Slashdot Mirror
Sweden Bans Copyrighted Downloading
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."
Analyzers of this law has deemed it to be pretty toothless against piracy. The police themselves has announced that copyright crimes wont be prioritised. It's not even clear if they will investigate things further on invidual downloaders/filesharers since they consider this a crime which will not be a jailable offence. Most likely a smaller fee like for speeding or parking ticket. But we'll see what the antipiracy groups comes up with before we know anything for sure.
You mean I wasted my time learning Swedish?!
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!
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.
ATTENTION: People of Sweden.
You may no longer download the Linux kernel. As you will note in all the file headers, it is Copyright (C) Linus Torvalds and many others.
As you have a blanket prohibition on downloading "copyrighted" material (and not just "copyrighted material which does not permit you to download it or make it available for downloading"), you may not download the Linux kernel.
A cøpyright nøtice ønce bit my sister...
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
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...
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.
Before we go to such extreme measures, don't you think we should have a national debate on the right balance between citizens and copyright holders?
It looks to me that we're developing a hodge-podge of copyright/patent laws that has no policy thought and is simply a collection of knee-jerk reactions to what's news this week.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
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.
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.
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!