official charged with deciding whether the first judge was biased was also known to
have connections to pro-copyright organizations. 27 Furthermore, the judge 28 selected
for the appeal case was a member of a pro-copyright group until 2005.
The Norwegian private law firm Simonsen Advokatfirma DA in 2007 obtained permission 29 from the Data Inspectorate (Datatilsynet) to register the IP addresses of users
suspected of engaging in illegal file sharing. The firm represents rights holders. After
not receiving assistance from the Norwegian police, the law firm attempted to have
ISPs hand over the subscriber information associated with these addresses. Simonsen
also drafted a cease-and-desist letter, which they requested the ISPs forward to copyright infringing customers. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry
asked Norwegian ISPs to block file-sharing sites, like the Pirate Bay. The ISPs refused to
cooperate.
In a May 2009 copyright case regarding the Norwegian movie Max Manus, Simonsen
sought a court order to get Norway’s largest ISP, Telenor, to release the subscriber information of a person suspected of sharing the film illegally. The ruling was made in the
lowest court (Stavanger Tingrett) on May 5, 2009, but the verdict was kept secret at
the request of the film industry. 30 In fear of Swedish-style IPRED conditions, attempts
are being made in Norway to initiate protests against secrecy. 31 The case determined
whether private industry (ISPs) or public authorities are the ones responsible for investigating breaches of law on the Internet. Dealing with a basic principle, the case is
expected to be pushed into higher courts.
Norwegian telecommunications company and ISP Telenor has said that it is indifferent to preceding Swedish or Danish court decisions. A spokesperson for the ISP said the
company would conform exclusively to the rulings of Norwegian courts. At the same
time, a spokesperson for the Norwegian activist group FriBit rejected the idea that the
Max Manus case had any significance, and said, ‘‘The Pirate Bay will continue and there
are lots of other services like theirs . . . the ruling gives no cause to automatically use
other means, like censorship, to stop pirates.’’ 32 The fault lines in Norway are similar
to the conflicts in other Nordic countries, but the solutions may not be identical.
Filtering
Internet service providers in all Nordic countries deploy filtering to isolate Web sites
distributing child pornography. However, other infringements on freedom of expression and privacy have been controversial. Additionally, suspicions that the filters put
in place could eventually be used to filter other sites have resulted in protests from
many privacy and advocacy groups.
Nordic ISPs participate in the International Association of Internet Hotlines
(INHOPE) project with 35 member countries. 33 Suspicious links are reported by organizations and the general public and passed on to relevant authorities for verification.
328
Nordic Countries
have connections to pro-copyright organizations. 27 Furthermore, the judge 28 selected
for the appeal case was a member of a pro-copyright group until 2005.
The Norwegian private law firm Simonsen Advokatfirma DA in 2007 obtained permission 29 from the Data Inspectorate (Datatilsynet) to register the IP addresses of users
suspected of engaging in illegal file sharing. The firm represents rights holders. After
not receiving assistance from the Norwegian police, the law firm attempted to have
ISPs hand over the subscriber information associated with these addresses. Simonsen
also drafted a cease-and-desist letter, which they requested the ISPs forward to copyright infringing customers. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry
asked Norwegian ISPs to block file-sharing sites, like the Pirate Bay. The ISPs refused to
cooperate.
In a May 2009 copyright case regarding the Norwegian movie Max Manus, Simonsen
sought a court order to get Norway’s largest ISP, Telenor, to release the subscriber information of a person suspected of sharing the film illegally. The ruling was made in the
lowest court (Stavanger Tingrett) on May 5, 2009, but the verdict was kept secret at
the request of the film industry. 30 In fear of Swedish-style IPRED conditions, attempts
are being made in Norway to initiate protests against secrecy. 31 The case determined
whether private industry (ISPs) or public authorities are the ones responsible for investigating breaches of law on the Internet. Dealing with a basic principle, the case is
expected to be pushed into higher courts.
Norwegian telecommunications company and ISP Telenor has said that it is indifferent to preceding Swedish or Danish court decisions. A spokesperson for the ISP said the
company would conform exclusively to the rulings of Norwegian courts. At the same
time, a spokesperson for the Norwegian activist group FriBit rejected the idea that the
Max Manus case had any significance, and said, ‘‘The Pirate Bay will continue and there
are lots of other services like theirs . . . the ruling gives no cause to automatically use
other means, like censorship, to stop pirates.’’ 32 The fault lines in Norway are similar
to the conflicts in other Nordic countries, but the solutions may not be identical.
Filtering
Internet service providers in all Nordic countries deploy filtering to isolate Web sites
distributing child pornography. However, other infringements on freedom of expression and privacy have been controversial. Additionally, suspicions that the filters put
in place could eventually be used to filter other sites have resulted in protests from
many privacy and advocacy groups.
Nordic ISPs participate in the International Association of Internet Hotlines
(INHOPE) project with 35 member countries. 33 Suspicious links are reported by organizations and the general public and passed on to relevant authorities for verification.
328
Nordic Countries