The presented cases are a small selection. Information on the cases is based on public information, publications, law suites.
The graph shows the sudden drop in traffic at the Swedish internet exchange on April 1st. At this date legislation became active forcing the provider to transfer customer details to the rightholder upon immediate request.
This can be added to the lawsuites against the "owners" of the Pirate Bay.
In june 2007 a verdict was given in the case SABAM versus Tiscali Belgium (Scarlet). The verdict forced Scarlet to implement technology to stop infringments of copyrights in the P2P traffic. In the verdict specific solutions were presented.
In August 2008 a court case was raised by Scarlet to show the impossibility of the given technology. This was accepted by the judge, however the original ruling was not changed, this obliged Scarlet still to find another solution.
Meanwhile an appeal was drawn by Scarlet.
June 2009 marks a position of the Dutch parliament. A committee agreed upon enforcing the blocking of copyright protected content. They however linked this to the availablity of a licencing system with which a consumer can obtain digital copies.
This was also linked to a fee on empty disks and digital players.
In this position they admit that the current systems (iTune e.a.) are not the ultimate solution. Something peer2clear claims to be able to deliver.
Cases all over
All over the world there are cases between rightholders and operators, or is legislation created. However never any measurement is considered in a positive way.
In Ireland a group of rightholders drag Eircom into court. After several days both parties agreed a settlement where Eircom would implement "gradual respons" on infringements.
This happened in February 2009.
The French justice department draw a bill concerning "gradual respons". If the bill will pass both chambers of parliament repeating infringements will be punished with an Internet ban. Customers will be blacklisted so hopping between providers will not be an option.
There is quite some resistance against this law.
One of the few cases that could be considered positive. The agreement made implies an additinal fee on top of the internet invoice. This fee is used to pay off the right holders, in a similar way "neighbouring rights" are charged for the use of radio and television.
A complaint on this system is that it is not completely fair in multiple ways:
- customers are charged for "services" they do not get (statistics show 60% of the traffic is caused by 5% of the customers)
- the collected revenues are not fairly distributed amongst the effective downloads.