Slashdot Mirror
Danish Anti-Piracy Organization Bills P2P Users
faaaz writes "The danish anti-piracy organisation Antipiratgruppen has billed approximately 150 p2p users an amount of up to $14,000 each for sharing copyrighted material. The organisation says 'Pay up, or we'll sue!'" There's also a Reuters article.
If this organization isn't government sponsored, this sounds a lot like blackmail. I mean, pay or we'll sue? Who'll they have to go to? The big record companies, so pay up or we'll turn you over. And what guarantees does anyone have they won't turn around and sue anyway?
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
This is exactly what the majority of slashdotters have been screaming for. Go after the abusers rather than the technology. It'll be interesting to see what the comments on this thread will be like. Let this hypocrisy begin... now.
For example, I'm in a small, unsigned punk band. We distribute our music over P2P because it is a lot cheaper than getting webspace to host stuff and paying for bandwidth. But right now, we have to compete with all these ultra-shitty, ultra-popular bands like Metallica and Jon Bon Jovi for the eyes and ears of P2P users. On top of that, it gives us a bad name. People look at me funny when I say we distribute our music on KaZaA, like I'm some kind of criminal.
When we clean out the abusers and criminals from P2P and let the real people, the small-time, unsigned artists, get exposure, then we will have won. And I won't shed a single tear for these people who are fucking it up for the rest of us.
Software piracy is victimless theft.
I'm sorry. I have to anal about this. Look through the Danish or United States laws passed on copyright, and you won't ever find the word "piracy." That's because the word piracy -- which is used to describe boarding someone else's seagoing vessil without permission and plundering -- is totally unrelated to copyright infringement in the English language. The reason the word "piracy" is used is because "copyright infringement" doesn't sound as bad. It doesn't sound as bad because it is not as bad. When you literally steal goods, you are depriving them of something. When you infringe on a copyright, you are depriving no one of anything but just that -- a copyright.
The reason this is important is, (1) people need not be confused by words that don't actually exist in their used context, (2) you can talk seriously about what constitutes "copyright infringement." If you make a personal copy, is that copyright infringement? Legally, no. But because piracy has no legal definition, the copyright holders are free to apply the word at their discretion. Ie: Watching a DVD on Linux is piracy. -- there's no legal definition for piracy, so prove it wasn't! Now simply watching a DVD on Linux is not copyright infringement, and I can prove it because there is a legal definition of copyright infringement.
When you use the word "piracy" you loose credibility with me. You are buying into the myth that copyright infringement is a legal and ethical parallel for stealing. In reality, there is no such thing as intellectual property or piracy of that property. There is a right to copy a work, and copying a work without that right is something else entirely.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
I don't download stuff from Kazaa, Gnutella or even Limwire because I don't have them installed on my computer for one, and don't have the time to do this. But I must say that when I read things like some big organisation suiing the hell out of some teen or twenty year old (for whom $14000 is a hell of a lot of money) then I realise why I dislike the internet more and more. I remember working in an internet agency in the napster days where my coworkers downloaded about 200 Gigs of CD's in a couple of months and nobody really cared. Those were young guys who didn't really have the money to spend on dozens of originals, and they were fun, nice people and we had a good time listening to good music while coding websites for our soon-to-be-bankrupt agency. The net was fun and interesting. There were thousands of interesting sites and nobody was all too worried.
With the crash of the internet boom and the lack of cash, it seems as if all the ugliest bunch of greedy scum has crawled out of the woodwork to try and resttrict peoples lives and freedom so that they can rape them for as much money as possible. Christ it's like big brother in 1984. They watch everything you do, strip you of all your privacy and then have the fucking balls to pretend to be righteous about it as well.
Perhaps some time we'll have the last laugh...
This is one of the people presued by the APG. He calls himself Siffan and he runs a danish website. Unfortunately his website: http://www.siffan.dk/ is mainly in danish.
He has written his version of events that happen when the APG came with the courtorder.
In short, it goes something like this: The APG came with a courtorder to see if he had an eDonkey-server up and running on his computer. They tell him he has the right to a lawyer and the presens of the police. He tells them that there is not running an edonkey server, but ther was some time ago...
The AGP has an "IT-man" with them... he is allowed to look at the computer to see if there is a server running (according to the courtorder) He agrees with Siffan, but then he browess through his harddrive and finds illegal software and mp3 files... Siffan was not comfertable with this,and points out that most of the mp3s are legal copies of his own cds. but agrees that he has illegal stuff on his computer and desides to be cooperative. Now AGP wants to take his computer with them. Siffan now says he wants a laywer, he is not able to get one a the pressent time, but the APG will not delay the case to the next day. So it ends with the APG straling off with his computer and some cd's.
The next day a lawyer representing the APG calls him and ask him to give up his right to have the case tested in a civil court or he will sue him within 14 days.
That is about it. It's late and I'm tired... But I hope you find this intresting.
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
What I see happening here is a classic example of scare one and the rest will follow. I don't know much about Danish law, but I will assume it is roughly similar to other European countries. If all they have to go on is screen grabs of files names, then the don't have a leg to stand on, like the expert said without access to the alleged offenders computer they are largely unable to prove the case.
Also consdider where the files came from. If they have screen grabbed an image of what is in someones share list, all that proves is they have a file called 'such and such' on that users HD. If the user downloaded a file from another user and APG had some way to monitor that, then that probably breaches all sorts of privacy and computer misuse laws. But, if the user had downloaded the files from computers belonging to AntiPiratGruppen then you are getting in to the realms of entrapment, plus you must ask if AntiPiratGruppen wasn't breaching copyright itself. All this is speculation, but it leads me on to an important point.
It is certain some of these 150 so called 'Pirates' will pay up. They might not pay the full amount, they may negotiate a lower price and it will be because they are scared of what AntiPiratGruppen may or may not do to them. Once one person pays up APG will shout that fact from the roof tops and it will no doubt have the effect of scaring others in complying with the wishes of RIAA/BSA/FACT etc and leave P2P well enough alone. Effectively they will be using bully boy tactics to succeed. Regardless of your view on the legality and morals of P2P, you must admit this is a not a good thing as it sets a dangerous precident if it works.
Any defense lawyer worth his weight in golfballs would demand proof that the screenshot was not doctored with a graphics editting program.
Trolling is a art,
Gee nice flame
Thanx, guess that's better than a "shabby" flame.
why is it that everybody else here seems to agree that one of the issues is theft?
Maybe because those who take the time to think about what they say have less time left over to hit the "submit" button?
So if copyright infringement in this case is not stealing, why is it not?
Because data is not the same thing as material goods. There are numerous dialogues on this topic. Here is one easy list to remember on a related topic. The gist is that having copied a peice of data, I have not in any way diminshed the original data. It is quite plain that copying a file off of your hard-drive is very different than taking a beer out of your fridge and drinking it. In drinking a beer I've lowered your beer count by one. In copying a file I diminish your data count by none.
Okay, so data is different than physical objects. But what does stealing mean?
----From dictionary.com----
v. stole, (stl) stolen, (stln) stealing, steals
v. tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully: steal a kiss; stole the ball from an opponent.
3. To move, carry, or place surreptitiously.
4. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics.
5. Baseball. To advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch.
---------------------
Clearly sense 1 applies here, but in the case of copyright infringement what is owned by the copyright holder (exclusive right to authorize copies) is only partially subsumed. The infringer does not put their name on the registered copyright document and begin sueing others for infringement (that would be plaguerism, which is much closer to stealing), they merely disregard the exclusive granted right.
What *is* stealing?
1) Breaking, entering and leaving with physical goodies.
2) Credit card fraud.
3) Pretending to work on company time. (like posting to slashdot for instance)
4) Lieing on income tax returns.
What *isn't* stealing?
1) Trespassing. Land, has many characteristics in common with other physical property. And yet, occupying that land without permission is not considered stealing. It is trespassing. Stealing the land would require taking full ownership, not just partial unauthorized use.
Looking over this list, it's plain that copying data without permission (copyright infringement) is very different than other activity associated with "stealing". If anything it has more in common with trespassing, another activity that only affects part of a property right. But even trespassing deals in limited physical goods whereas copyright deals with unlimited logical goods.
Because of this and similar issues, copyright and property laws have very seperate paths of evolution. Even today, you would not go into court being unsure whether you were charged with stealing a physical good or infringing on another's right to copy.
This isn't to say copyright infringement is "okay" or that it is not a crime. Merely that it is not the same thing as stealing. It also doesn't imply that wielding teams of lawyers and a weighty judicial system against "joe sixpack" to squeeze more cash out of him is a morally agreeable or ethically defensible activity.
This is to say copyright infringement is not the same as stealing. It also implies the motivations of anyone pushing the infringement=stealing notion are suspect.
Be specific please.
You asked for it!