The relation between copyright and the right to privacy is complex and difficulties exist in balancing the rights. Copyright should not be limited. Therefore, to ensure the economic rights of the copyright owners, must the right to privacy instead be limited whenever the two rights collide. The implementation of IPRED into Swedish Law meant a vast change as private operators are able to request information concerning a suspected infringer before as well as during a proceeding concerning an infringement of intellectual property. The chosen implementation method goes beyond IPRED’s requirements and also sanctions a lower standard of proof to grant the requested information. These deviations have given rise to critique whether the implementation is consistent and in accordance with EU-legislation. The court ruled in the ePhone case that providing a copyright owner with a suspected infringer’s information before prosecution is in accordance with EU-legislation. The motivation was that the Swedish court makes a proportionality assessment before granting the requested information. This ruling can be considered to close the discussion whether or not the European Convention on Human rights can be limited in favor of copyright. The author’s suggestion of an alternative implementation of IPRED gives, in theory, rise to a better balance between both sides interests, where integrity would not be affected by as an extensive restriction. However, in reality, there are factors limiting copyright via such an implementation. Therefore the balance would shift as copyright owners would not possess the same possibilities to protect and defend their rights. The author therefore concludes that the preferred implementation is the currently established implementation.