Terms of Service :
If you have purchased a subscription to Filmanjy, you will be charged on a monthly, half-yearly, or yearly basis based on the plan you choose. If you have purchased a subscription to Filmanjy, you have the right to cancel your purchase and receive a full refund within 14 days of purchase. However, if you access the Filmanjy app within the 14-day period, you will no longer be eligible for a refund if you decide to cancel your purchase.
You may cancel your subscription to Filmanjy at any time via the mobile app or on Filmanjy's website. The termination shall have effect at the expiry of the then-current subscription period that you have already paid for (e.g. one month, 3 months, 6 months, or a year) and you will not be refunded for any remaining portion of subscription fees you have already paid for (unless with the 14-day period and under the conditions described above).
Filmanjy reserves the right to terminate and/or suspend your account at any time in case of unauthorised use of the service. If Filmanjy terminates or suspends your account for any suspicious activity, Filmanjy shall have no liability or responsibility to you, and will not refund any amounts that you have previously paid.
B- Notice and procedure for making claims of copyright or other intellectual property infringements.
- Filmanjy respects the intellectual property of others and takes the protection of copyrights and all other intellectual property very seriously, and we ask our users to do the same. Infringing activity will not be tolerated on or through the Site or the Filmanjy Service.
- Filmanjy’s intellectual property policy is to (1) remove material that Filmanjy believes in good faith, upon notice from an intellectual property owner or their agent, is infringing the intellectual property of a third party by being made available through the Site, and (2) remove any Products or Submissions posted to the Site by “repeat infringers.” Filmanjy considers a “repeat infringer” to be any user that has uploaded Products or Submissions to the Service and for whom Filmanjy has received more than two takedown notices compliant with the provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) with respect to such Products or Submissions. Filmanjy has discretion, however, to terminate the account of any user after receipt of a single notification of claimed infringement or upon Filmanjy’s own determination.
- Procedure for Reporting Claimed Infringement. If you believe that any Productions or Submissions made available on or through the Site or the Filmanjy Service have been used or exploited in a manner that infringes an intellectual property right you own or control, then please promptly send a “Notification of Claimed Infringement” containing the following information to the Designated Agent identified below. Your communication must include substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the work(s) that has/have been allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of works or materials being infringed, or, if multiple works are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works;
(iii) Identification of the specific material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit Filmanjy to locate the material;
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit Filmanjy to contact you, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which you may be contacted;
(v) A statement that you have a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
You should consult with your own lawyer and/or see 17 U.S.C. § 512 to confirm your obligations to provide a valid notice of claimed infringement.
- Designated Agent Contact Information. Filmanjy’s Designated Agent for notices of claimed infringement can be contacted at:
Via E-mail : legal@Filmanjy.com
- Counter Notification. If you receive a notification from Filmanjy that material made available by you on or through the Site or the Filmanjy Service has been the subject of a Notification of Claimed Infringement, then you will have the right to provide Filmanjy with what is called a “Counter Notification.” To be effective, a Counter Notification must be in writing, provided Filmanjy’s Designated Agent through one of the methods identified in Section B(d) of this TOS, and include substantially the following information:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber;
(ii) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled;
(iii) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled;
(iv) The subscriber’s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber’s address is outside of the United States, Civil Courts in Amman / Jordan, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under Section B(c) of this TOS above or an agent of such person.
A party submitting a Counter Notification should consult a lawyer or see 17 U.S.C. § 512 to confirm the party’s obligations to provide a valid counter notification under the Copyright Act.
- False Notifications of Claimed Infringement or Counter Notifications. The Copyright Act provides that:
Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under [Section 512 of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 512)] (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of Filmanjy relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
17 U.S.C. § 512(f). Filmanjy reserves the right to seek damages from any party that submits a notification of claimed infringement or counter notification in violation of the law. For the avoidance of doubt, only notices submitted under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the procedures set forth in this Section C should be sent to the Designated Agent at the e-mail or postal address set forth above. Any other comments, compliments, complaints or suggestions about Filmanjy, the operation of the Site or the Filmanjy Service or any other matter should be sent to legal@Filmanjy.com.
Adding A Movie:
If you added any content you do not have the rights for, Filmanjy have the right to terminate your account and not paying you your revenues, make sure you have the copyrights to share this movie on our platform, filmanjy is not responcible of any movie added by the users and was not reported or flaged to removed by our terms, under the DMCA Laws.
Here's Some Real Stories About Simi\illigal Companies:
-In 1998 Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to address a number of concerns relating to copyright infringement in the computer age. The DMCA limited the liability of Internet service providers (ISPs) for copyright infringement by Internet content providers, enabled Internet content providers to require immediate removal of infringing material, and made it illegal to circumvent encryption technologies designed to protect copyrighted works from unauthorized appropriation. Legal observers expect more intellectual property legislation to follow in the new millennium.
Congress enacted the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act in 2005 to address several concerns. This act incorporated several other acts that had been introduced in previous congressional sessions. One component, dubbed the Artists’ Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005, renders the unauthorized use of a video camera at a movie theater an offense punishable by a term of imprisonment. A second component, called the Family Movie Act of 2005, clarifies that those who alter movies to remove objectionable content are not liable to copyright owners. This statute protects companies that edit movies to remove or alter scenes on DVD movies such that families can watch the films without having to watch or listen to objectionable scenes. - copyright.uslegal.com
-* تحمى الحقوق المالية لمؤلفي المصنفات الجماعية باستثناء مؤلفي مصنفات الفن التطبيقى – مدة خمسين سنة تبدأ من تاريخ نشرها أو إتاحتها للجمهور لأول مرة أيهما أبعد وذلك إذا كان مالك حقوق المؤلف شخصًا اعتباريًا اما إذا كان مالك هذه الحقوق شخصًا طبيعيًا فتكون مدة الحماية طبقًا للقاعدة المنصوص عليها في المادتين 160 و 161 من هذا القانون.
وتنقضى الحقوق المالية على المصنفات التي تنشر لأول مرة بعد وفاة مؤلفها بمضى خمسين سنة تبدأ من تاريخ نشرها أو إتاحتها للجمهور لأول مرة أيهما أبعد.
* تتمتع هيئات البث الإذاعي بحق مالي استئثاري يخول لها استغلال برامجها لمدة عشرين سنة تبدأ من التاريخ الذي تم فيها أول بث لهذه البرامج.
*يجوز لأي شخص أن يطلب من الوزارة المختصة منحه ترخيصا شخصيا للنسخ أو الترجمة أو بهما معا لأي مصنف محمي طبقا لأحكام هذا القانون وذلك دون إذن المؤلف وللأغراض المبينة في الفقرة التالية نظير سداد تعويض عادل للمؤلف أو خلفه وبشرط إلا يتعارض هذا الترخيص مع الاستغلال العادي للمصنف أو يلحق ضررا غير مبرر بالمصالح المشروعة للمؤلف أو لاصحاب حق المؤلف.
ويكون اصدار الترخيص بقرار مسبب يحدد فيه النطاق الزمانى والمكانى له ولأغراض الوفاء باحتياجات التعليم بكافة انواعه ومستوياته.
وتحدد اللائحة التنفيذية لهذا القانون حالات وشروط منح الترخيص وفئات الرسم المستحق بما لا يجاوز ألف جنيه عن كل مصنف. - ar.wikisource.org
-After a copyright expires, it enters the public domain. The Copyright Extension Act of 1998 (CTEA) allows for an author's copyright to last for the life of the author plus 70 years, and for a work of corporate authorship to last 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever end is earlier. In Elder v Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), the Supreme Court upheld the CTEA, partially under the Intellectual Property Clause. - www.law.cornell.edu
-The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM). It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users. - en.wikipedia.org
The DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright is the exemption from direct and indirect liability of Internet service providers and other intermediaries. This exemption was adopted by the European Union in the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000. The Copyright Directive 2001 implemented the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty in the EU - en.wikipedia.org
ALLANDALE, Fla. (AP) _ Mickey Mouse is up to his ears in contention, with his copyright owners suing and being sued over infringement and a children’s center here being told to remove cartoon characters from its walls.
People from across the nation have expressed outrage that Walt Disney Productions ordered the day-care center to remove paintings of Mickey and Minnie Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy from the outside walls of the school, but the company remains firm in its position.
Support for the day-care center has come from a Phoenix, Ariz., grandmother, a New York doctor, a Mississippi beauty shop owner and the creator of a Saturday morning cartoon television show, an official said.
″I’ve gotten so many telephone calls from people angry at Disney that I bet Walt Disney is turning over in his grave right now,″ said Erica Scotti, executive director of the Very Important Babies Daycare.
Disney officials said the school is violating copyright laws and they want the popular cartoons removed in one month. The company also has ordered the characters removed at two other Hallandale day-care centers, Good Godmother’s Daycare and Temple Messianique.
″The calls have been from people who apparently don’t understand the American copyright,″ said Disney spokesman Chuck Champlin. He expressed concern that the public would think the schools were sponsored by Disney.
Meanwhile in Orlando, Brown Derby Inc., the Ohio-based restaurant chain, filed a federal lawsuit against Walt Disney Co. alleging trademark infringement, the day after Disney filed a similar suit against 75 merchants in the Chicago area.
The suit filed Thursday accuses Disney with unauthorized use of the Brown Derby name at the Disney-MGM Studios Theme Park.
Disney’s signature eatery at the studio’s theme park, the Hollywood Brown Derby, opens at Disney’s new attraction Monday. Disney claims its restaurant pays homage to the famous eatery once located at Hollywood and Vine streets and has nothing to do with the chain.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Orlando, seeks $25 million in damages. In Burbank, Calif., Disney spokesman Tom Deegan said it is Disney policy not to comment on lawsuits.
″It surprises me,″ said Brown Derby Inc. lawyer David Rosenzweig, ″that a company that reveres and recognizes the importance of its trademarks would do this, but I suppose it happens.″ apnews.com
The public will soon be free to sing the world's most famous song.
Music publisher Warner/Chappell will no longer be allowed to collect licensing royalties on those who sing "Happy Birthday" in public and will pay back $14 million to those who have paid for licensing in the past, according to court settlement papers filed late Monday night.
The settlement is a result of a lawsuit originally filed in 2013 by filmmaker Jennifer Nelson, who challenged the "Happy Birthday" copyright. "Happy Birthday" has the same melody as "Good Morning to You," a children's song dating to the 19th Century. But despite the song's murky early history, music publisher Warner/Chappell has stuck to its story that the song was copyrighted in 1935, and a royalty had to be paid for any public use of it—until now.
The deal still needs to be approved by US District Judge George King, who is overseeing the case. King gave Nelson and other plaintiffs an interim victory in September when he ruled that the copyright transfer deal that Warner had relied on was invalid. In that decision, the judge added that in his view, it's questionable whether alleged author Patty Hill wrote the song at all.
Lawyers for the two sides told the judge in December that they had reached basic agreement over a settlement, but it took nearly two months for the details to be finalized and made public.
Warner/Chappell has been collecting an estimated $2 million annually from people who use the "Happy Birthday" song, mainly in creative works like movies and television shows. For makers of independent documentaries like Nelson, the several thousand dollars charged can be a significant expense. The makers of acclaimed 1990s documentary Hoop Dreams famously paid $5,000 to show a scene where the family of one of its main subjects sang the "Happy Birthday" song.
The $14 million will be paid to two distinct groups: those who paid a licensing fee to Warner/Chappell before 2009 and those who paid in 2009 or later. The earlier group is eligible to receive up to 15 percent of what they paid, whereas the later group is eligible for a full refund.
Nelson's lawyer Randall Newman, who spoke to Ars Monday night shortly after the settlement was finalized, said that the difference in payouts is related to the statute of limitations. The judge in the case allowed the complaint to address claims going back to 1949, but he "seemed skeptical" about certifying a class that large, Newman said.
"There’s a huge problem with the statute of limitations," Newman said. "We’re not sure [earlier claims] ever would have gotten a class certified, and they're not going to certify individual claims from 1952."
"It’s a pretty good deal," he added. "It's not one of these settlements where the attorneys get millions of dollars and the class gets a coupon for a free soda. These people are getting real money back. The most important part of the whole case was having the song in the public domain. You're going to see 'Happy Birthday' in movies, in TV, all over the place. It's a huge victory for artists and an important case in history."
Now that Newman has pioneered the strategy of using a class-action lawsuit to attack a bogus copyright, it's unlikely to be the last time copyright reformers hear his name.
"I think there are a few other songs that we're going to attempt to free up next," he told Ars. "I don't want to say the names." - arstechnica.com
California-based Wixen Music Publishing alleges 10,784 of its songs were streamed or downloaded "billions of times" via Spotify's app — without a licence or compensation being paid to the music publisher.
Wixen describes itself as an independent publisher which "administers" more than 50,000 songs by "some of the most popular and acclaimed music artists of the last 100 years".
It is the exclusive licensee of songs by artists like Tom Petty, Neil Young, Janis Joplin and the Doors.
"While Spotify has become a multi-billion-dollar company, songwriters and their publishers, such as Wixen, have not been able to fairly and rightfully shares in Spotify's success," Wixen stated in documents filed at the United States District Court.
"Spotify has in many cases used their music without a license and without compensation."
Spotify, which is planning a stock market listing this year, claims to have over 140 million active users and more than 30 million songs in its playlists.
Despite rapid growth in users and revenue, Spotify is not making a profit, primarily because of large licensing payments to record labels.
The Stockholm-based music company said it has paid $US5 billion ($6.4 billion) in revenue to music rightsholders (as of September 2016).
The loss of music
Whenever you listen to a streamed song, like it but don't buy it and instead stream it again, you are casting a vote for the future nonexistence of professional musicians, writes Professor Peter Godfrey-Smith.
But Spotify "took a shortcut" to win the "race to be first to market", according to Wixen.
"In 2011, Spotify faced a choice to either obtain all the required rights to the songs and significantly delay its US launch, or move forward without proper licenses and face the legal ramifications later," the publisher stated.
"As a result, Spotify has built a billion dollar business on the backs of songwriters and publishers whose music Spotify is using, in many cases without obtaining and paying for the necessary licenses."
In May, Spotify agreed to pay more than $US43 million ($55 million) to settle a class action from a group of American songwriters including David Lowery and Melissa Ferrick — who alleged the company failed to pay them royalties.
But Wixen has criticised that settlement for being "grossly insufficient to compensate songwriters and publishers for Spotify's actions".
Spotify has declined to comment. - www.abc.net.au
One of the biggest issues that video-sharing sites such as YouTube face is dealing with issues surrounding copyright infringement.
Even though YouTube users are instructed to only upload content that belongs to them and that they have the right to use, copyrighted content is still uploaded thousands of times a day. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), YouTube isn't responsible for the copyright violations of its users, provided the company removes that content when notified by the rights holders.
Still, thanks to a barrage of lawsuits targeted at the service (including Viacom's $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube), the company has had to turn to technology to figure out ways to help deal with copyright issues, notifications and takedown requests.
To help counter these lawsuits and better work with rights holders, YouTube created its own content detection system known as Content ID. - mashable.com
The Pirate Bay (sometimes abbreviated to TPB) is an online index of digital content of entertainment media and software. Founded in 2003 by Swedish think tank Piratbyrån, The Pirate Bay allows visitors to search, download, and contribute magnet links and torrent files, which facilitate peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing among users of the BitTorrent protocol.
In April 2009, the website's founders (Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, and Gottfrid Svartholm) were found guilty in the Pirate Bay trial in Sweden for assisting in copyright infringement and were sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine. In some countries, Internet service providers (ISPs) have been ordered to block access to the website. Subsequently, proxy websites have been providing access to it. Founders Svartholm, Neij, and Sunde were all released by 2015 after having served shortened sentences.
The Pirate Bay has sparked controversies and discussion about legal aspects of file sharing, copyright, and civil liberties and has become a platform for political initiatives against established intellectual property laws and a central figure in an anti-copyright movement. The website faced several shutdowns and domain seizures, switching to a series of new web addresses to continue operating.
The Pirate Bay was established in September 2003 by the Swedish anti-copyright organisation Piratbyrån (The Piracy Bureau); it has been run as a separate organisation since October 2004. The Pirate Bay was first run by Gottfrid Svartholm and Fredrik Neij, who are known by their nicknames "anakata" and "TiAMO", respectively. They have both been accused of "assisting in making copyrighted content available" by the Motion Picture Association of America. On 31 May 2006, the website's servers in Stockholm were raided and taken away by Swedish police, leading to three days of downtime. The Pirate Bay claims to be a non-profit entity based in the Seychelles, however this is disputed.
The Pirate Bay has been involved in a number of lawsuits, both as plaintiff and as defendant. On 17 April 2009, Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm, and Carl Lundström were found guilty of assistance to copyright infringement and sentenced to one year in prison and payment of a fine of 30 million SEK (approximately 4.2m USD, 2.8m GBP, or 3.1m EUR), after a trial of nine days. The defendants appealed the verdict and accused the judge of giving in to political pressure. On 26 November 2010, a Swedish appeals court upheld the verdict, decreasing the original prison terms but increasing the fine to 46 million SEK. On 17 May 2010, because of an injunction against their bandwidth provider, the site was taken offline. Access to the website was later restored with a message making fun of the injunction on their front page. On 23 June 2010, the group Piratbyrån disbanded due to the death of Ibi Kopimi Botani, a prominent member and co-founder of the group.
The Pirate Bay was hosted for several years by PRQ, a Sweden-based company, owned by creators of TPB Gottfrid Svartholm and Fredrik Neij. PRQ is said to provide "highly secure, no-questions-asked hosting services to its customers". From May 2011, Serious Tubes Networks started providing network connectivity to The Pirate Bay. On 23 January 2012, The Pirate Bay added the new category Physibles. These are 3D files described as "data objects that are able (and feasible) to become physical" using a 3D printer. In May 2012, as part of Google's newly inaugurated "Transparency Report", the company reported over 6,000 formal requests to remove Pirate Bay links from the Google Search index; those requests covered over 80,500 URLs, with the five copyright holders having the most requests consisting of: Froytal Services LLC, Bang Bros, Takedown Piracy LLC, Amateur Teen Kingdom, and International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). On 10 August 2013, The Pirate Bay announced the release of PirateBrowser, a free web browser used to circumvent internet censorship. The site was the most visited torrent directory on the World Wide Web from 2003 until November 2014, when KickassTorrents had more visitors according to Alexa. On 8 December 2014, Google removed most of the Google Play apps from its app store that have "The Pirate Bay" in the title.
On 9 December 2014, The Pirate Bay was raided by the Swedish police, who seized servers, computers, and other equipment. Several other torrent related sites including EZTV, Zoink, Torrage and the Istole tracker were also shut down in addition to The Pirate Bay's forum Suprbay.org. On the second day after the raid EZTV was reported to be showing "signs of life" with uploads to ExtraTorrent and KickassTorrents and supporting proxy sites like eztv-proxy.net via the main website's backend IP addresses. Several copies of The Pirate Bay went online during the next several days, most notably oldpiratebay.org, created by isoHunt.
On 19 May 2015, the .se domain of The Pirate Bay was ordered to be seized following a ruling by a Swedish court. The site reacted by adding six new domains in its place. The judgment was appealed on 26 May 2015. On 12 May 2016 the appeal was dismissed and the Court ruled the domains be turned over to the Swedish state. The site returned to using its original .org domain in May 2016. In August 2016, the US government shut down KickassTorrents, which resulted in The Pirate Bay becoming once again the most visited BitTorrent website.
In September 2007, a large number of internal emails were leaked from anti-piracy company MediaDefender by an anonymous hacker. Some of the leaked emails discussed hiring hackers to perform DDoS attacks on The Pirate Bay's servers and trackers. In response to the leak, The Pirate Bay filed charges in Sweden against MediaDefender clients Twentieth Century Fox Sweden AB, EMI Sweden AB, Universal Music Group Sweden AB, Universal Pictures Nordic AB, Paramount Home Entertainment (Sweden) AB, Atari Nordic AB, Activision Nordic, Ubisoft Sweden AB, Sony BMG Music Entertainment (Sweden) AB, and Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Nordic AB, but the charges were not pursued. MediaDefender's stocks fell sharply after this incident, and several media companies withdrew from the service after the company announced the leak had caused $825,000 in losses.
Later, The Pirate Bay co-founder Peter Sunde accused police investigator Jim Keyzer of a conflict of interest when he declined to investigate MediaDefender. Keyzer later accepted a job for MPAA member studio Warner Brothers. The leaked emails revealed that other MPAA member studios hired MediaDefender to pollute The Pirate Bay's torrent database. In an official letter to the Swedish Minister of Justice, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) requested assistance from the Swedish government to prevent The Pirate bay distributing video clips from the Beijing Olympics. The IOC claimed there were more than one million downloads of footage from the Olympics – mostly of the opening ceremony. The Pirate Bay, however, did not take anything down, and temporarily renamed the website to The Beijing Bay.
Protestors showing support for The Pirate Bay on the first day of the trial
The trial against the men behind the Pirate Bay started in Sweden on 16 February 2009. They were accused of breaking Swedish copyright law. The defendants, however, continued to be confident about the outcome. Half the charges against the Pirate Bay were dropped on the second day of the trial.
The three operators of the site and their one investor Carl Lundström were convicted in Stockholm district court on 17 April 2009 and sentenced to one year in jail each and a total of 30 million SEK (3.6 million USD, 2.7 million EUR, 2.4 million GBP) in fines and damages. The defendants' lawyers appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal and requested a retrial in the district court, alleging bias on the part of judge Tomas Norström.
On 13 May 2009, several record companies again sued Neij, Svartholm, Sunde and also The Pirate Bay's main internet service provider Black Internet. They required enforcement for ending The Pirate Bay's accessory to copyright infringement that had not stopped despite the court order in April, and in the complaint listed several pages of works being shared with the help of the site. The suit was joined by several major film companies on 30 July. The Stockholm district court ruled on 21 August that Black Internet must stop making available the specific works mentioned in the judgment, or face a 500,000 SEK fine. The company was notified of the order on 24 August, and they complied with it on the same day by disconnecting The Pirate Bay. Computer Sweden noted that the judgment did not order The Pirate Bay to be disconnected, but the ISP had no other option for stopping the activity on the site. It was the first time in Sweden for an ISP to be forced to stop providing access for a website. A public support fund fronted by the CEO of the ISP was set up to cover the legal fees of an appeal. Pirate Party leader Rickard Falkvinge submitted the case for Parliamentary Ombudsman review, criticising the court's order to make intermediaries responsible for relayed content and to assign active crime prevention tasks to a private party.
On 28 October 2009, the Stockholm District Court ordered a temporary injunction on Neij and Svartholm with a penalty of 500,000 SEK each, forbidding them from participating in the operation of The Pirate Bay's website or trackers.
On 21 May 2010, the Svea Court of Appeal decided not to change the orders on Black Internet or Neij and Svartholm.
On 1 February 2012, the Supreme Court of Sweden refused to hear an appeal in the conviction case, and agreed with the decision of the Svea Court of Appeal, which had upheld the sentences in November 2011.
On 2 September 2012, Pirate Bay co-founder Gottfrid Svartholm Warg was arrested in Cambodia. He was detained in Phnom Penh by officers executing an international warrant issued against him in April after he did not turn up to serve a one-year jail sentence for copyright violations. On 24 December 2012, administrators of TPB changed the homepage to urge users to send Warg, in jail, "gifts and letters".
In March 2013, The Pirate Bay claimed in a blog post that it had moved its servers to North Korea. The incident turned out to be a hoax. In April 2013, within a week The Pirate Bay had moved its servers from Greenland to Iceland to St. Martin, either in response to legal threats or preemptively. In December 2013, the site changed its domain to .ac (Ascension Island), following the seizure of the .sx domain. On 12 December, the site moved to .pe (Peru), on 18 December to .gy (Guyana). Following the site's suspension from the .gy domain, on 19 December The Pirate Bay returned to .se (Sweden), which it had previously occupied between February 2012 and April 2013.
Your acceptance of these terms :
By using this Site/App, you signify your acceptance of this policy. If you do not agree to this policy, please do not use our Site/App. Your continued use of the Site/App following the posting of changes to this policy will be deemed your acceptance of those changes.