0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yesterday we were discussing just what a relief is to see judges no longer carrying on that easily with file-sharing cases that lack substantial evidence produced by copyright holders (which made it all the more upsetting when former RIAA lobbyist turned federal judge recently allowed such cases to proceed) .Denmark has followed in the footsteps of other fervent anti-piracy fighting countries but it looks like the Supreme Court will only green-light those cases where evidence presented by record labels is irrefutable.It recently dealt with a case involving a guy who was accused of sharing 13,000 songs via p2p networks a bit differently than IPFI would have it. The court’s ruling said that the man should pay $1,900 damage compensation fee. If we take a look at the industry’s “standards” when it comes to the amount of money they demand in compensation for infringement acts, well, we can say that’s a mighty decent sum.Reportedly, the main reason the court decide for such a low fee was the limited quality of the evidence “anti-piracy” group Antipiratgruppen presented.APG used techniques which scraped the index of the files said to be being made available by the defendant and then linked them back to his IP address, a method which has been acceptable in the past. But while the Court accepted that some sharing had occurred due to the defendant’s confession, it wasn’t satisfied that the index was an accurate representation of the files physically present on the defendant’s computer.