Jag skrev till Ole Husgaard från det danska Piratpartiet och frågade just om beviskraven för informationsförelägganden, som i min senaste postning. Han skrev snabbt tillbaka, och lägger till flera viktiga pusselbitar i hur IPRED tillämpas i Danmark och Storbritannien:
In Denmark this is quite hard to find out for sure. The reason is that we cannot get the court decision or other papers unless we are part in the case. And no pirates are part in the case: It is between the antipirates and the ISP, and none of these two parties want to give us a copy of the court papers. When the alleged pirate gets a letter from the antipirates this court case has already been dropped.
But we believe that the following is what happens in Denmark: The antipirates contact the ISP before coing to court to tell them that this is the usual ”informationsföreläggandet” case, telling them they do not have to show up in court unless they want to. The ISP has no interest in the case, and just need a court decision to be able to legally give out the information, so they do not show up. Then the antipirates go to court with a long list of IP numbers claiming they have evidence for
infringement from these IP numbers. Because nobody tells the judge otherwise, he has to assume that the claim from the antipirates is true, and issues a court order ordering the ISP to give out the information for all the IP numbers. So no evidence is actually presented to court, we believe.
If the ISP went to court and protested, we think that a screen capture with a time stamp (which we believe is made in all cases anyway) for each IP would be enough to get the court order, as the threshold of proof is very low in pre-litigation in civil cases. The law regulating these cases in Denmark is chapter 74 of Retsplejeloven.
From this document you can see that there is a single case involving a lot of IP numbers. The number of IPs are so high that a spreadsheet with them is sent to the ISP, and a spreadsheet with the requested information is returned from the ISP to the antipirates. Also here (the court decision is included with the leaked letter) you can see that the
level of evidence needed is as low as ”prima facie” (ie. it is enough that the antipirates claim they have seen infringement).
In both the UK and Denmark, this court case is done ”ex parte” with respect to the alleged copyright infringer. This means that he cannot protest or send contradicting evidence to the court. Even in the US this is no longer allowed. Here the ISP has to inform the alleged copyright infringer of the court case, and give him the chance to hire a lawyer that can speak his case in court before his identity is revealed.
What is really bad about these court cases in UK and Denmark is that it looks like the court is simply rubber-stamping. There really is no opposing part, as the ISP has no interest in the case. And because hundreds or thousands of identities can be revealed in a single court case, the cost for the antipirates are low, making it economically viable for the antipirates to go on ”fishing expeditions”.
Please let me know if you have questions or need more information on this, and I will try my best to help you.
P.S: Do you know for how long your Department of Justice
(Justitiedepartementet) can delay answering a question from our government regarding your FRA-law? Such a question was sent from the danish government around July 1st, and we are still waiting for an answer. The problem is that this is being used to delay danish protests regarding the law. Our government is simply saying to our concerned politicians: ”We don’t know about this law, and we are still waiting for a reply from the swedish government.” Would it be possible for you to put pressure on your government to make them answer?
Brevet publiceras med hans tillåtelse. Tack för all hjälp i den svenska debatten, Ole – både den här och den du gett förut. Vad jag vet finns det inget som tvingar den svenska regeringen att svara på brev alls, men vi kan förstås ligga på dem!
Situationen i Danmark och Storbritannien gör det särskilt tydligt att vi behöver nysta vidare i rättssäkerheten i processen för informationsföreläggande. Jag har förutsatt att domslutet åtminstone kan granskas i efterhand, även om abonnenten saknar möjligheter att påverka den (vilket i och för sig är absurdt nog). Det står inget om det i propositionen vad jag kan se, men man hoppas ju att det beror på att det är självklarheter.
Och se till att läsa diskussionssidan om det brittiska kravbrevet också. En särskilt pikant detalj:
What has happened here is probably the same that was revealed when Davenport Lyons began sending out similar letters about the alleged copyright infringement of a gay nazi pornographic movie. DigiProtect had licensed the exclusive worldwide rights to make this and a long list of other pornographic movies available on p2p networks. Not because they wanted to make money by selling these copyrighted works, but because they wanted to make money by settling with accused infringers or taking them to court.
Aha! Jag visste att jag inte var den enda entreprenören i IPRED-branschen. Plötsligt känns min affärsmodell inte så far off ändå!