Explore

The law explicitly allows the police to maintain, and access providers to use for blocking, a secret list of websites, some 4000 entries, which may include child pornography. However, almost all providers have ceased using the list. A Supreme Administrative Court case, KHO 2013:136, held that a site providing links of blocked targets was helping in propagating child pornography and there were grounds to add it to the blocking list (see below).

These cases concerned blocking access to The Pirate Bay. Requests were granted, but the court approved the list of blocked IP addresses and DNS names. Court approval is required for any changes to this list. The cases have been reported in English (along with other cases) in Pekka Savola, Proportionality of Website Blocking: Internet Connectivity Providers as Copyright Enforcers, 5 JIPITEC 116 (forthcoming 2/2014). District Court decision is also discussed in Marcus Norrgård, Blocking Web Sites – Experiences from Finland in Johan Axhamn (ed.), Copyright in a Borderless Online Environment (Norstedts Juridik 2012). For more extensive discussion in Finnish, see eg. Pekka Savola, Internet-operaattoreihin kohdistetut tekijänoikeudelliset estomääräykset erityisesti vertaisverkkopalvelun osalta’ (Licentiate of Science...

The operators and administrators of Bittorrent tracker "Finreactor" were held to be jointly criminally liable for users' copyright infringement and, in consequence, also liable for compensation and remuneration. The hosting exemption was not applicable due to the awareness, knowledge and participation of Finreactor to the infringing activities. The case has been reported in English for example in Pessi Honkasalo, Criminal Proceedings Against the Administrators of a BitTorrent Tracker: Finreactor KKO 2010:47, 32 EIPR 591 (2010). There have been also a number of appellate court decisions where the operators of DirectConnect hubs were similarly held to be responsible and liable for compensation (see below).