Slashdot Mirror
Sweden To Outlaw File Sharing, Crypto Breaking?
Martin Kallisti writes "The Swedish Department of Justice has today proposed a bill to be put into effect, if it passes Parliament, on the 1st of January, 2004. It is in accordance to EU directives, but will also criminalize the downloading of material from the Internet without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. Furthermore, it will become illegal to break cryptos, circumvent copy protection (mod chips et al), copy books, and as I understand it, use software that is designed to help with any of these tasks, and many other things." An anonymous reader points to an English-language article about this Swedish EUCD proposal, which also mentions a hefty $4 levy on blank digital media such as CD-ROMs.
Asking them to clarify a few things.
It won't actually be as dreadful as the DMCA, since it will only be illegal to break a copyright protection system if you're going to make a copy, it won't be illegal to circumvent it to use it as it's meant to be used. I.e. watching a DVD movie on your linux computer using DeCSS to "break" the crypto won't be illegal.
Neither will these redicilous "region codes" be protected, they can still be legally circumvented.
Further, it won't be illegal to break the copyright protection system on these new "CD's", if you're only going to play them in your computer.
If anyone has any questions regarding this, just send them a well written e-mail, since they're very helpful and will answer all of your questions quite fast. (a few hours for mine) -L
Not exactly. The 4 dollars per CD is a little off. It's actually 0.007 SEK/MB for rewritable media, and .0025 SK/MB for write once media.
So figure 1.625 SK (US$ 0.20) for a standard 650 MB CDR, 4.55 (US$ 0.59) for a CDRW of them same size. The 31 SKR ($US 4) is really only appropriate for a 4.7 GB DVD-RW.
And your 4TB database would cost $USD 3816 in added levies, assuming you were using 870 DVD-RWs per backup.
Back in the day, being asked to give a couple bucks to King George III for some tea caused quite an outrage. First there were tea boycotts. Then some guys dressed up like Mohawk Indians, boarded three ships and threw their tea into the harbor. Later guns started firing. Lots of people died. A new country was born. And we're all (those of us in the US) very proud of all this.
/. high crime. Fomenting an uncomfortable discussion. And that's just talking! God forbid anyone ever actually did anything!
All because of tea.
Now money that is spent on the media used to promote free communication should be taxed? Certain senators want to destroy people's computers? The US attorney general wants to circumvent the right to a fair trial? Blowing up Palistinian families, children and all, with US missles is "defense", but the impoverished occupied Palistinian nation's response is "terrorism"? Launching thousands and thousands of sorties, killing tens of thousands of unwilling soldiers to prevent "mass destruction" by weapons that cannot be found is not ironic? Our economy is a shambles. The rich are laughing. And our commander-in-chief wants to appoint this penis to the bench!
Osama bin Laden is free today. US citizens are not. And we would like the rest of the world to follow our lead. God bless Sweden for seeing the way. I'm Swedish. American. And pissed.
Flamebait? It's a
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
See the Government Site for more info.
Here's the coverage (in Swedish) from all the four major newspapers:
Expressen
DN.
SvD
Aftonbladet
Some great quotes from Mr BodstrÃm (Minister for Justice) include:
"We have not done this to satisfy the big record companies"
"The police will not come running into people's homes looking for these things"
He is clearly completely clueless. I bet he has no idea that it's even possible to trace people with their IP address.
This law is unenforceable and will not be enforced. The police can't even keep child porn off the p2p networks here, so really, this is ridiculous.
The real enforcers will be Antipiratbyrån, the anti piracy bureau, a group of lawyers representing a number of companies. You can see a list of the member companies here. Most should be familiar to non-swedes too.
This is the only organisation activiely looking for copyright infringement online. (and their efforts so far has been very sporadic, even they have the sense to mostly go after CD bootleg sellers). In practice this all means that if you are careful not to share anything from the member companies of Antipiratbyrån on your favourite p2p network, you will not get caught.
Yes, this is true. It is legal to make a copy for personal use. This has been commented upon by the Minister of Justice as a problem for getting at filesharing, where only the one sharing might be commiting a crime, the downloader is perfectly safe.
The big difference in this new law is that for making this personal copy the thing you are copying from has to be a legal copy. Essentially taking care of a loophole in the law.
Allowing copying for private use is also the reasoing behind the CD-fee, even if that is highly annoying for me that only use it for software (debian boot/install-discs).
For all of those claiming "the internet is now illegal", there is both provisions for temporary copies (as in the ones your browser are making) and a discussion about "good faith" in the paper. They are expecting to be able to go after filesharers and allow ISPs to disconnect users under the "we'll cut your access if you break any laws" sections of the AUP if they detect this stuff.
All in all, I was fearing a worse law after reading the press release, even the law against anti-circumvention tools have provisions to allow DVD-players, even if DVD-copiers might be disallowed. They even make an example of region coding not being an effective technical meassure.
In the US at least, this is quite wrong in the case of all media except for software. Here you are sold music and books, not licensed except for digital distribution, but even then I've yet to see a license agreement stuck in front of all but a few instances.
In the case of an audio CD, you own the bits itself. You can hand your CD to anyone else or sell it without contacting the copyright holder. You are restricted by law against copying it and using it in public performances.
More importantly, with a license the company handing you the media can restrict how you use copyrighted media. A record label can not mandate that you can only play a CD on weekends no more than a book publisher can say you can only read a book once.
One might argue that the government is issuing an implicit license for copyrighted media on behalf of the copyright holders, but even then the contract contains only things you can't do, not things you can.
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
In fact, it actually widens some rights, for example, the right to copy digital materials to help disabled people and easing the process for schools to make digital copies of material. But alot of people read the article and got up in arms. *Rabble rabble rabble*. The real proposal from the Justice department (in Swedish):
Press release
Part 1 of the proposal
Part 2 and appendixes
This is from an article at Aftonbladet (swedish);
:-( The minister of justice even admits the law is created to spread fear (!). It's a very controversial law that judge people before they violate it (much like the discussed $4 CD fees) and I especially don't like how they seem to be willing to ban an entire software genre (P2P software). Amazing...
- It will still be allowed to make a "few" copies of CD/DVD's for personal use, and also to use VCR's and similar devices.
- You will only be allowed to copy parts of a book (right now, I suppose you can copy entire books), to prevent the large scale copying of those especially on universities.
- A quote from the swedish minister of justice: "We have not done this to meet the demands of the international movie and music companies. Ultimately, it is about preserving earlier views on copyrights, and when the technology evolves, so need the laws to do."
- The penalty for violating them by sending or receiving illegal copies on the internet will normally be fines. If it's about organized violations (read: warez groups, etc), the penalty can be prison for up to two years. The law will mostly be used to give copyright holders a right to demand compensation from the person violating the law.
- The swedish minister of justice hope that these laws will frighten people from using file sharing software. He admitted that the law will not get a high priority by the swedish judicial system, and continued: "It's not like the police will run into peoples' homes to look for these things. It is also obvious that some persons will continue, but that is not a reason to not do anything".
So it seems like this will be another low-priority law that won't be very enforced, which mostly just adds unnecessary complexity and "grey zones" to the judical system.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
In the English language article, the levy tax is said to be set to ~$4 on blank CD-Rs. This isn't true. As much as I hate to "defend" this new ridiculous law, the suggestion is to impose a levy tax of 0.25 Swedish "cents" per Megabyte of storage space on the media. (one Swedish "cent" being ~ 0.11 US cents.) So the levy tax on blank CD-Rs will be 0.25*700*0.01 SEK, totalling 1.75 SEK, or less than a quarter in US coinage.
;-)
/Switz
I spent some time yesterday reading through the damn suggestion and it's filled with weird stuff. For instance, it will still be legal to create "fair use" copies, for your car CD player, etc. BUT, it's illegal to produce or sell software that hacks the copy protection scheme on CDs and DVDs...BUT I still have the legal right to make personal copies.. So, HOW DO I DO THAT, THEN, My DEAR GOVERNMENT??? If I have a legal right to make copies of a CD for my own use, will the Government aid me in suing the record companies that put out copy protected CDs?
I suppose they won't.
So, Yeah, the initial reaction at work yesterday was "Welcome to the DDR". Fsck.
We still have the problem of blank media levies in Finland. The current levy is 0.25 (euro-)cents per minute for data CD-R(W)'s and 0.19 cents per minute for (computer-writeable) DVD-R(W)'s. Per CD/DVD, the levy is about 20 cents (little more in USD cents).
However, not everybody has to pay the levy: if a company makes a written statement that it won't record copyright-royalty-due material on CD's, the company can then buy levy-free CD's. However, the option is only available to companies, not to private individuals.
Well... at least here in Finland (which is scarily close to Sweden), people do that (import CD's for their own use). The catch is that if you import more than 20 (or so) at a time, you have to pay the levy. People have tried this, and the CD's got stuck in the customs and were released only after the levies were paid.Actually, an acquitance of mine met the bit^H^H^Hlady in charge of the levy department of Teosto (our local RIAA-equivalent). When this acquitance of mine suggested what is said in the quote above to the Teosto boss she just about blew her fuse... according to her, the levies are used to support domestic artists (most of whom suck big time).
The point is that while most people who do copy music copy music composed & performed by foreign artists, the levies do not go to those foreign artists. Basically that means that the system is grossly unfair for anybody but our domestic artists.
Be happy if the fee is levied only on removable media. Here they're thinking of levying that levy on ALL medias to which you can record music, up to and including computer hard disks. I really do hope that the proposed act does not pass in the parliament.
99 bottles of beer on the wall... take one down, chug it a-down 98 bottles of beer on the wall... 98 bottles of beer on
This is not a good law, to be sure, but the blurb at the top is just plain wrong.
Most of it is just a codification of what we already know - you may not copy copyrighted works other than for specific, well-defined purposes (research, private copies and so on). And no, file trading networks are _not_ outlawed in any way, shape or form (the press release from the justice ministry was misleading on that issue).
The thing that can rile people is that you aren't allowed to break copy protection. Well, actually reading the proposal, the picture is not as clear.
First, any content holder _must_ provide a way for disabled to access the media (it could be by sending a different version to those asking for it, for example). Also, breaking protection on documents and the like in the public area is allowed (courts that want some material for a court case, for instance).
But, and here what's interesting: the law only protects protection mechanisms that are _solely_ for hindering copying.
* It does explicitly _not_ protect stuff like region coding on DVD:s (they have that as an example in the text). You are _always_ allowed to break stuff to make use of the media in intended ways, and as DVD:s are meant to be played, region coding has no protection.
* When one mechanism is used for copy protection, and has as a consequence that intended use is hindered, it no longer has protection. Intended use trumps protection in other words. So DeCSS is likely perfectly legal to use.
* The law explicitly does _not_ require device manufacturers (or OS writers) to include support for any copy protection mechanism. Media giants can thus not stop the sale of players that do not include some protection scheme. Nobody can ask for operating systems to include DRM.
Oh, and $4 for blank media? I suggest somebody brush up on their mathematics: the suggestion is about $0.4 - still too much (and gives rise to the question if you haven't actually paid for the right to make a copy of something on the media), but it's nowhere near the outrage implied in the blurb.
So, the law is not good, but it is not the kind of disaster people here seem to think it is either. With some adjustments (not making private copies a permissive right), it is quite livable.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Dead wrong on 4 accounts.
// hdw
1. It's explicitly stated as allowed, unless she copies the entire songbook.
2. It's explicitly stated as allowed.
3. It's explicitly stated as allowed.
4. It's explicitly stated as allowed.
A good thing with the proposal is that it actually states that the stuff you mentioned is allowed.
Executive Pope (small) Kallisti Engineering