Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

ISP: Piracy “Extortion Letters” Benefit ‘Greedy’ Companies, Not Poor Artists

Recommended Posts


Swedish Internet service provider Bahnhof is continuing its crusade against copyright holders that target alleged file-sharers. The company has published an article which shows that these copyright cases have little to do with the Government's intention of protecting individual copyright holders with limited financial means.




In recent years file-sharers around the world have been threatened with lawsuits, if they don’t pay a significant settlement fee.


These so-called “copyright trolling” efforts have been a common occurrence in countries such as Germany and the United States, and in recent years they have conquered Sweden as well.


Where Internet providers remain on the sidelines in most countries, Swedish ISP Bahnhof has shown to be a fierce opponent of the copyright enforcement efforts. The company uses all possible means to protect its subscribers, both in an outside of court.


In an article published a few days ago, Bahnhof Communicator Carolina Lindahl takes a closer look at the legal basis underlying the threatening letters.


Lindahl notes that the Swedish Government sees a need for strict copyright infringement penalties while keeping the barriers for creators to go to court low because they often have limited resources.


“In copyright litigation […], it is often the author himself who is a party, and usually the author has limited financial resources,” the Government’s code for Penalties for Certain Serious IP violations reads.


However, according to Bahnhof, this is far removed from reality. Lindahl sifted through the legal paperwork related to copyright infringement cases filed at the Criminal Court, to see which companies are behind them.


The research uncovered 76 cases, the majority of which formed the basis for the tens of thousands of piracy settlement letters that were sent out. Only five of these cases were filed by the creator of the work, Lindahl notes.


In other instances, the creators were represented by intermediaries or licensees, such as Copyright Management Services and Crystalis Entertainment.


While these companies may have the legal right to pursue these cases, they are not the original creators of the films they sue over.


“The government’s claim – that it is often the author himself who is a party – does not seem to be correct at all,” Lindahl writes.


In addition, the ISP rejects the notion that copyright holders have “limited financial resources.” Using public sources, Lindahl shows that several of the companies involved have millions of dollars in revenues.


So, instead of protecting individual creators with limited means, the ISP says that the Government’s policy allows major companies to “extort” money from individuals, including those with limited financial resources.


“Our legislation rests on assumptions that are badly rooted in reality,” Lindahl writes, noting that government policy only makes rich film companies richer.


“The result is an extortion operation that is profitable for already profitable media companies and costly for young people, retirees, and other individuals on the margin, without the capability to tackle sudden costs of thousands of kronor.


“The lone and economically limited authors are in fact groups of authors with great wealth. Without pure greed, they probably don’t need to send out extortion letters,” the article adds.


Lindahl tells TF that she does see a few options to deal with the issue at hand.


Sweden could follow the example of its neighbor Denmark, for example, where copyright trolling is ‘outlawed.’ Alternatively, courts could call the IP-monitoring evidence into question, which isn’t always as solid as it seems.


That said, she’s not very hopeful that anything will change soon.


“I don’t trust our government or authorities to do anything about this. I’m sure they enjoy things just as they are,” Lindahl notes.


“Either because they are stupid and really believe they’re helping the poor, because they have private engagements with copyright organizations, or because they like to chase and punish pirates every way they can. Or all of the above.”



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't think of one ISP in the U.S. who would do what Bahnhof does in trying to protect its users from copyright trolls, and we have dozens of them.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, straycat19 said:

Can't think of one ISP in the U.S. who would do what Bahnhof does in trying to protect its users from copyright trolls, and we have dozens of them.

That's because you was always are using one of the iSPs  that do send out warnings. Before 2012 no USA iSPs sent out warnings and Cox never sent out warnings and was sued  for not sending them out, there is no law in the USA saying they have too,  just some of them volunteered too. it not a law like it is  in some countries  . The only reason  Cox sends them out now, was because they was sued  for it and  now all of them do, because there afraid they will get took to court, look what happen to Cox   .  Warnings dont even cover direct streaming and direct downloading  ,  torrent in the cloud or seed boxes . People in the USA do this everyday with no vpn at all . They dont even block any sites in the USA yet...The EU is getting much more tougher laws than  the USA on it .  I dont even torrent via a BitTorrent client no more even though i have a vpn  that will disconnect my internet when my vpn drops . I have a paid service that uploads and seeds for me. Sooner or latter Bahnhof will be forced to do things they dont like or face being sued like it is here in the USA.


Before Cox got sued  it  was all volunteer  it was only 5 that sent out warnings   AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon.



There is no longer any 6 strikes in the USA



Now they all send out warnings out of fear of being sued like COX witch was sued for $25 Million



There is no law saying they have too, but if they dont they could be held labile. but it just depends if they lose in court or not


With Grande they had a mixed verict


US Magistrate Judge Andrew Austin recommends dropping the infringement claims against Grande's management company and the vicarious infringement claim against the ISP itself. However, the request to dismiss the contributory infringement claim should be denied.




But if they get took to court for not enforcing anti piracy,  its a big chance the iSP will be charged with infringement of some kind. In other words most of the iSPs in the USA but the big 5 owned by Hollywood  never cared if people pirated on there Internet service before. it's the RIAA and MPAA forcing them to do it , it's blackmail really. There treating ISPs just like they use to treat pirates back in the early 2000s and never got no were, but they know if they go after iSPs if they win at lest they will get paid. With fining pirates they hardly ever see anything. All the ones that volunteered  are involved  with selling legal TV services  ..Hollywood own them, selling cable , satellite and IPTV is part of the way Hollywood gets a paycheck. 


Edited by steven36

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...