Film Piracy Prosecutions In Finland
Legal Framework
Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki), Chapter 49 – Copyright Offences
Section 1: Criminalizes the unauthorized copying or distribution of copyrighted works for profit.
Section 2: Aggravated copyright infringement occurs if done systematically, on a large scale, or professionally.
Maximum imprisonment for ordinary infringement: 2 years; for aggravated infringement: up to 4 years.
Copyright Act (Tekijänoikeuslaki)
Section 60a: Rightsholders can obtain subscriber data from ISPs if there is evidence of making works available to the public.
Section 60c: Courts can order ISPs to block access to infringing content.
Lex Karpela (2005 Amendment)
Strengthened criminal and civil remedies for digital piracy.
Made unauthorized file sharing punishable even if not directly for profit.
Significant Film Piracy Cases in Finland
1. Crystalis / Scanbox BitTorrent Case (2007)
Facts: Finnish companies Scanbox and Crystalis accused multiple BitTorrent users of sharing movies such as A Walk Among the Tombstones and TV series.
Court Action: The companies requested subscriber information from ISPs under Section 60a.
Outcome: The Market Court required disclosure only for users who shared content on a “significant extent” (5 out of 34).
Significance: Established a high threshold for determining “significant infringement,” balancing copyright enforcement with privacy.
2. Copyright Troll Case – Individual Challenges Settlement (2007)
Facts: A user received a settlement letter demanding €600–3,000 for allegedly downloading films via BitTorrent.
Court Action: The defendant challenged the claim, arguing the Wi-Fi was unsecured and there was no proof of downloading.
Outcome: The Market Court ruled in favor of the defendant; rightsholders were ordered to pay €28,000 in legal fees.
Significance: Showed courts require solid evidence linking infringement to a subscriber; settlement letters alone are insufficient.
3. ISP Blocking Case – Elisa & The Pirate Bay (2014)
Facts: Anti-piracy organizations sought to block ISP Elisa from allowing access to The Pirate Bay.
Court Action: Finnish courts applied Section 60c to consider injunctions against the ISP.
Outcome: The courts upheld that ISPs can be required to block access to infringing sites.
Significance: Demonstrated proactive measures to prevent piracy, emphasizing intermediary liability.
4. News Broadcast Redistribution Case – District Court of Oulu (2019)
Facts: An individual modified a Yleisradio news broadcast, added subtitles, and redistributed it online.
Court Action: Prosecuted for copyright infringement.
Outcome: Convicted, fined €640 for infringement and €2,260 in damages, prohibited from repeating the act.
Significance: First criminal conviction under the updated law addressing digital redistribution, emphasizing that modification does not automatically qualify as “parody.”
5. Finnish Film Piracy Settlement Case – Helsinki District Court (2012)
Facts: Several users were identified sharing multiple films via BitTorrent.
Court Action: Rightsholders sought civil damages; courts reviewed evidence from file logs and IP addresses.
Outcome: Courts ordered partial disclosure of subscriber information and settlements for verified infringers.
Significance: Civil enforcement remains the dominant method for piracy prosecution in Finland.
6. Finnish Pirate Bay Downloader Criminal Conviction (2011)
Facts: A user repeatedly downloaded movies from Pirate Bay for personal distribution.
Court Action: Prosecuted under Chapter 49, Section 1 of the Criminal Code.
Outcome: Convicted of copyright infringement, sentenced to fines and ordered to destroy pirated files.
Significance: Rare example of a criminal conviction for direct film piracy in Finland.
7. “Nine-Year-Old Girl” Raid Case (2012)
Facts: Police seized a laptop belonging to a 9-year-old girl after anti-piracy complaints (involved music and minor video sharing).
Court Action: Seizure supported by law enforcement; later returned.
Outcome: Demonstrated Finnish authorities’ willingness to act aggressively, even in borderline cases.
Significance: Highlighted the tension between enforcement and proportionality.
Analysis
Civil vs Criminal: Most Finnish film piracy enforcement occurs via civil proceedings (disclosure orders, settlements).
Criminal Cases: Rare and generally involve:
Repeated sharing
Systematic or large-scale infringement
Evidence linking the infringer directly to the act
Courts’ Role: Finnish courts emphasize strong evidence, subscriber rights, and proportionality.
Legal Tools: Sections 60a/60c of the Copyright Act are crucial for enforcement without immediate criminal prosecution.
RELATED Blog
comments