. Few exceptions.

Some appointments are forever! (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 8 months ago | (#45721107)

Don't count on the judicial branch to come riding in on a White Horse. legalzoom [legalzoom.com]

Judge to pirates: (3)

jensend (71114) | about 8 months ago | (#45721175)

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

causing damage to the movie's reputation (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 8 months ago | (#45721245)

Just wait the for the US movies studios to use that with the DMCA and other laws to take down bad reviews.

Re:causing damage to the movie's reputation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721755)

Yes, even better, sue all viewers that do not watch it on a 4k 3D sreen with dolby surround 7.1

What happened to you Sweden? (1)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 8 months ago | (#45721253)

You used to be cool...

Re:What happened to you Sweden? (3, Funny)

Patent Lover (779809) | about 8 months ago | (#45721333)

When was Sweden ever cool?

Re:What happened to you Sweden? (1)

jimshatt (1002452) | about 8 months ago | (#45721621)

Pippi Longstocking. 'nuff said.

If it is worth watching it is worth paying, period (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721255)

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.

_

Re:If it is worth watching it is worth paying, per (1)

Gavrielkay (1819320) | about 8 months ago | (#45721357)

All of that may be true, but the media companies (in the U.S. at least) lose a LOT of the high ground when they use creative accounting to be sure they make maximum profits (see http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml [techdirt.com] ). Also, they purchase helpful copyright extensions from our politicians so that nothing can ever fall into the public domain (see http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html [findlaw.com] ).

So, yes, a studio does deserve to profit from its creative work, and the people who participate should also get paid. But the studios should beware of wallowing in hypocrisy as they shout about having things "stolen" from them.

Re:If it is worth watching it is worth paying, per (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721543)

All of that may be true, but the media companies (in the U.S. at least) lose a LOT of the high ground when they use creative accounting to be sure they make maximum profits

OP here -- responding to the remarks quoted above --

You are allowing yourself to get caught up in details which don't
change the fundamental truth that all those who produce
deserve some form of compensation for their efforts.

Business has nothing to do with morality. There is no "high ground".
All the whining in the world about how unfair things are won't change
the amount of unfairness. If you want to change the system, you must
work from within that system and gain enough power and influence that
you can then effect change. But the odds are that by the time you do that
you'll have developed a taste for nice cars, nice houses, and beautiful
women half your age, and you will laugh at the fools who blather on
about "high ground".

Life is not about "fairness". It is a game you won't even know whether you
have won or lost until the day you die. Chew on that while you are busy muttering
about high ground.

__

Popcorn (1)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | about 8 months ago | (#45721313)

Je should have offered to mail popcorn. That would have reduced the fine bin $10'000. I mean, every penny counts.

Re:Popcorn (1)

PPH (736903) | about 8 months ago | (#45721519)

Popcorn will be $1.3 million extra.

copyright porridge (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 8 months ago | (#45721375)

what the heck does that mean?

it does not sound appealing to me.

I would prefer to order the open source soup instead.

(google translate is the weird)

Protect quality of movies! (1)

UneducatedSixpack (2829861) | about 8 months ago | (#45721525)

I agree with fine for poor quality. Quality of movies is important.

A lot of movies need better quality... (2)

rwyoder (759998) | about 8 months ago | (#45721555)

...but nothing short of a script rewrite could help them.

Meanwhile.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721635)

Today google made umpteen thousands of dollars on advertising it sold on youtube that displayed next to pirated films which could be searched for using the phrase "full movie." But no, google claims plausible deniability and the useful idiots on slashdots will philosophize excuses and justifications for it.

Holiday camp (1)

pigsycyberbully (3450203) | about 8 months ago | (#45721681)

At first he will agree to pay the fine he will then declare bankruptcy and will have no assets in his name for them to confiscate. If they then decide to send him to prison which would be very unlikely he will sign up for further education classes business classes programming classes and get a very good education totally free. He will have his own television and a telephone allowance. His food will be regular and of reasonably good quality. If he gets bored he can join fitness classes with professional trainers. The only thing he will need to do for himself is masturbate unless he finds somebody who likes to do those kind of things for other men. It is nothing like U.S. feature films no rape no killing and all that U.S. feature film nonsense.

English translation of court document (mod up pls) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721815)

"Damage to the film's reputation

A review of a film is greatly affected by the technical quality of the sound and image, which it is shown in. A movie is initially made available in the contexts where the technical conditions are best, cinema or dvd / bluray and thereafter television and legal downloading services. Seeing an illegally downloaded movie, often at the computer screen with significantly lower resolution than the dvd / bluray and with substandard sound, impairs movie experience significantly. Anyone who has seen any of the illegally downloaded movies typically gets a worse movie experience than those who have seen the original and this affects the ratings given on internet forums of those who have seen the illegal films. These reviews are spread very quickly on the internet and cause a big impact. All this means an injury to the film's reputation. This damage is valued at SEK 300 000. "

Google translate from the original document, with some adjustments to make it readable.

A mans life was just ruined. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45721831)

A mans life was just ruined. and the slashdot community is outraged at the quality of the video?

When are we going to realize that these fines are just as bad as the death penalty and DO SOMETHING about them to stop the movie industry from penalizing individuals?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>