Slashdot Mirror
Norway Considers New Copyright Laws
bizpile writes "The Norwegian government is considering a change to copyright laws that would make it illegal to rip a CD to MP3s when copy protection is in place on the CD. However, you would still be allowed to copy from one CD to another regardless of copy protection. Gisle Hannemyr, of the University of Oslo's Department of Informatics, responded by saying "We are going to be a nation of lawbreakers if this law is passed in its current form." The new proposal would allow fines and a maximum penalty of three years in prison for violating copyrights and engaging in computer piracy."
If mp3s are outlawed, only outlaws will have mp3s.
From reading Slashdot, I thought Europe was a utopia with perfect and just laws.
Sooo... copy from protected to unprotected CD... then rip to MP3 :-)
It may stop a few people from ripping music, but most will do it anyway. It won't stop piracy. They should spend the time they would be enforcing pointless laws like that thinking up better ways to fix real problems (drugs, etc), not trying to stop people from putting music on their mp3 players or computers.
that would make it illegal to rip a CD to MP3s
:)
So ripping CD to ogg is OK?
You buy your iPod. -- Legal
You buy a CD -- Legal
You want to listen to "Your" music you bought on the iPod you bought and now you are breaking the law?
Crikey, this is getting ridiculous...
Sheeesh, at least all of the WMV files I have don't have copy.....
Oh wait...
Good it's about time they put these dangerous criminals behind bars! Obviously these people are the real problem in society, not those who commit crimes such as robbery, murder, assault, rape, etc. Really? By changing the storage format of something you can be send to jail? I knew the world had gone mad, but it's always nice to see a bit of conformation every now and then.
Bringing up the subject of a recent Slashdot article-- what's the penalty for actual theft in the traditional "go in, take it and walk out without paying for it" sense in Norway? Would the penalty for copyright infringement be worse or better by comparison?
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
This is why fair use is a good thing.
Here in america we're supposedly protected, and our rights are slowly being torn down. In Norway it looks like they're just being negated.
I'm all for people getting paid for their work, but to tell me that I can't use something I paid for in a way that I want, that's getting into big Govt. Where they dictate what you say and do because of their own interests instead of the peoples interests.
If we don't stand up to this kind of crap all over the world there will no longer be a "free" nation where people can live without oppression.
And BTW, I break no encryption or copy protection when I rip a cd to mp3 with my stereo and laptop, one plays the cd and one records the mic input directly into mp3 format. They can never stop this with any copy protection method. EVER.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
Why shouldn't you play the music on your jogging belt ? That's fair use !
What if it turns out I had given you permission, but I just wanted you to be put in jail ?
How about OGG ?
How about uncompressed stuff ? USB sticks are getting bigger by the day.
How about an encrypted MP3 ?
What if it turns out I don't hold the copyright. Are you still in jail ?
And what happens when they start to crack down on people? They gonna jail everyone? Will the police arrest people with earphones and check if they have a MP3 player?
"For example, a CD's (security code) could be cracked to play a recording on a car stereo, since a CD-player would be seen as an appropriate medium," the news release said. "But the security code could not be cracked to copy the recording onto an MP-3 player, since such a device would not be seen as an appropriate for a CD."
Ahh that's classic.
Who knew an mp3 player wasn't appropriate for playing music.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
"For example, a CD's (security code) could be cracked to play a recording on a car stereo, since a CD-player would be seen as an appropriate medium," the news release said. "But the security code could not be cracked to copy the recording onto an MP-3 player, since such a device would not be seen as an appropriate for a CD."
I do security
And if you wonder what the InfoSoc directive is: It is basically EUs copy of the DMCA, only a bit worse.
Really, it's interesting that such anti-consumer laws can get passed in the first place. I consider this phenomenon to be due to an interesting historical accident (of sorts).
Copyright laws weren't intended to affect consumers at all. They were written back in the days when "copying" a work meant pressing an unlicensed copy of a record, or printing an unlicensed copy of a book. Consumers didn't own record presses or printing presses, and thus weren't affected at all. The only people affected by these laws for many many many years were companies.
It makes sense to have heavy fines for corporations who attempt to make money off of other corporations' copyrighted work. The $150,000 per copy (or whatever) maximum fines for copyright violation make more sense in that context (though arguably are still ridiculously high).
However, in the Internet age, virtually anyone can make a perfect copy of virtually any data. Thus, we see those same $150,000 per copy (or whatever) maximum fines being used to threaten Joe Teenager from copying an MP3 from his friend. In this context, the amount is patently absurd.
Companies may or may not realize how absurd and out-of-context their exploitation of these laws are, but they are going to ride them as long as they're allowed to (n.b.: This may well be "forever"). Thus, the laws originally intended to keep shady companies from getting rich off of each others' hard work are now being used primarily to keep the consumers in line. I don't expect this trend to stop any time soon.
As I keep saying: Y'know all those sci-fi novels that predicted a future run by giant megacorps who ruthlessly control their consumers, but the consumers are largely too sheeplike to care? Well, that future is now.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
We cannot forget that artists and labels can remove restrictions for music just as companies use Open Source licenses to remove restrictions for software. If "fair use" is vague in copyright law, what's stopping artists and labels from adding it back into the licensing contract? A good customer is a satisfied customer, right?
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
Is the motivation to reform copyright based on a real desire to be more fair or is it because the music industry is not as big there?
Not that it matters...good idea any which way.
Keep the faith, share the code
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Elected officials have always made bad laws, and it has been very noticeable in recent years since technological changes have occurred so quickly, and most elected officials are too old to have caught on with what is happening. Even most of those who have adapted to technology have only done so in a superficial way.
But beyond this, elected officials generally reflect the views of society at large, including hysterias and short-sighted selfishness and everything else. It is the chief pitfall of democracy, and it the reason why the writers of the U.S. Constitution did not institute direct democracy. Unfortunately, the direct election of Senators and other changes have gradually worn down that protection. In any case, I presume things are similar in Norway.
I'm afraid that any investigative journalism will have little effect, as journalism also tends to reflect the idiocies of the public.
Baldur of Asgard
That thing I think is so absurd about this is the fact they have forgotten the most important reason for being able to transform media, obsolescence. What happens when the CD format is gone and there are no more CD-players? This happens to all forms of media over time. Does the content just cease to be used? Even it they industry argues they can resell it in the new form, who is to say they will still exist to do so? It seems to be that this is a bit of a perversion.
On a side note, no country has to do anything. If the European Union suddenly decided that they wanted to be communist, it does not mean that a country under treaty has to obey. They can politely refuse and deal with the consequences. Given how much these laws are hated, I do not see huge consequences. Anyone saying otherwise is simply using the excuse, "I was ordered to do it!" and we all know what that led to.
>>Who knew an mp3 player wasn't appropriate for playing music.
Sony.
IANAL, but a quick search seems to indicate[1] that the penalty for theft is the same as in your quote: fines and up to three years in prison.
[1] http://lovdata.no/all/hl-19020522-010.html#257 (in Norwegian)
I use Linux, thus, I wouldn't even notice any "copy-protection" schemes based on having Windows autostart files on the disc. I use cdparanoia to rip, and its anti-jitter, anti-scratch, error-correction features will probably blow past the remaining "copy-protection" schemes based on adding deliberate errors to the disc. Are they going to provide me with tools to detect the presence of "copy protection" that I otherwise wouldn't even be able to notice? Or are they simply planning to outlaw Linux?
/. summary, which I realize isn't a reliable guide to what's actually been proposed). I hope that European Free Software and Consumers' Rights groups are all over this one.
This legislation seems insane and miguided (at least from the
of governmental and commercial organization over private citizens is to pass laws that make _everyone_ a criminal upon close inspection.
"So, you aren't very fond of our actions, huh? Well let's just check you desktop computer... shouldn't be a problem for you, right? Your'e just a law abiding citizen...
"Oh, wait a minute. Look what I just found! Seems like your going down, buddy. You sure are sorry you messed with us now, huh, punk?!"
*** "The Norwegian government has shown a broad vision that is unique in Europe," said the group's secretary general Per Morten Hoff. He praised the law for recognizing the industry's right to protect copyrighted material. ***
...
Vision that is unique? LOL! With the currently changing markets for music formats - no one wants a portable cd player any more, everyone wants a portable mp3/wmv player - Norway's vision is ensuring either their population breaks the law, or sales of music cd's will plummet.
Their right to protect copyrighted material is going to be guaranteed by the time they're finished -- no one is going to be interested in the material at all by the time all those criminal convictions of illegal mp3 rippings take place.
Buy a music cd? Hell no, who needs the trouble that causes.
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you
Simply put: When I buy a CD and I want to listen to it on my iPod, I can't anymore. At least not legally.
That's the crux.
It doesn't change the legal status of downloads, all it does is prevent people who already paid for the music to use it legally in one of their own playback devices.
It's the industries attempt trying to nickle and dime to death.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
People seem to forget that the main reason to have copyright & patent laws is to benefit society as a whole by enriching the public domain.
The reasoning goes something like this: if every invention and creation is free for grabs, nobody would invest in the creative process, so let's give the inventors/creators an incentive in the form of a *limited* monopoly on implementing and distributing their invention/creation.
Keep in mind that the protection is not an end in itself but only a means to the real end. Therefore, we must be careful not to let it outweigh the public benefit.
Does the society, really *need* protection duration of creator life + 70 years? Would the creative process stop if we limit it so something reasonable, like 10 years?
Does the society, really *need* broad patents that claim everything under the sun, or patenting of ideas (as opposed to implementations) or mathematical formulas? Remember what Newton said about standing on the shoulders of giants and consider what good does it do to the public if a person or organization can hold all R&D in a certain field hostage until it no longer relevant?
The creators and inventors should be able to make a decent living from the application of their talents, we should guarantee them nothing more.
When a brilliant physician stops healing, the flow of money stops - even if the patients whose life they may have saved continue living and enjoying their health!
When a brilliant teacher stops teaching, the flow of money stops - even if his students continue to rip the rewards of their excellent education.
Currently, the legislators are preocupied with enriching the "intellectual property" owners at the expense of fair use. This is a sham. Intellectual "property" is nothing more than a racket. When there is a conflict between the wants of the society and the wants of the IP holders, the public interest should always take precedence.
Think about it.
Do something about it.
Convince 10 other people to do something about it.
Convince them to repeat the process.
Start an avalanche. Nothing less will cure the system.
...is that these kinds of directives are impossible to fight. Look at the date for the InfoSoc directive. 2001. Yes, four years ago. Yet we have no choice but to implement it, except for a highly theoretical veto right (from not being in the EU, only EUs lap dog).
What can public pressure do? Implemented by 2005. Uproar by 2006. New proposal to EU in 2008. New directive in 2010. New law in 2015. Try keeping the public's attention for ten years while playing the ladder game with the corporations. They'll slide you right back to square one when people aren't looking.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings