An important victory for the Swedish IFPI?

October 23, 2006

In yet another proclaimed 'win,' a Swedish court levied a fine (~$ 2700 USD) against a single person for file-sharing over a P2P network. Naturally, the IFPI could not contain its glee over managing to snag an important commericial pirate who uploaded a whopping 4 songs via P2P. Here is the court's ruling:

In its verdict, the District Court wrote that the accused "shall now be sentenced for, on one occasion, having made four sound recordings available to the general public via the internet. This did not involve a commercial operation. He is sentenced to a substantial fine."

Find the 4 words/phrases that contradict this being a
major victory;
Name the two critical things the IFPI should have known in order for this case to be truly prosecuted under the law;
In the IFPI's statement regarding the conviction, name what is wrong with its definition of copyright, in terms of its scope (who it applies to);
Finally, by the IFPI's issued statement, what is the bias, or in other words, who(m) is the IFPI truly protecting by its actions?

While this is a different 'tilt,' it should behoove all readers to analyze what is said, based on what is presented and/or what is omitted. Therefore, instead of including the normal conclusions one could draw from this piece, it would be nice to see how readers answer. Your input will be welcome.

Source: Top40 Charts