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.
Man and I thought the DMCA was bad. This law is just ridiculus. If sweden has any free speech rights in their constitution I doubt ths law will be enforcable. Does this law really have any support?
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
people continue to murder despite murder being illegal. your argument about file sharing is as naive as it is unquantified.
This can't be true. All the draconian IP laws come from the US. The MPAA and RIAA come from the US. The DMCA and UCITA are US laws. Microsoft and its DRM partners are all lcoated in the US. Alan Cox is boycotting the US. Every few weeks some random Slashdot poster threatens to emigrate from the US to preserve their dwindling freedoms.
But this is Sweden! As with all non-US nations, it's a socialist paradise of digital liberty. Is Holland going to criminalize marijuana next? Either this is April 1st in the Mayan Calendar or this must be a transcription error...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
$4 is awfully expensive for a per cd levy. The levy is 40 times what one would reasonably expect to pay for the media. If anything, this will simply cause the black market for blank media to explode. I'm already opposed to such levys, since this assumes that the only possible use of the media would be for piracy. From what I can tell, the only effect this legislation will be to elimante all IT from Sweden, since backups will be prohibitively expensive. Immagine trying to backup a 4TB database. Even backing up to 8GB tapes, at $4/tape it works out to $2048 per backup, plus the pre-tax cost of the tapes. Of course, I haven't even touched on the myriad of other issues this type of legislation brings with it, since I'm sure others will do so. This legislation is rediculous. I can only hope that the $4/cd addendum was attached so as to prevent this from passing.
Note: IANAROS (I Am Not A Resident Of Sweden)
There's no sig like SIGSEG
What a great idea! Imagine, indie bands having to pay $4 per blank CD for the privilege of recording their own original music without a label. The competition might eat into corporate-music profits, after all, so it must be piracy and the majors should be reimbursed somehow! [We all know that the reason for the RIAA's declining sales couldn't possibly have anything to do with their elimination of the single format or statements comparing Eminem to Sinatra.]
I also like the opportunity to inderectly pay the operating expenses of a large software company, whose products I utterly refuse to purchase or use, for the privilege of creating and maintaining bootable CDs for my Linux installation.
Way to go, Sweden!
It may not prevent all filesharing or CD burning, but it certainly could take a heavy toll. Marijuana usage is farily common in the US becaues it's easy to get. However, about 1/4 of the prison population are in for drug offenses. I don't doubt that people will continue to fileshare, but not without a great deal of punishment dealt out. And Sweden has shown (with regards to drugs) that it is able to enforce behavior laws more strictly than the US. I would hate to think of Sweden's prison population swelling with college students who can't pay the fines for downloading kazaa.
Has anyone else noticed that Swedes are the some of the best file-sharers in the world? It's largely because they have such awesome upload caps, typically much higher than other European broadband, and maybe 10X that of standard North American DSL. If this turns out to be enforceable, expect online filesharing to get noticeably worse.
It says here that Swedish law currently includes a meatier fair use exception to copyright law than, say, US law; anyone can make one copy of a copyrighted work for personal use (computer software excepted). If this is right, then this new proposal is maybe even more surprising than it appears at first glance.
This post is dedicated to all of those
Unfortunately for some, US lobbying to make EU rules and regulations more like the US counterparts (in the name of free an equal trade, of course) is having an effect in Europe.
Some EU politicians are fighting it, but the governing body does, after all, mostly consist of older men with friends in the big industries, and little understanding of or sympathy for new technology or how the world is changing because of it.
This is as it always has been, just more so %-)
The problem is to get the lawmakers in Sweden and everywhere else to see what is happening, and how definitions of "fair use" necessarily MUST change in an information-based global society.
Local and world regional laws might serve as a temporary hinder, but the genie is out of the bottle, and starting to wake up. Short of turning the into a society modeled after the Orwellian 1984 (or Gillianian Brazil), there's no way to stop information from being free. It may take time, and in the mean time the big corporations and reactionary old politicians can do a lot of damage.
It will be temporary, though. Technology is getting way to advanced to micro-manage and regulate in detail, and lawmakers will sooner or later go back to making general laws like "It's illegal to steal no matter how you steal", which can be interpreted by judges and juries on a case-by-case basis, according to the common will of the people.
Regards,
--
*Art
"The computer is your friend. Trust the computer."
Reading the /. blurb (and not the full article), doesn't that mean no one in Sweeden can then download my (freely available), yet copyrighted dissertation without asking my permission first? That's nuts.
First off, it's tied to the web, and unless I specify, anyone can download the PDF we deliver to the ETD project. I don't care who dowloads this crap.
Secondly, I don't want emails asking for my permission to download this, or anything else I work on, yet copyright.
Ugh, this RIAA/DRM/patent nonsense really makes me loathe working with computers now.
"[It] will also criminalize the downloading of material from the Internet without the explicit permission of the copyright holder"
Since copyright (US at least) attaches on creation, as opposed to registration, everything on the web (including this post) is copyrighted. When you go to a web site and download the page (e.g. index,html) there is an assumption of IMPLICIT copyright permission. The theory is, if the copyright holder put the web page up to be viewed, and the only way you can view it is by downloading a copy, the copyright holder must have implicitly granted you permission to copy the page to your computer.
If Sweden is going to require EXPLICIT permission before downloading, youâ(TM)d have to get an email giving you permission to download from every site you visit.
And, no Iâ(TM)d didnâ(TM)t actually read the article. What type of self-respecting Slashdot poster would do that?
You are too optimistic.
The sheeple will accept whatever dish the government hands out to them on this. This is why such issues are so maddening. Sure, people will die over some things, but the latest Eminem tune is not one of them.
Technology may offer loopholes, but the governments of the world do not, really. The industry barons come to the politicians with stuff like "This is costing jobs, and hurting my profitability. Fix it." and the politicians respond. Why do they respond? Because republics are like that. The lawmakers are beholden to get reelected, which means bringing the pork back home. Whatever it takes, whatever harm befalls the many, as long as it keeps jobs, keeps the money flowing, they'll do it.
We lost this one in the governmental circles. It is _not_ going to be rolled back until the issue is irrelevant anyway. Too much money is involved. However, technology will keep the whole filesharing thing alive.
You need a dollop of cynicism to go with your idealism.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Bear with me-
So, the Swedish government levies incredibly high taxes on hard liquor and beer >3% alcohol content. OR something like that. My memory isn't perfect, I just returned from Goteborge two weeks ago. So, moving along with the story - You can only buy alcohol at Systembolaget, the state owned, state operated liquor store. They have bankers' hours. To their credit, the selection is amazing and the employees are incredibly knowledgeable about the product.
To buy alcohol cheaply, Swedes from Gothenburg and the surrounding area take the ferry to Denmark. And do they. The day I rode the ferry was two days before the Derby - The big soccer match between two Gothenburg city teams. The ferry probably had 200-300 people on it. They were using airline carry-on bags, shopping carts, little wheeled dollies - all LOADED with liquor for the 20 minute trip back to Sweden.
So Swedish merchants will be forced to sell CDR's for $4/ea. This means what, exactly? The little shops that stack FORKLIFT PALLETS full of wine, liquor and beer at the curbside in little towns on the Danish side will just add blank CDR's for $1/ea to the pile.
I really dislike the implication by the government that ALL CONSUMERS are purchasing CDR's to further CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
This is really about the recording industry being slow to evolve and adapt to a changing marketplace. Kudos to iTunes & Steve Jobs. When the customer is given a fair and realistic alternative to buying a CD for $20 with two good songs on it or pirating it off Kazaa, they'll probably take it - As evidenced in iTunes runaway success.
These laws are being created by men and women who call tech support three times a week with Outlook Express questions.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Being a Dane myself, I know that free speech is not that well integrated into Scandinavian constitutions. It is possible, however unlikely, that this completely outrageous violation might actually pass in Sweden. In Denmark, general taxes are already being levied on CD-Rs, which means that the government has to some extent sanctioned a reversal of the burden of evidence: as a user of blank media, you are assumed to be a criminal until you specifically sign a document guaranteeing you won't replicate copyrighted material. Personally, I'm still reeling from that one, but as this Swedish example points out, things might get a lot worse in Scandinavia.
Fortunately, as others have pointed out, free speech is a human right, and issues such as this may ultimately have to be resolved by the Human Rights Tribunal. Interestingly enough, the amount of Danish cases that are being referred to that particular institution is skyrocketing these years, which is good in a sense - people are aware that their rights are being violated. I just think it is infinitely sad that Scandinavian countries that have prevoiusly been shining examples of well-tuned democracies choose to shaft basic human rights For a Few Dollars More.
Excerpted from 2003-06-17: The Underground Railroad, Intermission 1
Face: Why destroy copyright?
Machinator: Because it is a legal solution to a social problem. And as always, it creates more problems than it solves.
Face: Like, individual copyright?
Machinator: All copyright. We should still have social expectations of crediting people. And creators *will* profit, I think considerably better than now. Plus, the quality of art will improve, because it won't reward the same sorts of commercial behaviors.
Face: I'm not sure how creators will profit better than now in, say, literature. Or books. I don't know. Music: I think I agree, at this point.
Machinator: Because people will pay authors to write.
Face: [Laughs.] Fair enough.
Machinator: And publishers will not capture the main part of their revenue.
Face: Which is?
Machinator: Publishers take (I think) well over 95% of the revenue that would go to the author.
Face: I'm just curious, though; if company A pays an author to write a book, and company B copies the book and reprints it sans royalty, how does this one work?
Machinator: If you're thinking corporations, they need to go too. [Smiles.]
Face: But they won't.
Machinator: Think people. People will pay authors to write because they appreciate their work, and because they want to read more.
Face: Consider the SoulSeek model. Less than 1% of the user base pays Nir.
Machinator: So? Nir is profiting handsomely, I think.
Face: True.
So say that group A agrees to publish a random author.
Machinator: You're talking about printed matter?
Face: Yes. Or electronic.
Machinator: Then they can print it...and they must credit it (or be considered very rude). And if they promote it successfully, they make lots of money selling books for awhile. Then maybe another publisher picks it up, and makes money too. And meantime, the author gets famous, and people pay him to write more.
Face: Why do they pay him?
Machinator: Because they want him to write.
Face: Fair enough. Any proof for said model in human history?
Machinator: Yes. The Italian Renaissance.
Face: Good one.
Machinator: There was *no* copyright. It was one of the most artistically amazing eras, including literature.
Artists create to be appreciated, anyhow. Not to make money. If you just want to create product, maybe this model doesn't work as well for you. So? Boohoo, no Britney Spears; I'm crying in my coffee.
Face: Yeah. But you have to convince people of that. And they *like* Britney.
Machinator: Did I convince you?
Face: I'm not your typical audience, by far.
Machinator: Yes, you are. I only try to convince intelligent people. I don't *care* what the mainstream thinks. Truly. They will be led to whatever, because they don't think, period.
Face: Literally. They don't think, but they shell out money, and detest change.
Machinator: So, they can detest it. Change happens.
Hey. What if someone makes an *encrypted* P2P distribution application. It would be illegal for them to crack the encryption in the first place and obtain proof that you are indeed distributing illegal content.
There's three different issues here.
// hdw
1. It will become illegal to download material that have been made available in an illegal manner.
It's simply the law about recieving stolen goods applied to electronic media.
If it's illegal to make copyrighted material available for download, it's only logical that it's also illegal (albeit to a lesser extent) to download it.
The right to make private copies are made clearer and allows anyone to make backups or move material to another media for private use.
Including recording of TV, radio or other streaming media for private use.
2. The law makes it illegal to create and distribute tools for breaking copy protection and likewise to use such tools.
It does _not_ outlaw generic crypto tools, just tools used to bypass copy protection.
This will not make it illegal to backup your DVD, but you can't rip it, recode it and store it in another format.
It will make it illegal to decode encrypted DVDs using anything else than the tools blessed by the copyright holder.
But that's a commercial decision taken by the DVD distributors.
3. The levy on recordable media has been there for ages, it has been extended to cover new forms of media.
It's intented to cover the _legal_ copying, like recording streaming media.
Executive Pope (small) Kallisti Engineering
I will cease buying cd's, dvd's, films and more, just to stop the companies that support this law being passed from taking my money.
I have always used the p2p progs to download music and then buying it if i like it, deleting it if i don't like it. I've watched movies at home to see if they're worth paying the $10 they charge at the cinemas (and yes, it's still worth going to the cinema after watching it at home since it a whole different thing on the big screen). P2p progs are also a great way of finding a new movie/series to buy on dvd when browsing a persons share, this other night i saw Kindred: The Embraced on some guys share and just had to order it.
Anyways, i've prepared a little example of how much the industry would lose per year just because i stopped buying the stuff they claim to lose money from cause of pirates.
Note, these are not exact prices since pricing differs alot from store to store, specially on the VHS
Cd's, 18 - $414
DvD movies and series 15 - $650
VHS movies 30 - $360
Makes for a total of $1424 per year spent only on entertainment at home.
I'd like to see the catastrophic downfall in revenues to the companies involved if more people would do just like me.