Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sweden Bans Copyrighted Downloading

Posted by Zonk on from the a-less-friendly-EU dept.

Xiar Prime writes "Swedish lawmakers have made downloading of copyrighted material illegal, one day after an 11-nation piracy crackdown. Prior to the passing of the law, it was only illegal to provide copyrighted material, not download it." From the article: " The law was drawn up to bring Sweden into line with EU directives and is also part of a wider crackdown on net piracy. It comes a day after the US Attorney General's office announced an 11-nation operation to catch and shut down net piracy groups."

22 of 449 comments (clear)

  1. This is a WASTE, unless... by bigwavejas · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This is a step in the right direction; however, until the risks outweigh the rewards this will only serve to drive people into using more discreet tools for transferring these files, by utilizing applications such as "WASTE" http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/29/privat e.fileshare/ which enables users to securely transfer copyrighted material with complete file anonymity.

    This all comes down to being a stakes game. Are the rewards worth the consequences? I honestly feel examples are going to have to be made with *severe* penalties. I recently heard on National Public Radio http://www.npr.org/ one county was raising the fine for littering from $1,000 to $10,000! It may seem ludicrous, but I bet you one thing -- Mr Trucker is going to think twice about throwing that cigarette butt out the window. Same holds true for Piracy... make the penalties so severe that nobody in their right mind will want to partake.

    --
    "Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
    1. Re:This is a WASTE, unless... by lordsilence · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I dont think that $10000 fines for throwing cigarettes is the right way to go. Just as much as fining 14 year old girls for double that amount for downloading or sharing Britney Spears latest album.

    2. Re:This is a WASTE, unless... by JLF65 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's good to see you have your prioirties right. Punish copyright infringement more harshly than murder or armed robbery!

      Seems the world is headed toward imprisoning people for stealing a SLICE of bread, much less the whole loaf. Les Miserables for the new generation...

    3. Re:This is a WASTE, unless... by AresTheImpaler · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This all comes down to being a stakes game. Are the rewards worth the consequences? I honestly feel examples are going to have to be made with *severe* penalties. I recently heard on National Public Radio http://www.npr.org/ one county was raising the fine for littering from $1,000 to $10,000! It may seem ludicrous, but I bet you one thing -- Mr Trucker is going to think twice about throwing that cigarette butt out the window. Same holds true for Piracy... make the penalties so severe that nobody in their right mind will want to partake.

      You are wrong. I've seen that raising fines or penalties doesn't lower the crimes. What lower the crimes is when you know that you are going to be caught regardless. If you know there is a big posibility of nothing happening to you, then you will do anything that is ilegal. If every crime is being punished and nobody is learning not to do it, then you can raise the fine/penalty.

    4. Re:This is a WASTE, unless... by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      one county was raising the fine for littering from $1,000 to $10,000! It may seem ludicrous, but I bet you one thing -- Mr Trucker is going to think twice about throwing that cigarette butt out the window. Same holds true for Piracy... make the penalties so severe that nobody in their right mind will want to partake.

      You know, that's exactly the right idea. Just like how the death penalty makes people think twice about murdering. In fact, if there was the death penalty for littering, I think people would think thrice. Why, we could make all laws (including the civil ones) end in death penalty. I mean, sure it's ludicrous. But not only do we get rid of all the criminals who dare step out of line, we also simplify the legal code and instill that sort of fear necessary to insure only the insane will ever be put to death--I mean, it'd be insanity to jaywalk if you knew the penalty was death.

      Yep, that'd be a great legal system. Iran and Saudi Arabia are two countries which, AFAIK, are closest to this ideal. But they still have a lot of rules that don't involve execution. Well, here's hoping Sweden (and the US) moves towards the great and practical ideals that Iran is closer towards.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    5. Re:This is a WASTE, unless... by radish · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The standard penalty for murder in the UK is life in prison, which usually (with parole) works out at 15-20 years or thereabouts. In the US, it can be a longer jail term, or sometimes, death. The murder rate in the US is higher than the UK, which suggests that higher penalties don't work (or of course that there is another, more important factor in this case).

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    6. Re:This is a WASTE, unless... by eluusive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Someone stole my bike, the police didn't even care. Are you telling me that music is more important than my transportation which cost me several hundred dollars? Get your damn priorities straight.

    7. Re:This is a WASTE, unless... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Raising penalties to an unreasonable level can have lots of effects.

      1) It could make people less likely to commit the act.

      2) It could make people lose respect for the law against the activity being punished.

      3) It could make law enforcement officers hesitant to actually inflict the punishment. In the case of littering that you describe, it's gone from a stiff, "that'll l'arn 'im" fine to an unreasonable fine that could be financially ruinous to just about anyone. If I were a cop, and I was pulling someone over for littering in that county, nothing short of driving a Lamborghini would keep me from letting the guy off with a warning.

      Same goes for file sharing. The fines for copyright infringement are already so high that a serious violator can end up owing more than their state of origin is worth. But people keep doing it, because the reward is great (free music), the harm to artists seems miniscule, and the likelihood of getting caught is zero in most peoples' minds.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  2. Fair Use is dying by casings · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Our rights as consumers are dying.

    RIP fair use.

    1. Re:Fair Use is dying by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Our rights as consumers are dying.

      But you've never had the right to copyright infringement. And, the typical use of the word "consumer" includes that person's participation in a commercial relationship with the provider of the goods and services in question. Sneaking off with a copy of a movie doesn't make you a consumer. It makes you someone who's too cheap to pay for the movie. Since it's rampant, the only thing dying is the artist's hope of actually seeing a little compensation for your enjoyment of her work. Does your idea of "fair use" include making that artist your personal little entertainment slave?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Fair Use is dying by rackhamh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, now I can't download games, music or videos that I never purchased! LIFE IS SO UNFAIR! KILL ME NOW!!!

  3. Downloading in the US? by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been under the impression that downloading something in the US is not illegal, only uploading (providing it to someone else). Lots of people seem to think otherwise, but I've never seen any spesific laws that ban this.

    What's the status in the US?

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  4. Can we have a more misleading title? by ShatteredDream · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a ban on downloading unauthorized copyright materials. Based on the title, you'd think that in some late night drinking spree, the Swedish legislators just said "if it has (C) anywhere near it, ban it." If the title were true, it'd really suck because then Swedes wouldn't be able to even look at any webpage because the Berne Convention (I assume y'all are a signatory nation) gives every work a copyright even if it's not officially registered.

    --
    Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
  5. Banned download of copyrighted material? by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Strange, how will they surf the net then? Does it mean the swedes are forced to use public domain only websites?

    --
    - These characters were randomly selected.
  6. Really? A ban on downloading copyrighted material? by dtfinch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't everything copyrighted? And what if they payed the copyright owner for license to it?

  7. Re:So much for viewing Sweden as progressive by Kojiro+Ganryu+Sasaki · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We are sensible up here. However, this is all thanks to the EU.

  8. Re:Excellent! No more Linux kernels for Sweden! by rackhamh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ATTENTION: Anonymous Coward.

    You may no longer post on Slashdot. As you will note in TFA, it is a law that applies only to music, games and videos.

    As we have a blanket opposition to posting "unfounded" material (and not just "founded material which does derive from a downloading of the available article"), you may not post on Slashdot again.

  9. Re:Downloaders != pirates by jizmonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm disappointed that BBC calls downloaders pirates. The term "pirate" when applied to copyright infringement first appeared to denote publishers who didn't pay the authors.

    More to the point, using the word "piracy" is empty rhetoric that has no place in reputable newsreporting. The last time I checked the U.S. Code, "piracy" is a crime punishable by death (for air piracy; sea piracy is punishable by life imprisonment).

    Why don't we just call file sharers "child rapists" with some equally strained analogy?

    (The term "piracy" is used in some patent court decisions, true, but that's hardly an excuse.)

    --
    With great power comes great fan noise.
  10. Re:Swedes can't visit Slashdot now by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The topic is brain dead.

    The law just disallow unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  11. Re:Im swedish ;) are you? by jorgen · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The police themselves has announced that copyright crimes wont be prioritised.

    It's even better than that; swedish law (PUL) forbids any registering of IP addresses if the suspected crime isn't serious enough to render a prison sentence if caught.

    This effectively means that the small scale pirate copying that most people do on DC++ etc (which not even in theory can get you in prison) isn't even possible to investigate.

    This is a pure bullshit law, and everyone knows it.

  12. Just Plain Silly by tfcdesign · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apparently these folks are unaware that everytime you download a webpage and its graphics you are using copyrighted material.

    Thats the big hole in all this piracy house of mirrors. Songs and movies are not the only copyrighted material "downloaded" on the internet.

    I wonder if this makes my web browser cache illegal?

  13. What About Legal Downloads? by themesb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Interestingly, the article made no distinction between legal and illegal downloads of copywritten material. Is this just poor journalism, or has Sweden actually outlawed sites like the Swedish iTunes Music Store that allow users to legally download music? It would be interesting to see how such sales are doing in a country with such rampant piracy.