This is an english translation of the article Hvorfor Max Manus-kjennelsen handler om så mye mer, as this should be a case of global interest.

Photo: From the movie «Max Manus»

The verdict from the court in Stavanger regarding the Max Manus movie was released today [May 5th]. The result of the verdict is unknown, except that it was withheld from the public. Here are our thoughts about the case in general and the secrecy surrounding the result.

A short summary of the case

Two weeks after the premiere of Max Manus, a copy of the movie was made public on the Internet. The version had been filmed in a cinema, and was released on peer-to-peer sites, among them The Pirate Bay.
Mainstream media began reporting it, and the copyright holders quickly stated that they would react harshly. Through unknown methods they identified an IP-address they claim belongs to the person who made the film available on the Internet. After receiving signals from the police that this case would not be prioritized, the copyright holders, represented by the law firm Simonsen Advokatfirma, have turned to the court.

In court they have asked for a decision demanding that Lyse Tele, the ISP in control of the IP-block, must surrender the subscriber information. Meanwhile the Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority has endorsed a dispensation from the Privacy Act in this particular case, granting the identity behind a given IP-address to someone other than the police.

Simonsen Advokatfirma received the verdict today [May 5th], and despite the fundamental importance the verdict was withheld from the public [Norwegian]. According to lawyer Espen Tøndel this was done to prevent the spoliation of evidence [Norwegian], something he considers likely if the verdict were to be made public.

Why is this case so fundamentally important? Isn’t it just about catching a pirate?

No, this case entails whose responsibility it is to apprehend the pirate, and which methods can be used. We have a ternary power structure, like most other democracies. We have legislative, executive and judicial branches. This case is about who we recognize as our executive power. Simonsen Advokatfirma – the only private body in Norway with a license to monitor IP-addresses – has yearned for more power to deal with these cases themselves for a long time.

From the shooting of «Max Manus» in Oslo. Photo: John Erling Blad (jeb.no) (CC by-sa)

The backstory is that the Norwegian police often choose not to prioritize these cases. In itself this is a fully understandable argument; however, it’s controversial to have the people accept that a privately owned company with economical interests in a case receives executive powers – and that they can retreive someones identity without the neutral scrutiny of the police. It’s beyond question that a party with self interest in a case never will be able to assess proof objectively.

The rules of law and justice are dwindling, especially since the idea that whoever owns the Internet subscription is the lawbreaker is a myth. How many of us are exclusively surfing with our own subsciption? Accessing the Internet from libraries, schools, workplaces, a neighbors unsecured wireless network or from subscriptions owned by parents are just a couple of examples where this is not the case.

In addition to all of this there’s the fundamental principle of privacy. By connecting an identity to an IP-address anything a person engages in on the Internet could theoretically become visible for the other party. This becomes an issue the very second the other party is a biased one. An important part of the Internet and the freedom of speech is the possibility to shield oneself against condemnation for having controversial opinions.

A homosexual person who hasn’t gone public with it yet, might seek Internet forums – where he can meet similar people, discussing his own sexual preference, ask for advice in relation to friends and family and so on. His wish to remain anonymous disappears the moment a party in a trial against this person can connect these two things together. We’re not saying Simonsen Advokatfirma is inclined to blackmail, but the fact that the possibility exists ought to be alarming.

The road ahead

The Data Inspectorate has formerly granted Simonsen Advokatfirma a license that allows for their monitoring and accumulation of IP-addresses. Since the decision from the Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority they have informed that they will reassess the license [Norwegian].

- Our licensing was regarding information given to the police, not directly to Simonsen. This was a problematic decision for us, and this doesn’t make it easier. If the current situation is in fact that the Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority has allowed Simonsen access to the names directly, if the court says yes, the prerequisites for the license we granted have changed, says director of information from The Data Inspectorate, Ove Skåra according to NTB.

Simultaneously a massive Internet movement have demanded to see the Max Manus verdict. There’s already a very active discussion on #krevsvar [Norwegian] on Twitter, and many people have addressed questions directly to Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and Minister of Education and Research Bård Vegar Solhjell, who are both active users of the social network. What remains is to see if any politicians dares to stand up and touch this foul case.

A principle case requiring transparency

The reason to withhold a case from the public is usually to prohibit evidence from being spoliated. Observing the amount of media coverage this case has had makes it hard to see how more evidence could be secured if the verdict was freed to the public. Assuming that Simonsen Advokatfirma has found the correct IP-address, whoever used it must have realized he or she could be taken to court – subsequently the person has had several months to get rid of any evidence that might’ve existed.

In our opinion this case is of such a fundamental character that the public must know the result. Note that this is not a demand to know the identity of the alleged criminal, but the public calls for and deserves to know whether the court has demanded Lyse Tele to surrender the personal details of their Internet subscriber or not.

Max manus er piratkopiert på nett. Foto / Opphavsrett: Filmkameratene AS

Nyheten er vel allerede gammel, men Max Manus er nå piratkopiert på kino. I det siste har slike kameraopptak av norske filmer begynt å florere på nettet. Opptakene gjøres med et kamera i kinosalen og kvaliteten er derfor ofte svært variabel. Lyden er gjerne dårlig, men i enkelte kinosaler er det eget lyduttak for hodetelefoner som kameraet kan tilkobles direkte.

De fleste legger skylden på fildelingsnettverkene som tilbyr filmen for nedlasting, men det er ikke så enkelt. I Norge er det stort sett uavhengige grupper som gjør opptak i kinosalene. Disse gruppene samarbeider som regel ikke med et bestemt fildelingsnettverk. Filmen spres først i de åpne fildelingsnettverkene etter at den har blitt lekket fra lokale nettverk.

Det er en tydelig etterspørsel blant folk etter å se filmen hjemme i sin egen stue fremfor å gå på kino. Dette er en etterspørsel filmbransjen selv ikke ønsker å dekke. Mulighetene til å legge til rette for et marked på nettet er der, men det gjøres ikke. Ferske undersøkelser viser også at fildelere er de som både kjøper flest filmer og går mest på kino. Dette kan tyde på at det er mye å tjene ved å legge markedet til rette for denne målgruppen.

Piratkopiering er ulovlig og jeg er tilhenger av at våre demokratiske lover skal håndheves. Det er et stort problem for underholdningsbransjen at de ikke blir prioritert av politiet og det presses nå på for at de selv skal få ta loven i hånd og straffe illegale fildelere. Det er ikke en heldig situasjon at private aktører skal være lovens hånd i egeninteresse. Å bevise lovbrudd som fildeling er ingen enkel prosess da trafikk på nettet ikke lar seg spore uten videre. Det er også en overhengende fare for at uskyldige personer vil dømmes da en nettidentitet kan forfalskes.

Dommen mot fildeleren som lastet opp “Pitbullterje” ble til eksempel basert på piratnettverkets egne tall. Dette er tall det er ekstremt enkelt å forfalske enten av hjemmesiden selv eller ved selv å laste ned filmen for å øke antallet. Når private aktører har økonomisk interesse av å felle fildelere er det skremmende at tall som enkelt kan fabrikeres brukes i domfellelsen.

Jon Bing har provosert på seg mange fildelere etter å ha uttalt seg om at pirater burde straffes med millionbøter. Når det fortsatt er uklart hvilket skadeomfang fildeling faktisk har og når kinobesøkene er like høye i dag som før filmfildeling tok av på nett, er det absurd å snakke om slike straffebeløp.