Finland Adopts New Copyright Legislation

Anonymous Coward writes "Finland has adopted European Union Copyright Directive with new changes to its national legislation, giving Finland one of the most record label friendly pieces of legislation in Europe. The article has a good summary of the new law's changes to the old, rather flexible legislation."

Comments

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if Finland would only produce some records that actually sold you might have a winning combo!

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

two of my favorite artists are from finland, Amorphis and Nightwish

Re:Great

[Satan Dumpling]

Nightwish, HIM, 69 Eyes, Poisonblack ... Great goth rock over there :)

Re:Great

[dapyx]

Are you trolling? Finland has lots of bands that play excellent music, especially heavy metal, though I'm not sure whether they are well-known outside Europe. See Category:Finnish musical groups and Category:Finnish heavy metal musical groups.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Aikakone !

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have that many good artists but we sure have some comedians (jokes even) in the politics...

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Pp is not funny. It is a flamebaiting troll.

Re:Great

[shutdown -p now]

• Ajattara
• Amorphis
• Apocalyptica
• Children of Bodom
• Eternal Tears of Sorrow
• Finntroll
• Impaled Nazarene
• Korpiklaani
• Moonsorrow
• Nightwish
• Sentenced
• Sonata Arctica
• Stratovarius

Enough? that's not even half of the entire list.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Some other finnish bands are also:

HIM
Poets of the fall
The Rasmus
Bomfunc MC's

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when has lame Top40 been considered goth? Most of the goths I know what to beat the crap out of the lead singer of HIM for making the music so wimpy. I remember when goth had balls. I'd much rather listen to :wumpscut:

Next time you're at a HIM concert, just yell out "Soittakaa Paranoid!!!"

Some great Punk from Finland, though... The Flaiming Sideburns kick butt. Good Psychobilly, too.

Well you know

[truckaxle]

You can never trust those Finlander's .... oh wait .....

Re:Well you know

[EvilNTUser]

More like you can't trust the EU.

The EU was sold to us as an economic union. Then we were told we needed a constitution. That the EU would guard our basic rights.

Well, thanks a lot you bastards. Thanks a lot for the corruption and injustice you've brought with you. Seems like old Finnish legislation was doing a better job until your directives forced it to change. I weep for the future.

The EU as an economic powerhouse could be a great thing. The EU as a source of bad legislation is a recipe for disaster.

Re:Well you know

[dada21]

Economic powerhouse? Doesn't seem that way. Bigger governments encompassing bigger populations tend to hurt their economies in the long run with tariffs, regulations, crony favoritism and inflation.

I don't expect any successes with the EU, except for the pocket books of those with clout.

Re:Well you know

[Ironsides]

More like you can't trust the EU. The EU was sold to us as an economic union. Then we were told we needed a constitution. That the EU would guard our basic rights. Well, thanks a lot you bastards. Thanks a lot for the corruption and injustice you've brought with you. Seems like old Finnish legislation was doing a better job until your directives forced it to change. I weep for the future. The EU as an economic powerhouse could be a great thing. The EU as a source of bad legislation is a recipe for disaster.

And Europeans wonder why a lot of people in the US don't trust the idea of a world court or various other powers above the country level. Whatever happened to national sovereignty? Pretty much what every member of the EU has done has ceded a chunk of sovereignty to a government that they at best have inderect control over. If the EU is going to start demanding legislation, sounds like you should start having elections for the representatives.

Re:Well you know

[EvilNTUser]

"Economic powerhouse? Doesn't seem that way. Bigger governments encompassing bigger populations tend to hurt their economies in the long run with tariffs, regulations, crony favoritism and inflation."

Then why is the US so successful? I agree that bigger governments often (always?) make a mess of things, but the reason the EU will help growth is that it will open internal borders and standardize business practices/logistics across the union. If it works out...

Another problem with it is that, as humans, we always seem to standardize on whatever most people are already doing. If 5 people herding reindeer in Lapland have the best accounting methods, then the whole union should switch, not force them to change, damnit.

Re:Well you know

[Grishnakh]

Are you nuts? Just look across the pond at the USA for an example of a large country that turned into an economic powerhouse. Europe has been hampered for decades by having too many different currencies, tariffs, customs checks at every border, etc. In the US, we don't have any of that crap. I don't have to deal with customs to sell my products made in California to someone in New York, but someone in Paris selling to someone in Rome had to before the EU. This has a huge stifling effect on the economy.

After the EU formed and converted to the Euro, look how well that new currency has prospered; it's now stronger than the Dollar. Trade barriers always hurt economies; the only reason to have them is to protect your national self-interests (like keeping foreign companies from dumping and putting your domestic companies out of business, keeping stuff produced with ultra-cheap or slave labor from putting your domestic industries out of business, etc.). They make sense when there's a large disparity between trading partners because the more powerful partner wants to keep control of that, but in the case of Europe where most of the member were more or less on the same footing (labor rates, etc.), it didn't help them at all.

The problem the EU has is certainly not economic, because they're doing better and better there for the moment. Their problem is with the EU government screwing with individual countries' rights and freedoms. Just like we have different states in the USA with different laws (gambling and prostitution are legal in Nevada, but illegal most other places for instance) because the people in those regions like it that way, Europe needs to make sure their different member countries can run themselves the way they like, so the Dutch can keep their marijuana and prostitution, the Germans can keep their Autobahn with no speed limits, and the Swedes can keep www.piratesbay.com.

Re:Well you know

[killjoe]

Lets be fair. The countries in the EU are worried that they may lose some sovereignty. We are worried that people will stand in the way of us killing people and taking their stuff.

Re:Well you know

[Simon Lyngshede]

Denmark adopted the EUCD as one of the first countries and we're still allowed to break copyright protection if needed. Don't blame the EU for this one, Finland made this mess themselfs.

Yes, the EU often make mistakes, but this is not their fault. That being said, the EUCD is still a dumb idea and completly useless.

Re:Well you know

[mankey wanker]

The U.S. is a third world country in the making. They have already killed the unions, people live on borrowed means, etc. Yes, once upon a time we were great - then the "lootocracy" moved in.

Funny how rather than plan to avoid the next flu pandemic, Bush seems to want to focus on how to control people with the military in opposition to standing law on using the military on U.S. soil: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/05/bush.reax/i ndex.html?section=cnn_topstories

Why would he want that? Are the puppetmasters gearing up for the betterment of the world's economic outlook by simply killing the unemployed - or as Dickens called them "the surplus population"?

This shit in Finland is the same old story: one neck being fitted for one collar and one leash. You can extrapolate that out to the EU, if it pleases you to do so. Obviously Finland and the EU have some of the best politicians money can buy - just like in the U.S.! Same old, same old...

What you want is small, mobile, agile.

I am looking forward to the future, when only the nation state of Northern California will matter to me. We have the water. We have the brains. We can overrule the central California nitwits from (recent immigrants from Dumbfuckistan) by simply voting our progressive politics into action over their objections.

Gays will get married and no one will give a shit because there is obviously ten thousand things more important than how people fuck in their own bedrooms.

Re:Well you know

[HunterZ]

Then why is the US so successful? I agree that bigger governments often (always?) make a mess of things, but the reason the EU will help growth is that it will open internal borders and standardize business practices/logistics across the union. If it works out...

Whether or not the U.S. is "so successful" depends on how you look at it. As a U.S. citizen, I'm starting to wonder how long it will be before things break down if they keep heading in their current direction. For the past century the federal government has been gaining more and more power over the states, wasting more and more resources due to the inherent inefficiencies of governing at that level, and favoring the interests of whoever has the most money to spend on lobbying - with citizens steadily becoming more disillusioned and hopeless all the while as a result.

Another problem with it is that, as humans, we always seem to standardize on whatever most people are already doing. If 5 people herding reindeer in Lapland have the best accounting methods, then the whole union should switch, not force them to change, damnit.

Yes, it's called "democracy", and like all other forms of government invented so far it has its drawbacks. Really, though, I think that governments go wrong more often as a result of trying to govern too many people and not from the system they follow (with a few exceptions like small countries that are seized by corrupt dictators).

I think Europe had a good thing going with small countries (on the same order of size as U.S. states) with governments that strike varying balances between democracy and socialism. Trying to unite them under one governing body (especially an economic one!) is just going to introduce the same problems that the U.S. is experiencing (ignoring the people's interests in favor of the interests of whoever has the most money, bureaucratic waste, gradual leeching of power away from individual countries to a self-serving centralized government, etc.)

In closing, I should mention that I'm a computer programmer and not a political activist. I'm also American so I'm probably largely ignorant about the EU situation.

Re:Well you know

[loqi]

More like you can't trust the US.

The US was sold to us as a democratic union. Then we were told we needed a constitution. That the US would guard our basic rights.

Well, thanks a lot you bastards. Thanks a lot for the corruption and injustice you've brought with you. Seems like old Native American legislation was doing a better job until your directives forced it to change. I weep for the future.

The US as an economic powerhouse could be a great thing. The US as a source of bad legislation is a recipe for disaster.

/tongue-in-cheek

Re:Well you know

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, think about this. This directive started in the Council of MInisters. Know who they are? That's right, they're the heads of government of each of the member states, and they're the executive body which initiates measures like the Copyright Directive, and without their explicit approval, pan-European Union frameworks do not happen.

There is a *reason* for having the executive of the EU be the same as the executives of the individual member states. The member states must put legislation through their own parliamentary processes to enact the directives, and it's faster to get a "no, we can't do this" up front, rather than after a fraction of the member states have changed their laws to (at minimum) fit the framework.

In this particular case, not only did the Finnish government support the directive at the Council of Ministers meetings that dealt with it, it also proposed the legislation to its own parliament, without the all-too-frequent hypocrisy of "oh this is bad stuff but it's from Brussels so we have to hold our noses and do it". Bravo for them. It takes guts not to lie and distance oneself from one's own decisions in the Council of Europe.

Also, most of the opposition parties in parliament *also* supported the legislation.

Finally, the legislation exceeds the requirements for minimum compliance with the Copyright Directive.

This is NOT the EU forcing anything upon Finland's elected government.

This is the Finnish government accepting a framework and passing rules within it that you (and I, and many others) disagree with.

Now, if the proposed constitution had been adopted by all the member states, there would have been a couple new delay/change/defeat powers accruing to the directly elected European Parliament, in which there's a fairly sizable contingent of MEPs who (a) have a track record of scepticism towards intellectual property law directives from the Council of Ministers, (b) are often of a different party from the governments of the member states and don't mind derailing initiatives of the national governments.

I know who my (Westminster) MP is (Frank Dobson, Lab.). I have seen him in the street once. I have met with and had almost technical conversations with my MEP, Jean Lambert, Green. She is clued in on software patents and the copyright directive. Check out (as an example) . "Greens lead the way on challenging software patents. Jean Lambert aims to block 'flawed and biased Directive'".

Yeah, thank goodness the proposed constitution was defeated, so we could keep Ms Lambert from further studying and even interfering with Directives supported (and even proposed) by Tony Blair! If she wanted to do that legitimately, she'd be in the British House of Commons instead with that large contingent of clued-in MPs being paid close attention by the government...!

Re:Well you know

[Anonymous Coward]

If the EU is going to start demanding legislation, sounds like you should start having elections for the representatives.

The last election for the European Parliament was in 2004.

Re:Well you know

[s20451]

I am looking forward to the future, when only the nation state of Northern California will matter to me. We have the water. We have the brains. We can overrule the central California nitwits from (recent immigrants from Dumbfuckistan) by simply voting our progressive politics into action over their objections.

Are you talking about this? Because I have to say, that site is about as intelligent and well balanced as PETA or Fox News.

Re:Well you know

[Anonymous Coward]

a lot of people in the US don't trust the idea of a world court or various other powers above the country level. Whatever happened to national sovereignty?

While I agree with many of your points, it's worth noting that the international criminal court was intended for INTERNATIONAL court cases, ie. ones for which there just is no applicable national laws (or conflicting ones; or involving countries that do not recognized applicability etc). It's not meant for overriding national laws involving only national issues. That is, things like war crimes, crimes against humanity. I mean, lots of things dictators do may actually be legal according to laws of countries they lead: not unsurprising when most laws have been (re)written by the tyrants in place. I don't think that applying national laws of the most powerful nations outside their borders (like what USA is doing, and many other bigger nations would love to, too) is much better than trying to come up with an international court that is focused on specific area where there is a vacuum.

Re:Well you know

[hr raattgift]

Pretty much what every member of the EU has done has ceded a chunk of sovereignty to a government that they at best have inderect control over.

No. Every member of the EU has pooled a chunk of its sovereignty together with the other member states, each of whom participates in the joint executive known as the Council of Ministers, which is the SOLE ORIGINATOR of EU-wide Directives. Who sits on the Council? All the heads of government.

Not one of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the President of France, the Chancellor of Germany, among others, has sole control over the Council of Ministers, but each of those heads of government of the larger states can personally easily derail any initiative on a whim, and can bet that each could convince the majority, or all (as necessary) of his or her counterparts to support some joint plan that seems to make sense, although that's harder. Some combination of smaller-state heads of government can do likewise, and often do. BE-NL-LU often wind up as a bloc with the weight of one of of the larger countries, as do DK-SE-NO-FI and more recently with PL joining with one of LV-ES-LT and CZ-SK-HU.

This sort of joint pooling of sovereignty for common goals is what the EU is about. The problem is that at the Council level, the opposition is filtered out, because it does not participate. (This is worsened by a lack of transparency... many people do not know which head of government had what opinion on a given proposed Directive).

Offsetting the Council is the Parliament, which is directly elected. It cannot originate directives, but it can require changes, or delay or defeat them. The Parliament does include members of the opposition (and governing) parties of the various member states. It mostly operates in committes which pick their way through directives suggesting changes back and forth, and sometimes outright opposes a proposed directive by the Council. It has developed teeth, and would have had sharper ones under the recently deceased proposed constitution.

In the middle is the Commission. It's officially run by Commissioners (one or two from each Member State, traditionally) appointed by the Council with the consent of the Parliament (somewhat like how the U.S. Senate confirms Presidential Cabinet members, which would have been even more like that under the ex-proposed-constitution), but is really a civil service which has things delegated to it by the Council (i.e., the Member States). It aligns variously with the Council, whom it briefs and does studies for or some subset of the Member States (it often sees itself as a sort of guardian of the interests of the smaller member states, especially in cajoling the larger Member States to "play fair" and abide by things they've agreed to be obligated by, or have held smaller members to).

There is little more love between the Parliament and the Commission than the Parliament and the Council, mostly because under the current arrangements, the Parliament is fundamentally a criticising body.

There are analogous relationships between various national governments and their legislatures, especially where there is an upper house beholden to different masters than the head of government, or a lower house which they do not totally dominate.

The EU looks more and more like a normal confederation with every passing year, mostly because it seems to balance interests well enough that despite complaints about it (many of which are shockingly hypocritical) nobody can think of a better evolutionary direction than that taken by e.g. the various U.S. States, Canadian Provinces, Australian States, and so forth.

(As an aside, it's interesting that Belgium, Europe's most federalized state, tends to be overwhelmingly pro-EU-as-federation; Switzerland, Europe's 2nd most federalized state, has been quietly agreeing to a number of treaties with the EU that would have been consolidated into the proposed constitution, but generally is pretty

Re:Well you know

[geekoid]

"The EU as an economic powerhouse could be a great thing."

Isn't that what Hitler thought?

of course, instead of a madman bent on creating a "perfect person" and killing people who happen to be Jewish or gypsies, it's corporate controling people to get all their money by making everything a service.

Why a corporation won't go out and kill people, they will cast them by the way side as being an econmomical burden.

The US worked because there was a time when the people had power.

This is why I advoccate a country wide, or in this case EU wide, tech unions. so we have power in the government. We could hire professional lobbiest and make some change.

Re:Well you know

[Sj0]

Define successful. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but it would take over $140,000 from each and every US citizen to pay off the debt and liabilities the US government has dug itself into, and US citizens are no better -- the official savings ratio for US citizens officially reached 0% a couple months ago.

If I wanted to, I could look like I was doing well too, if I took out all the money anyone would hand to me. Eventually though, you've got to pay the piper.

Re:Well you know

[NickFortune]

Another problem with it is that, as humans, we always seem to standardize on whatever most people are already doing. If 5 people herding reindeer in Lapland have the best accounting methods, then the whole union should switch, not force them to change, damnit. Yes, it's called "democracy", and like all other forms of government invented so far it has its drawbacks. Really, though, I think that governments go wrong more often as a result of trying to govern too many people and not from the system they follow (with a few exceptions like small countries that are seized by corrupt dictators).

I've noticed a distressing trend to dismiss the abuse of power with the phrase "that's democracy". It's almost as if we have come to think of injustice and corruption of as an itegral part of the holy democratic process, and therefore immune from any criticism.

In this case, there's nothing inherently democratic about making the same set of rules apply to everyone everywhere, or in inflicting the populace with the stupidest or least fair solution to any given problem. The simple fact that the EU legislators are appointed by people who are appointed by people who I may have at some point have been involved in an election somewhere, this does not excuse the corruption, greed and injustice that runs rampant though the system.

I should also say, that isn't aimed at you, HunterZ, personally. In general I agree with your points above. You just touched on a sore point.

Re:Well you know

[Alsee]

I'm probably largely ignorant about the EU situation.

Lets put it this way...

in principal it's a great idea, much like when the thirteen individual states united to become the US...

except rather than having a pretty darn good constitution being almost completely drafted by about about two or three idealistic anti-government rebels, their system was drafted by the full committee bureaucratic might of every government in Europe. Oh, and they left out most of the checks and balances.

Rather than a Government Of The People, By The People, and For The People, they have a Government Of The Governments, By The Governments, and For The Governments.

The only good news is that it still isn't really an EU government... it's more of a semi-animated zombie staggering along with the sole power of infecting member governments with the purest essence of curruption. It can't do much of anything itself. It just touches the member governments leaving them festering and infected to slowly wreak the selected ruin upon themselves.

Thank you for tuning in to today's lesson on geopolitics. Be sure to tune in tomorrow and learn how North Korea is just like an icecream cone.

Chuckle.

-

Re:Well you know

[HunterZ]

I've noticed a distressing trend to dismiss the abuse of power with the phrase "that's democracy". It's almost as if we have come to think of injustice and corruption of as an itegral part of the holy democratic process, and therefore immune from any criticism.

I guess I was referring to the simplistic "majority rule" definition of democracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
I invoke it with a cynical connotation because we Americans tend to uphold it as some sort of ideal - with the US government as a prime example of how wonderful it can be - so that we feel better when we meddle in the business of other countries "for their own good".

Of course, the US is a democratic republic (adjective noun!) which means that we only get to elect which corrupt politician the corporations will pay off for the next few years. To make things worse, politicians have unionized into two parties, ensuring that only rarely will someone be elected who actually cares about anything other than lining his/her own pockets or making a name for him/herself. At this point, I suspect that the voting thing is just a way to keep us from revolting; obviously I'm not the only one who thinks so, given the low percentage of Americans who bother to vote these days (incidentally, to those who would say that "every vote counts": I would like to refer you back to the corrupt two-party system under which we suffer, which ensures that nobody who cares about the people will be in politics for long).

In this case, there's nothing inherently democratic about making the same set of rules apply to everyone everywhere, or in inflicting the populace with the stupidest or least fair solution to any given problem. The simple fact that the EU legislators are appointed by people who are appointed by people who I may have at some point have been involved in an election somewhere, this does not excuse the corruption, greed and injustice that runs rampant though the system.

Indeed, nothing ever excuses such behavior. The problem is that when given power, humans will by nature use it to their own selfish ends. Throughout recorded history, humanity has struggled against itself to evolve a system of government which cannot be corrupted by the selfishness of men; we still haven't found one that works for a large enough number of people. I don't know if such a system exists, but it seems we're destined to keep trying until we either find out or destroy ourselves utterly. Fun stuff.

Also, in a pure democracy the majority vote of the populace decides what solutions are best. Even this system is flawed because the majority of people can be stupid and/or misled sometimes.

I should also say, that isn't aimed at you, HunterZ, personally. In general I agree with your points above. You just touched on a sore point.

No worries :) We've all got a few of those.

Re:Well you know

[DM9290]

Another problem with it is that, as humans, we always seem to standardize on whatever most people are already doing. If 5 people herding reindeer in Lapland have the best accounting methods, then the whole union should switch, not force them to change, damnit.

Yes, it's called "democracy", and like all other forms of government invented so far it has its drawbacks. Really, though, I think that governments go wrong more often as a result of trying to govern too many people and not from the system they follow (with a few exceptions like small countries that are seized by corrupt dictators).

Democracy does not mean mandatory standardization. There is nothing which prevents democratic societies from introducing different standards for different areas. Most effectively by empowering local governments with greater powers (especially the ability to negate laws from higher levels of government).

So if a town wants to negate the DMCA and become a free copy zone, it could have the power to do so. It only falls upon lawmakers to make this legal.

Re:Well you know

[c4ffeine]

If it's any consolation, there's an increasing trend among people I know. This sample is heavily biased towards college students, but there's significant agreement that:

1. The system's currently fatally flawed/infected/whatever.
2. We need to do something (fix it/leave/other).

Admittedly, this is heavily biased towards particularly geeky college students (although it seems to apply to most slashdot readers), but it's still interesting to note and fairly promising.

Re:Well you know

[lordholm]

Well we do have elected representatives in the EP. They lack power in notable areas in wich the unelected Council decides, something that the constitution was going to fix, but the French and the Dutch apparently didn't like parliamentary democracy.

And to the grand parent:
Bitching about bad Union legislation is one thing, but claiming that national legislation is doing a better job is just plain BS. Go and have a look in your legislation, I'm sure you will find a lot of strange stuff that has come solely from the national level.

And don't come and claim that the EU was sold as a pure economic union, the very nature of the Schuman Declaration 1950 suggested that the only real solution for ensuring peace and prosperity in Europe was to build a European federation.

Re:Well you know

[lordholm]

"strike varying balances between democracy and socialism"

Have you any idea what socialism have done to this continent? What it is doing now? Uniting under a more liberal flag is a good thing.

There can be no balance between democracy and socialism, they are by definition opposed to each other. And nations isn't a solution for Europe. Virtually all the evil in Europe (the last 100 years) have come from nationalism and socialism.

And no, the EU isn't ignoring its citizens interests, at least not the parliament (though I cannot say the same about the council).

Re:Well you know

[ultranova]

At this point, I suspect that the voting thing is just a way to keep us from revolting;

No reason to suspect. One way to look at democracy is to see it as a system of government with a formal, legal way of deposing rulers - elections. The idea is that citizens don't bother rebelling violently when there's easier way to get rid of hated rulers. Of course it makes no difference even if you do, since they are simply replaced by an equally nasty bunch, but that would happen in an armed rebellion too.

Throughout recorded history, humanity has struggled against itself to evolve a system of government which cannot be corrupted by the selfishness of men; we still haven't found one that works for a large enough number of people.

There is no such system. No matter how you design it, someone will always work around it, and if all else fails, the rulers will simply ignore the rules. You can't build an flawless system out of flawed parts.

To get back to the article, what really annoys me is that our (I'm finnish) leaders aren't even bribed. They are doing this simply because it makes them feel part of something bigger; it lets them think that they are important in the big scheme of things. Doing this makes them think that they are somehow a part of EU or US or whatever. It makes them, at least at their own mind, think that they are important politicians working with a global superpower, and not just finnish politicians. It's the exact same reason why Finland was taken to the EU in the first place: to make the politicians feel important.

Re:Well you know

[u38cg]

One of the main purposes of the EU is to ram through changes that individual governments beleive are unpalatable to electorates. Mainly stuff like selling off state industries, structural changes, changes to welfare systems, etc, etc. It does need done but people are getting so pissed off about it because they don't understand the need for change.

Re:Well you know

[Anonymous Coward]

I cant help but say I told ya so, well, you prolly didnt hear me when I first said it, back when they changed all currencies out for the euro, first thing I thought was "world government" Pull you in via an economic plan, since money is the best way to grab people by the balls, then, get a constitution in, or some sort of pact that takes away power from the various states of a region to a central governing body, then it goes downhill from there.
I saw this coming 5 to 6 years ago, now it's becoming reality. Uniting something to some extent is good, but taking away complete diversity ends up being bad, you have to have differences.

Re:Well you know

[Anonymous Coward]

Deterioration of A Good Thing is inevitable process, elswhere reffered to as "entropy".

Two processes are on stage everywhere: first, creeping freedom-taking and second, artificial analgesys ("we have democracy, we have choice, we make difference, we are asked..."). Occasionaly, no, every now and then we are (were) even allowed to "rebel" in controlled, nondestructive or very limited destructive (incapacitating selfdestructive mostly) way (controllers let some steam out). The free power is typically tied to the ground with ever new psychoactive substance - "subculture" (mass culture, to be exact) pairs. The will for freedom is pushed deeper into inner cosmos.

However, since the forces that push the freedom down (greed, powerseek, megalomania) have no boundaries of their own, while old tricks get transparent, someday pressure must result in "rupture of the vessel". I am sure that analysts have plans (like they had before) for that and that we will be served with "preemptive actions" to keep us all in check. If you are analysing news, you can see the signs of it coming all around. We can see that "forces that are" are preparing for confronting lots of rage and violence and for them it would be a clear win (steam let off, population trimmed, power reinforced, rebelion proved futile).

Therefore, if we are ever to get our freedom back, we need some sort of Ghandian resistance, peaceful and mass martyrism (taking the hit and turning other cheek). I am not religious, but (or, that's why I think that...) The Apocalypse is not a prophecy that tells about supernatural events in future - it is alegoric anticipation of inevitable historical events, based on rational analysis of reccuring social trends instead - easy prediction, someone could say. It also gives a case for Old Christian kind of nonviolent resistance (now named after Ghandi), referred to as "second coming of the Christ" (leader of nonviolent resistance and boycotte) against prevailing, invincible force that rules ruthlessly (aka "The Beast"). I am quite sure that this was aimed against Roman Empire.

Re:Well you know

[dswan69]

The most serious problem in the EU is that it is controlled by unelected bureaucrats. These people are friends with big business and they are in no way accountable. It's a recipe for disaster.

Re:Well you know

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's any consolation, there's an increasing trend among people I know. This sample is heavily biased towards college students, but there's significant agreement that:

1. The system's currently fatally flawed/infected/whatever.
2. We need to do something (fix it/leave/other).

Admittedly, this is heavily biased towards particularly geeky college students (although it seems to apply to most slashdot readers), but it's still interesting to note and fairly promising.

If you are geeks who wish to fix the flaws, create basis for technical means of DIRECT, ONLINE, DEMOCRACY (decision making by instant online nation polls and initiatives), of ALLOCATING portions of your TAX to purposes YOU yourself CHOOSE (without giving power to some crooked politician to spend them the way his corporate supporters payed him to do), this kind of things. When you have it done, TELL everyone that it exists and everyone will recognize it is A Good Thing that is worth pushing. For the first time in human history, not only small polises but big nations too CAN have DIRECT democracy, without significant, corruptive representatives. The only "down" is that, once people gain greater significance, media spin will get even worse. Oh, and of course, before it even comes to that, "Old Turks" never give up power without prying it from their cold, dead hands. But, first, new world has to become POSSIBLE and DEZIREABLE. There is not much that can be said against democracy so I hope there would not be much wide opposition to that. But still, the old are cunning!

Beware (not You and Your friends but you as whole generation)! "They" (the winners and helmsmen of this flawed system) will activate protecting mechanism they used every time before: serve you a bait, show you the apparent way of doing it, just to channel your energy to nowhere and dissipate it. From the end of WWII (perhaps even before) till today it is ever returning pattern and entertainment industry is government's darling exactly because it is main device for "engineering of souls". Most visible, remembered and massive waste of dissatisfaction energy (except for the "communism" diversion in Russia 1918.) was in 60's (hippies).

Keep your mind clear and keep seeking for improvements. A new perspective is much needed. If you are eager to act, be sure to resist urge for violence, it was deliberately and carefully planted in our minds thru mass culture for decades, to help discredit any new rebelian movement as "mad, barbaric, TERRORIST". Preach to anyone who listens nonviolence, restrainment from psychoactive substances and boycotte of anything used as excuse for taking our freedoms out. Preach "routing around obstacles" on the way to freedom.

Re:Well you know

[dswan69]

"And Europeans wonder why a lot of people in the US don't trust the idea of a world court"

Err no, that's because the US government/military has every intention of repeating the past and committing crimes which would be punishable in such a court.

"Whatever happened to national sovereignty?"

Yes US government, whatever happened to national sovereignty. Oh sorry, my mistake, you meant US national sovereignty. Doesn't apply to anyone else does it?

Re:Well you know

[EvilNTUser]

So Danish politicians were smart enough to not do what the EU wanted, and Finnish politicians were too stupid to stand up for us. Fine. But that doesn't mean it's not due to the EU that this is happening.

Re:Well you know

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point! I'm a Finn and have been following this very closely for actually some months now until this sad culmination.

The way EFFI and other watch groups have understood it, and the way it indeed has seemed on newspapers, the main reason for this failure for a law is utter technical incompetence among the politicians who formulated the law -- and the parliament who then passed it.

The don't even know who to ask for advice, and that's sad. They should know that, in this day and age. "Information Society" indeed...

Curiously, one guy deeply involved in the birth of this law happens to be the former head of Gramex, Finland's equivalent of RIAA... (okay it's not that bad -- but certainly it's a glaring issue of self-interest here).

BTW, if I've understoof the repercussions correctly, this law among other things makes watching DVDs and listening to CDs on a Linux PC illegal. Funny, that. The entire userbase is suddenly all criminals. Maybe we'll just try to get it under a single "reverse class action" suit and then lawyer-pool to save expenses...

Re:Well you know

[Anonymous Coward]

I basically agree with your thesis, but I think you're not being quite cynical enough. You claim that the United States is applying its laws beyond its own boundaries, but this is somewhat misleading since we do not even follow our own laws when we do things outside the US. As one example, consider the Bush Administration's legal justification for what we are doing in Guantanamo Bay: US criminal laws do not apply there, so aliens held there do not get Fifth Amendment protections (namely, due process). (Reference)

Is that a sound legal argument? Well, a court would have to decide that. But Guantanamo Bay is outside the jurisdiction of US courts...

Re:Well you know

[BeeRockxs]

Wrong, the problem is that the national governemnts have leeway in applying the EU directive into local law. Of course your national government can make penalties harsher than the minimum specified in the EU directive.

Re:Well you know

[Grishnakh]

Throughout recorded history, humanity has struggled against itself to evolve a system of government which cannot be corrupted by the selfishness of men; we still haven't found one that works for a large enough number of people. I don't know if such a system exists, but it seems we're destined to keep trying until we either find out or destroy ourselves utterly.

I know of one: we subjugate ourselves to alien overlords. Then we don't have to worry about the selfishness of humans, only of aliens. At least we won't have to blame ourselves any more for our misery.

Re:Well you know

[Grishnakh]

Whether or not the U.S. is "so successful" depends on how you look at it. As a U.S. citizen, I'm starting to wonder how long it will be before things break down if they keep heading in their current direction. For the past century the federal government has been gaining more and more power over the states,

I would think the economic success of the USA over the past 150 years is certainly undeniable. Maybe things have gone a little differently over the past 5 years, but that's just a drop in the bucket.

Notice how the US was most economically successful during the times when it was a union, but the states still preserved a lot of power, whereas recently with the Fed gaining more power things are getting worse. I don't think this is a coincidence. The European model of many small countries and many currencies was economically a huge burden; imagine how the US would have fared if we had followed that model instead of uniting under a Federal government. Having to exchange money every time you drive across a state line would be quite a pain. Instead, we had a single currency, and a single government to deal with defense and international trade relations, and didn't have any tariffs between states. This is what Europe has done now, at least on the economic side, with the EU: no tariffs and a single currency. It's working quite well from what I can tell.

The problem is when you give the Federal government too much power; then it pushes all kinds of stupid laws on everyone, rather than allowing the individual states to decide, and this hampers all the progress we made by having a union. The Europeans need to watch out for this or they're going to have the same problem.

Re:Well you know

[Grishnakh]

Define successful. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but it would take over $140,000 from each and every...

That's now. You're thinking too short-term. 50-75 or more years ago, what was the national debt? Nothing I imagine. This country's most successful economic times were in the past, when the Federal government had much less power than it currently wields.

So....

[maynard]

....You can smoke pot, but don't you dare illegally download music! Hmmm.... --M

Re:So....

[rovingeyes]

Actually smoking pot, I believe, is still illegal in Finland. Nonetheless your point is well taken. With actions and speech being illegal as long as it is related to music is not music to any ear.

Re:So....

[ZigiSamblak]

You can smoke pot, but don't you dare illegally download music! Hmmm....

I don't see what's so strange about that...

Cigarettes and alcohol kill more than a million people each year yet they are perfectly legal in most countries where downloading copyrighted material is illegal.

Fortunatly for me, in the Netherlands they are both legal. :)

Re:So....

[maynard]

Yes... I appear to have mistaken laws in the Netherlands with laws in Finland. My bad... --M

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I am against downloading illegal music, but what's your point about weed? I've smoked it for plenty of years now, I'm smarter than the majority of people in my class. A's in maths, science, IT and english. It hasn't ever effected me in a negative way (except the obvious short-term memory whilst high --my memory is good otherwise-- and whiteys, which are rare). It helps me with creativity when it comes to programming projects and depending on how much I've smoked, it can greatly help my concentration (get the amount wrong and the complete opposite happens). The drug is being reclassified (already from B to C, and people are trying to get the laws laxed even more) for a reason.

The next time someone wants to talk about drugs being bad, pick one that is. I suggest heroin; nobody likes that except the people who get rich from it. Hell, even alcohol is worse than cannabis, and by a fucking huge distance. 50% of all deaths are alcohol related, it causes a lotta violence (at least here in the UK), we all know the problems with drink-driving, hangovers, doing things you regret with the world's ugliest people, liver damage, the list goes on and on. Compare the same things with cannabis and you'll be damn hard pushed to say weed's the worse of the two. Yet drink is completely legal and nobody gets prejudiced against people who drink.

Anyway, enough of my justification of weed. I think its pretty safe to assume this isn't the first time that laws have seemily stupid punishments compared to other minor (at least in the view of anyone with common sense) offences.

Re:So....

[FidelCatsro]

*Disclaimer* I dislike the Recording industry with a passion*disclaimer*

But you are saying that choosing what you put into your own body
is somehow worse than infringing on the rights of an artist to make a profit from their hard work .

Bloody prohibition

Re:So....

[BinLadenMyHero]

Why is the parent modded down (until now)?

All he said is true. I say that by having a very similar experience with weed.

Re:So....

[Fred_A]

Cars kill lots of people, disable a lot more, are a major source of pollution and yet they are legal everywhere.

What brings in wealth to established businesses is legal, what doesn't is illegal.

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

Aww. This post so doesn't make sense:)

First, pot is illegal in Finland (surprise?). Second, it isn't terribly harmful so the comparision doesn't make sense. Third, you can still download music illegally. What the law is after is mostly perfectly legitimate stuff. (or what used to be so)

Re:So....

[roadkill-maker]

You mean alcohol is more dangerous in large doses. Studies have shown that alcohol in a moderate amount is one of the better things for longterm health (Keyword being moderate).

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

Marijuana Linked to Schizophrenia, Depression
Study finds young users especially vulnerable

By Adam Marcus
HealthScoutNews Reporter

THURSDAY, Nov. 21 (HealthScoutNews) -- As many as one in seven cases of schizophrenia could be prevented by eradicating marijuana.

That's the contention of a new study of Swedish soldiers that found smoking pot increases the risk of the psychiatric disorder by about 30 percent.

The Swedish study is one of three reports in this week's British Medical Journal linking marijuana to emotional problems, including depression and anxiety, as well as schizophrenia.

Some scientists believe marijuana doesn't cause psychiatric illness. Rather, they argue, people smoke it as a way to self-medicate. However, the authors of the Swedish study say their evidence suggests that now seems unlikely.

"It's not as good an explanation than the possibility that cannabis itself causes schizophrenia," says Dr. Stanley Zammit, a psychiatrist at the University of Wales College of Medicine in Cardiff and lead author of the new paper.

Zammit and his colleagues compared schizophrenia rates and marijuana use among more than 50,000 Swedish conscripts who participated in a 1969-1970 survey. Of those, 362, or about 0.7 percent, had been hospitalized with the disorder by 1996.

Of the 11 percent of the entire group that admitted ever trying marijuana, 73, or 1.4 percent, went on to be hospitalized for schizophrenia. The odds of having the disease grew as pot use climbed, reaching nearly a sevenfold increase in the men who used it 50 times or more but tried no other illegal drugs, the study says.

The effect was strongest among soldiers who developed schizophrenia within five years of entering the military. It held after the researchers accounted for use of alcohol and other drugs.

"You would expect that if there was a common reason for using substances, that would have eliminated" the influence of marijuana, Zammit says.

The second study in the British Medical Journal , of 759 New Zealanders, found that those who started smoking pot by the time they were 15 years old had quadruple the risk of non-users of being diagnosed by age 26 with schizophrenia and related disorders. That risk didn't hold for people who began taking the drug at age 18 or later. The study also found that 10 percent of the young smokers went on to develop psychosis, compared with 3 percent of the rest of the study group.

Louise Arseneault, a psychiatrist at King's College, London, and a co-author of the study, says marijuana use "predisposes" children to schizophrenia later in life.

"It's part of a complex group of causes. You don't need to smoke cannabis to have schizophrenia," Arseneault says. "A lot of people have it who didn't smoke, and a lot smoke but don't get it."

In the third study, scientists in Australia found that teens who smoked marijuana at least once a week were twice as likely as less frequent users to suffer depression or anxiety over the next seven years. Girls who used the drug every day had between five and six times the rate of these conditions as non-users.

The study also found that teens with emotional problems at the beginning of the study weren't more likely to take up marijuana in the future -- suggesting that self-medication wasn't a factor.

Michael Lynskey, a psychiatrist at Washington University in St. Louis and a co-author of the Australian study, says he "wouldn't want to make a definitive statement either way" about whether marijuana causes psychosis or depression. Even a doubling of the risk of depression is considered a relatively small increase, he says. So the effect of marijuana is probably modest.

However, research shows that people who take THC, the active ingredient in pot, to control nausea are more prone to depression, Lynskey says. He considers that "strong evidence" that marijuana can play a role in depression.

Re:So....

[huge colin]

Um, no. Those things that we must have to have a productive and smoothly functioning civilization must be legal. That's why cars are legal.

Re:So....

[huge colin]

I've smoked it for plenty of years now, I'm smarter than the majority of people in my class. A's in maths, science, IT and english.

Wow, the fact that you got A's in school is definitely proof that you're smart.

Re:So....

[Roadstar]

Actually, according to the new legislation, it is a lesser offense to download an illegal than to rip a copy-protected CD-wannabe (as we all know, those lookalike thingies don't conform to the standards) you have paid for. To top all that, we get the restriction on discussing copy protection circumvention techniques. This is a really sad day for all us Finns, but at least we don't give up without a fight. According to all the IRC discussions I've been following, there seems to be a major uproar building up. In the meantime I have stopped buying records from all record companies that were demanding this law to be adopted. And I am far from alone with my boycott. Not to forget the fact that I used to buy rather many records (many times above the average consumption) on a yearly basis.

Previously I have more or less despised P2P networks, but now that the government is giving the signal that it's more OK to download an illegal copy than to apply fair use policy into stuff you've paid for, it seems like I'll have to start getting my music from illegal sources. Sure it's an offense in the new legislation too, but at least I'm not getting fined or jailed for that like I could get if I ripped a copy-protected record to my iPod.

This new legislation clearly shows what you can expect when you have the former Miss Finland as the Minister of Culture (no, I'm not kidding). I hope we can get a decent government in the next election. At least the voting statistics related to this law give us rather good guidelines on who not to vote. Meanwhile, as the government has regulated: Let the warez flow, but don't you dare to circumvent a copy protection, no matter how weak the so-called protection is.

Re:So....

[Grishnakh]

So how does this explain why cigarettes and alcohol are legal? Last time I checked, alcohol caused all sorts of death and destruction, both in the car and in the home.

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

A's in maths, science, IT and english. It hasn't ever effected me in a negative way

Effected? Who gave you an A in English?

Re:So....

[Arivia]

I'm curious...were any of the Finnish metal labels supporting this, and if so, which ones? I'd like to vote with my money properly, even if I'm buying it from a separate label.

Re:So....

[Fred_A]

If we were so concerned about a smoothly functionning civilization, we'd have come up with something better than cars by now. At least where the population density is sufficient.

Re:So....

[Bega]

Almost...

...but ironically -- AFAIK, IANAL, etc. if you rip a CD onto your MP3 player, you can get fined. However, if you illegally download the songs from the internet, you don't get fined, the authorities will just say "don't do it again".

Go figure. Sounds like some people had a major brainfart going on.

Re:So....

[Roadstar]

I forgot to mention that the youth organizations of nine different parties, i.e. all the significant parties from left to right were supporting the demonstration on Tuesday and opposing the new legislation. One could easily think that this extremely rare mutual agreement between youth organizations of parties with completely opposing political viewpoints would give the older (read: computer-illiterate) MPs a signal that there is something badly wrong with the new legislation. Did they get the hint? Obviously they didn't. Lobbyers 1 - Common sense & consumer rights 0.

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well gee, I guess the fact they got A's must mean they're retarded. You fucking asshat.

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno about the grandparent, but imho affected and effected have near enough the exact same meaning, and so I use them interchangeably and see no real reason to do otherwise. I guess using a word with (near enough) the same meaning as another one means they shouldn't have gotten their A, please forgive our stupidity.

But feel free to continue complaining about peoples spelling and grammar whilst we all get high and enjoy ourselves =D

Re:So....

[kesuki]

we did they're called 'trains' but people made money on 'trains' and it was bad. so the government stepped in and locked down where 'trains' could be built, what price 'trains' could charge etc.. etc.. and then along came someone by the name of Henry Ford, and he started building these 'horseless wagons' that one could use on ordinary roads, instead of these 'trains' that needed special tracks and had confounding schedules...

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

No one has any right to make a profit from work. No artist, corporation or anyone else has this right, it simply does not exist. A right that does not exist cannot be infringed, QED.

Re:So....

[Sj0]

If you take away the opiates of the masses, they believe the workers should own the means of production, which in turn makes for some really really bad countries.

Re:So....

[Grishnakh]

Ok, but this doesn't explain why marijuana is illegal then. If the gov't wants us to be too drugged up to mess things up, then pot should be legal along with booze and cigs. If the gov't wants to save us from ourselves, make us more healthy, etc., then it should ban all three. If it wants to make a compromise between really dangerous drugs and not-so-dangerous drugs, then pot should be legal while either alcohol or tobacco (or both) is banned, since those two are both highly addictive while pot is not addictive at all.

Re:So....

[Sj0]

Because self-righteousness is a greater opiate than Marijuana, and lets the government get away with far more things than Mary-Jane could.

Re:So....

[runderwo]

OK, so what's the causal mechanism? Without one, the cause and effect can be reversed - correlation != causation. And these sample sizes are absurdly low to draw any general conclusions from.

Just because cannabis use precedes a schizophrenia diagnosis means nothing. The diagnosis of schizophrenia does not tell us whether or not it was previously present or not. And furthermore, people with schizotypal symptoms (that precede schizophrenia) smoke cannabis at approximately a 60% rate. So the real question here is whether cannabis smoking sends schizotypal individuals over the edge into full schizophrenia, not whether it makes normal people into Reefer-Madness head cases.

Are the results statistically significant? That sample size is TINY. Did the study pass a T-test for statistical significance? Worldwide, more people use marijuana than ever today. Yet the incidence of mental illness has remained constant in the last 50 years. If marijuana use truly did cause mental illness, rather than the other way around, the incidence of mental illness should also have risen.

Something like 80-85% of schizophrenics smoke cigarettes. Does nicotine cause schizophrenia? Or is it more likely that the intoxicating effects of nicotine help schizophrenics to manage their state? What makes us think cannabis is a causal factor?

There is an article here that outlines most of the problems with the existing cannabis research. And it brings to light one of the only useful conclusions that has come out of all of the hysterics - that young people with a certain gene (that is present in 20-25% of people) are at risk for future mental illness if they use cannabis when they are under 18 - and this risk ONLY exists when they are under 18 and use it. Since nobody is reasonably suggesting cannabis use, or any intoxicant use, be generally legalized for minors, this is interesting trivia but of little relevance to cannabis policy for adults.

It does underscore one of the problems with the black market though - illegal sellers do not check ID. More minors report access to cannabis than they do alcohol and cigarettes. Clearly prohibition has failed at keeping cannabis from being available to minors.

Unfortunately the article is subscription only. But if you have a subscription, I hope you find it useful.

Re:So....

[ahodgson]

Lots of countries tried to outlaw alchohol and discovered that turning a large proportion of their citizens into criminals and feeding all that cash into organized crime wasn't such a great plan. The pity is that they didn't understand the same principle applies to other drugs.

Re:So....

[Fred_A]

Oddly enough, the rest of the world still uses railways for passenger transport. And it works fine. It's a shame that the history of the early 20th century deprived the US of a modern mean of transportation.

High speed trains could be used in place of plane links in lots of places there.

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

I thank you personally for taking a stand against this disgusting legislation. I realize I can't do a lot about EU directives (I live in the US), but I can give words of encouragement, so I will. When laws like these are passed, citizens who are educated about them feel betrayed by their governments, but we must not be discouraged! Forming alliances with like-minded people is the first step in restoring true dialogue between citizens and elected officials, and also spreading truth throughout our lands. Do not give up.

Re:So....

[FidelCatsro]

of course not .. but they have less of a right to tell me what I can and can't do to my own body

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

...the former Miss Finland as the Minister of Culture (no, I'm not kidding).

In case someone is interested: Some pictures.

Re:So....

[tbspit]

I dislike the Recording industry with a passion

You cannot dislike with a passion, you can hate with a passion.

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

"opiats of the mases" was an figure of speech in XIX century (in: "Religion is...") and is not reference to actual opiats. Remember, then, opiats were over the counter medication for psychological disorders. If bearded guy did write it today, he would probably rephrase it to: "prozac of the masses".

Re:So....

[amalek]

No government will be able to ban the sale of tobacco, much less the sale of alcohol. It doesn't make economic sense, the lobbyists simply won't let it happen and there'd be a revolution if they tried it in this day and age.
And for the record, pot *IS* addictive. You'll find out someday.

Re:So....

[Roadstar]

Unfortunately at least Spinefarm when speaking of more or less metal-oriented labels. You can see a local IFPI branch appeal in favor of the new legislation here. Even though the page is in Finnish, you can see the record companies some of signees represent. However, the listing may not be 100% accurate, as for the first time the listing appeared, it included also Sara Nunes in the group of signees, but as she stated on her web site, she does not agree with the appeal and her name was used without her permission. So you can only guess who else have unwillingly "signed" the appeal.

Re:So....

[Lars Clausen]

> *Disclaimer* I dislike the Recording industry with a passion*disclaimer*
>
> But you are saying that choosing what you put into your own body
> is somehow worse than infringing on the rights of an artist to make a profit from their hard work .

No, he's saying that choosing what you put into your own body[1] is somehow worse than choosing what to do with an item you've bought -- even without infringing any rights.

-Lars

[1] Which may lead to hospitalization or disability, costing the state $many.

Re:So....

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, but no, pot is not physically addictive. I've known plenty of occasional/recreational pot smokers, and none of them were addicted. It's quite easy for them to go without smoking it for months at a time. Not so for any tobacco smokers I've known in my whole life.

It might be psychologically addictive, but anything can be psychologically addictive (such as porn, Slashdot, etc.), so that doesn't really mean much.

Re:So....

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like China, with healthy bicycle usage? Or intelligently designed mini-cluster cities with needs within walking distance, like 'downtown' used to be? We'd need to overcome White Flight, high condos prices, the death of grocery delivery, more. But clustered together would make it easy for our future fascist governments to gather us up for our death march.

Not to worry though. Our Christian theocracy Will solve this in our post-apocalyptic nuclear nightmare horror future.

We'll revert to animal/tribal roots, scrapping with each other over resources like food.

I recommend we eat the RIAA/MPAA fat cats first. They taste like chicken.

Re:So....

[huge colin]

Well gee, I guess the fact they got A's must mean they're retarded. You fucking asshat.

Did you consider that the fact they got A's means nothing at all? Because that's actually the case. I got A's in school, and it was because I cynically manipulated the system, not because I tried hard or knew anything. Grades in school do not, by any stretch of the imagination, correspond to intelligence.

Re:So....

[huge colin]

So how does this explain why cigarettes and alcohol are legal?

Um... it doesn't, and I'm not claiming that it should. What I'm saying is that things we need for our society to work must be legal. I'm not saying the converse, which would be: all things that are legal, our society must need.

Banning Discussion?

[TubeSteak]

Italics are from the original text

Worryingly, even "organized discussion" on how to circumvent copy protection mechanisms, will be illegal. (and no, Finland doesn't have similar to American Supreme Court that determines whether laws are against constitution, but when laws are approved, they by default are in harmony with constitution and can't be later overturned on basis that they are un-constitutional)

While you can't argue unconstitutionality, can't citizens claim that tihs clause violates various human rights accords?

Or maybe not, England (as a European example) has fairly restrictive free speech laws

Re:Banning Discussion?

[drijen]

I wonder if they were thinking of online forums and such. Unless they want to buy a piece of the Great Firewall of China, thats a worthless piece of legislation. Even if they did find a way to block forums based in other countries, how will they control IRC/IM?

This is ridiculous, politicians need to quit palying with the pretty colored fire.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[shawn(at)fsu]

various human rights accords?

Not that I agree with Finland's action, what human rights could you use as an argument to being able to bypass DRM's? Doesn't this just come back to if you don't like it don't buy it? When I think Human Right's I think of "The United Nations Agreements on Human Rights". When you have conventions like protection against torture, whining about DRM's just seems so (for lack of a better word) petty.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[illium]

the law is there to punish people after they do it, not to stop them. so who needs controls for that? just punish whoever you feel like, whenever you feel like! just like speeding laws... the chinese way however is very different. they want to control the information coming into the country because the information itself is dangerous to them.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[rovingeyes]

Or maybe not, England (as a European example) has fairly restrictive free speech laws

Hmmm...ever read their tabloids?

Re:Banning Discussion?

[thisissilly]

They will not be able to control forums and IRC/IM -- but that's not the point. The point is it will give them yet another crime to charge you with.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[sedyn]

This article is a little misleading, the word approved has a hidden meaning in it.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you mean the UK (England is one component of it)? Not so - you can pretty much say anything you want, but you ARE liable for it - in other words you can be sued for libel. There's no "restrictions" per se.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[MoonBuggy]

I wouldn't say that we have particularly bad free speech issues here in England - I'm not aware of any laws that prevent me from saying things here in the UK that you couldn't where you are (US?). What we do have is very little protection against unreasonable policing. Basically I can say what I like without too much fear, but if I start doing things that fall under some very vague criteria and make the cops suspicious they can stop me, search me, search my house, hold me for 14 days without charge under terror laws, shoot me in the head a few times and then try to cover it up and obstruct the investigation...

Note that I do not intend this as an insult to the many police officers that do their job well. What worries me is that there is so little protection against those who don't.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[sedyn]

Why wouldn't you want to insult the police, it's not like they can do anything to you.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[NickFortune]

Foolish.

What they desire is the surpression of information that could be used to circumvent copyright. Once the illegality of such information is established, a pretext will exist to implement censorship of incoming data.

You think this information isn't dangerous to those interests that lobbied for this law?

Re:Banning Discussion?

[MightyMartian]

I wouldn't say that we have particularly bad free speech issues here in England - I'm not aware of any laws that prevent me from saying things here in the UK that you couldn't where you are (US?). What we do have is very little protection against unreasonable policing. Basically I can say what I like without too much fear, but if I start doing things that fall under some very vague criteria and make the cops suspicious they can stop me, search me, search my house, hold me for 14 days without charge under terror laws, shoot me in the head a few times and then try to cover it up and obstruct the investigation...

Well, I'm afraid what you suffer from isn't overpolicing, but liars, maniacs and incompetents in uniform, and a weak-kneed government unable or unwilling to do what's needed.

Note that I do not intend this as an insult to the many police officers that do their job well. What worries me is that there is so little protection against those who don't.

Well, the real problem is the so-called "good" cops are too wrapped up in the buddy system to oust the idiots and lunatics, and too busy making excuses for them.

I've always been of the opinion that, because of the powers police have, they ought to serve double-time upon conviction of an offense. Police just too easily fall into the "us-vs-them" mentality, and only extraordinarily harsh laws forcing them to give up the bad apples and walk the straight line themselves will do. Every police officer involved in the murder of that Brazilian ought to rot in ahole for a decade, and each forfeit all pensions and assets to the family.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[NickFortune]

Or maybe not, England (as a European example) has fairly restrictive free speech laws

Hmmm...ever read their tabloids?

Frequently, alas. What's your point?

It's an honest question, BTW.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying that "terrorism is justified" will shortly become illegal in the UK. And it is the Home Secretary who decides what "terrorism" is. Gulp.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition to the laws that aim to prevent you from inciting hate speech, there is the RIP act. This allows the police to demand that you hand over any encryption keys in your posession and makes it an offence to reveal to anyone that they have done so. So you can forget about revoking your PGP key.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[NickFortune]

...and a weak-kneed government unable or unwilling to do what's needed.

Oh, I don't know. They've shown them selves capable of steely resolve in the face of overwhelming pressure not to, say, launch a war of aggression against an oil rich nation. Or in defending the profits of overseas corporation from the best interests of the electorate, for example.

Corrupt, venal, deluded, increasingly paranoid, cynical, self serving... there are so many adjectives I'd consider before I resorted to "weak".

Re:Banning Discussion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Under UK law they can arrest you for no reason, they can forcibly take blood, DNA and bodily fluid samples, that can hold you in a cell for several days (Blair is trying to make this weeks under the "terrorism" banner). All this was put into law in the 80s under the "criminal justice bill". A bill that also included arresting people standing around talking, and arresting anyone going to a "rave", or where they played "repetitive beat music".

Fortunately it isn't exercised, but it's blooming well there if any law enforcement wants to use it.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[Ironsides]

Link

While I may not like racist speach, it is still a restriction on what you can say. Last time I checked I could call another person in the US anything I liked without getting arrested.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[legirons]

"in England, [they can] hold me for 14 days without charge under terror laws"

Keep up with the news -- it's 3 months without trial now for people who annoy police officers, and if you don't object to that (nobody can) then it will soon increase.

Fair trials? They're some historical thing, like catholocism and Archery practise...

Re:Banning Discussion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read George Monbiot Protesters are Criminals published in "The Guardian"

Re:Banning Discussion?

[Alsee]

can't citizens claim that tihs clause violates various human rights accords?

Europe's version of "Right to Free Speech" is more of a "Right to Speak Responsibly", which pretty much means you are free to say anything that isn't illegal.

-

Re:Banning Discussion?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Under UK law they can arrest you for no reason, they can forcibly take blood, DNA and bodily fluid samples, that can hold you in a cell for several days (Blair is trying to make this weeks under the "terrorism" banner). All this was put into law in the 80s under the "criminal justice bill".

I challenge almost everything you just wrote. Chapter and verse, please.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not qualified to answer for England but I know what the situation is in Finland (where I live). A law student friend of mine worked for a while as an intern at a tabloid and said that since the amounts paid in compensation for libel are so small (by law) here, tabloids see it as "the cost of doing business". So if they know that a headline such as "(some celebrity name) raped goat!" sells many copies it's worth it even though they might have to pay compensation and admit that it was a factual error afterwards since by then people have already forgotten that and are more interested in "(another celebrity name) fucked sheep!"...

Re:Banning Discussion?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Wow. You must have a real anti-authority complex.

The police, by and large, don't have an us-and-them mentality. In fact, I've met a fair few over the years (not because I was being investigated/arrested myself, usually via other shared interests) and they were pretty much all thoroughly nice people, the sort you'd actually want to be policing your country.

In fact, the police often do get hit harder than an average citizen if they're found guilty of committing a crime, starting with the fact that in addition to the court proceedings and resulting sentence, they'll typically be up for an internal review that is quite likely to end their career. All accidents involving a police driver automatically have to be investigated by a traffic officer. Firearms incidents have pretty strict rules about investigation. And so it goes.

Your comment about the innocent Brazilian shot in London seems rather premature. If it's clear that someone has lost it and killed a man, then yes, of course they should be sent down like any other murderer. Something clearly went badly wrong that day, a proper investigation should be carried out, and there should be consequences for anyone who truly did the wrong thing. But I don't think we have that information yet; there are still too many conflicting reports, and it's gone all quiet on the official investigation after the PCA (I think) strongly criticised an early leak.

On the other hand, we the Joe Citizens rely on the protection of armed officers against some of the nastiest people around, and you have to remember that they are in a position where you don't always have 100% of the information, you don't always have the luxury of time to consider your action, and making a mistake is very likely to cost someone their life. The best trained, most talented guys with the best integrity in the world couldn't score full marks in that position. People who say, with the luxury of hindsight and (if they've bothered to find out the full facts rather than just jumping to a knee-jerk conclusion) information, that all the cops involved in a bad shooting should be sent down are the reason that all the firearms cops threaten to refuse to carry their weapons en masse, resulting in reduced protection for everyone.

Your position is poorly informed, poorly thought-out, and untenable.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

That wasn't (+1, Interesting), it was (-1, Blatant Troll).

For the benefit of those who can't be bothered with facts when moderating, the three month proposal is one of Blair and co's worst efforts to date, and has been pretty solidly smashed from all sides (including some of his own). It's not currently law, nor ever likely to become so. Even the current 14 day rule has been heavily criticised.

Even under the super-draconian three month proposal, judicial supervision would be required, and the authorities would have to continue making their case every few days in order to keep someone in custody for an extended period.

Trials in this country, by and large, are very fair. (I've been in court as a third party witness and seen our justice system in action; I found it to be reassuringly unbiased and professionally conducted.) I strongly disagree, as do many others, with a few parts of our legislation and the continued use of the over-hyped terror threat by the government as the justification for giving up the basic principles of our justice system, and I look forward to seeing many of these measures dismantled again in the near future after Blair is kicked out.

Fortunately, the ruling Labour party have kindly sealed their own tomb just recently. Firstly, they admitted that their flagship ID card proposals wouldn't have prevented the terrorist attacks in London - nothing has been said by anyone in government about that plan since, AFAIK, and I suspect the whole idea has been quickly shelved for the foreseeable future since the opposition now have an obvious and emotionally strong sound-bite to kill it with. Then, the government's over-powerful anti-terror legislation was invoked by police officers outside their own party conference, in order to hold an 82-year-old party member who'd already been physically removed from the building after heckling the Foreign Secretary when he claimed that we were only in Iraq for noble reasons. Presumably this 57-year veteran member of the party who escaped Nazi Germany is considered a potential terrorist by the government, then?

I predict with some confidence that the next government -- which will almost certainly be under either Gordon Brown or the leader of a different political party -- will seek to gain early credibility with the electorate by sorting out the hash that New Labour have made of our anti-terror laws. Until then, we will have to content ourselves that even now, it's nowhere near as bad as the parent post claims.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Something clearly went badly wrong that day, a proper investigation should be carried out, and there should be consequences for anyone who truly did the wrong thing

Like the politicians who decided that SAS assassins should run around pretending to be police? Don't be ridiculous; the people who made those decisions will never be punished.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[Petrushka]

I don't know where the stuff about bodily fluids and DNA came from, but the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, taken together, allow for any individual to be marked by the Secretary of State for detention (normally, it seems, in the form of house arrest, though that is not specified), or almost any other kind of restriction on movement, ownership of anything, etc etc, for an indefinite period (renewable 12 months at a time), without court intervention. In the 2005 act, see especially section 1 (what kinds of restrictions can be placed), section 2 (the Secretary of State can do anything he damn well pleases), and section 6 (you may be restricted forever).

Here's an especially good paragraph, from section 2:

(9) It shall be immaterial, for the purposes of determining what obligations may be imposed by a control order made by the Secretary of State, whether the involvement in terrorism-related activity to be prevented or restricted by the obligations is connected with matters to which the Secretary of State's grounds for suspicion relate.

So suspicion of terrorist activity, and hence restrictions, may be based on anything the Secretary of State feels like.

There's also a nice summary of the situation on Wikipedia. I especially like the quirk whereby an individual's human rights may legally be curtailed in the UK if the UK government decides that deportation would lead to the individual's human rights being curtailed in his/her home country.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[Petrushka]

Keep up with the news -- it's 3 months without trial now for people who annoy police officers

Or forever, if you annoy the Secretary of State.

Re:Banning Discussion?

[MightyMartian]

On the other hand, we the Joe Citizens rely on the protection of armed officers against some of the nastiest people around, and you have to remember that they are in a position where you don't always have 100% of the information, you don't always have the luxury of time to consider your action, and making a mistake is very likely to cost someone their life.

I'm not so sure any more that I actually feel safer having cops run around with guns. Not until those enormous powers they wield are weighted with harsh sentences for incompetence. This isn't some guy blowing a million dollar contract. It's armed men and women.

The best trained, most talented guys with the best integrity in the world couldn't score full marks in that position. People who say, with the luxury of hindsight and (if they've bothered to find out the full facts rather than just jumping to a knee-jerk conclusion) information, that all the cops involved in a bad shooting should be sent down are the reason that all the firearms cops threaten to refuse to carry their weapons en masse, resulting in reduced protection for everyone.

The problem is that I don't really have any confidence that police will tell the truth about it. They've got a lot to lose by admitting that they should be seen as morons.

Your comment about the innocent Brazilian shot in London seems rather premature.

Nobody, not even the contemptible fools (who deserve to be put in a room with the family unarmed and tied down for a few minutes) deny the man was innocent. At best, it was worthless morons who should be given nerf bats and regular doses of whatever sedative will make them into the simpering idiots they truly are. At worst, they're trigger happy "heroes" who bagged an innocent guy running for a train. Yessirree, London's a safer place with guys like that carrying firearms.

If it's clear that someone has lost it and killed a man, then yes, of course they should be sent down like any other murderer.

Which we all know, even if it is determined that they were mentally deranged trigger happy gun-boys, won't happen. At worst, they'll lose their jobs.

Something clearly went badly wrong that day, a proper investigation should be carried out, and there should be consequences for anyone who truly did the wrong thing.

I think we all know what "proper investigation" means in police parlance in most countries. It means "make us look pretty and beautiful and whatever happens, never admit we're bungling oafs".

But I don't think we have that information yet; there are still too many conflicting reports, and it's gone all quiet on the official investigation after the PCA (I think) strongly criticised an early leak.

By "leak", of course, is meant "somebody told the truth about what happened to that poor guy when mentally deranged London police officers decided to blow a hole in somebody's head".

I think the guys that ran this poor bugger down should at least have the guts to, on their dime, fly to Brazil, and explain how they killed that fellow. Think the "heroes" have the guts to do that? Might be a little harder than putting bullets in his head.

World Wide Government

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems the entire world is now a plutocracy, with all nations' laws up for the highest bidder.

Are there any legitimate governments (not owned by the MNCs) left at all?

It seems Finland is as bad or worse than my own (US) government. Very sad.

Re:World Wide Government

[Anonymous Coward]

Somalia. Money can't by what doesn't exist.

Re:World Wide Government

[loqi]

There's a scene in a great movie called Network that you should see. The scene (you'll know it when you see it) is a bit over-the-top, but gets the point across that people have been saying this for over thirty years.

Re:World Wide Government

[Wolfbone]

"Are there any legitimate governments (not owned by the MNCs) left at all?"

No - sorry. My investment company has spent a great deal of time and money on this technology and in acquiring and carefully placing these assets for our most valued clients. If you wanted your own you should have done something about it years ago. And don't think that you can steal any of our property by simply picking up the phone and saying, "Mr. Bush?... Mr. George Bush?... Mr. George Walker Bush?..." - for example. It won't work - we've added code words to the activation sequences now which we change regularly.

W. Olfbone,

CEO, Manchurian Global.

Re:World Wide Government

[brian.glanz]

"The term plutocracy indicates a form of government where all the state's decisions are centralized in an affluent wealthy class of citizenry and the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. ... This can apply to a multitude of government systems as these concepts transcend and often occur concomitantly with them. The word itself is derived from the ancient Greek root pluotos meaning wealth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

As evidenced by a spectrum of personal globalization from the rise of the Web to the rise of open sourceware to the rise of common humanity in tsunami relief, a significant meritocratic groundswell exists in which you can vest your hopes for righting plutocracy. When my wife and I visited tsunami relief efforts near Chennai this March, we saw firsthand that our actions from Anytown, USA can have immediate impact, anywhere in the world. We can take into our own hands some parts of the governance of the world, and we can do a more just job of it than the plutocrats.

Through NGOs like Asha for Education, we volunteer our resources and we have done more of certain types of good for tsunami victims than the Indian or Tamil Nadu State governments could do. Our efforts improved victims' lives immediately, effectively, personally, and in a longer lasting manner. In March we saw and it's true still today, NGOs we have funded and volunteered for are actively providing victims with the specific, personal help and resources they need. Asha for Education, for example, is a wholly volunteer organization. They are educating, and clothing and feeding and sheltering and nurturing, the children in India who are most in need. Some of the children they've educated are now adults, some of them here on /.

The plutocrats meanwhile have mismanaged scads of U.N. resources, most of that being from either USA/taxes and/or rerouted U.S. Red Cross donations. Governments have resisted helping victims where there was no additional financial gain for a corporate friend, votes to be won for politicians, or when there was no interest in another press conference with another film star. We saw examples of this on the ground in Tamil Nadu, too. Something like a "housing contract" would be handed out like just another party favor. In turn the lowest quality, even unusable shelters have been constructed by the plutocrats, who believe they have thus maximized their socioeconomic profits.

When I talk about the power "we" have and the change "we've" wrought, I should say that yes I am personally involved but I mean We The People, not of the USA but the people, all people. We more of meritos, though less of plutos. We of more veritas than the profiteers.

The network is the computer, and we are the network.

Re:World Wide Government

[danila]

Are there any legitimate governments (not owned by the MNCs) left at all?
Yep. Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, Belarus and a couple of others. By the people for the people. They may not be the richest countries (after all, there aren't any Fourth World countries to exploit), but at least the government feels a responsibility to care for the citizens and laws aren't bought by the highest corporate bidder.

P.S. And please, I don't want to hear any BS complaints about "human rights abuse". These countries may have a couple hundreds political prisoners and may limit organised opposition, but is that really worse than killing people randomly in the Tube or letting corporation extort money from 12-year-old girls and disabled single moms?

Re:World Wide Government

[Grishnakh]

Sure. North Korea. As long as it's in the hands of a psycho, MNCs won't be able to buy any influence there.

Iran is also not owned by MNCs, as far as I can tell. Of course, they're moving quickly to fundamentalist Islam theocracy... Afghanistan was most certainly not owned by MNCs before the USA invaded. Of course, it really sucked to be there if you were female and accidentally exposed your forearm in public.

Abdication of Responsibility

[Infernal Device]

It's interesting to note that the government claims it won't pursue those who break the copying law for personal use. Isn't it the duty of Government to pursue those who break it's laws? While the people might seem to have a right to break those laws they feel are unjust, I wasn't aware that this was an ability granted to the Government.

Re:Abdication of Responsibility

[gunpowda]

Circumventing copy protections, even for personal use, will be illegal. (it states so in the law, even tho the government tried to argue that the right wont be pursued by government, but nothing stops record labels, movie studios, etc to do so)

Letting a government pass a law that encompasses a certain ability to do something on the basis that they've argued they won't use it is quite worrying.

There must be more to this.

Re:Abdication of Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. "Personal Use" is defined as use by YOU, the PURCHASER of the copyrighted material, being able to copy the material as much as you like, as long as it's only for YOU, and not for others.

Re:Abdication of Responsibility

[TubeSteak]

Every country, state, county, city, town has a rediculous number of laws that are either not enforced, are unenforcable, or have been superseeded by newer laws.

Gov't rarely goes through the process of 'cleaning out the books' by nullifying antiquated laws.

Last week I read a news story about two cousins who got into a knife fight and were prosecuted under an 1846 anti-dueling law. http://news.google.com/news?q=anti-dueling

Re:Abdication of Responsibility

[PhrostyMcByte]

IANAL but wouldn't copyright infringment be a civil matter?

Re:Abdication of Responsibility

[dj245]

Letting a government pass a law that encompasses a certain ability to do something on the basis that they've argued they won't use it is quite worrying. There must be more to this.

In my part of the world we use laws like these to persecute individuals we find personally offensive while the rest of the populace gets off with a free pass

Re:Abdication of Responsibility

[Infernal Device]

Re-read the article. As I understand it, copying for "personal use" would be made illegal. Whether or not it should be illegal is immaterial to this particular discussion - this is about what the law states.

Re:Abdication of Responsibility

[Angstroem]

or have been superseeded by newer laws

You mean, for each stupid law weeded out there are 10 more growing back?

Re:Abdication of Responsibility

[rovingeyes]

I wasn't aware that this was an ability granted to the Government

Who knows, may be they passed a law to make it possbile!

Re:Abdication of Responsibility

[Conception]

Many aren't fan of Ayn Rand, but she talks a lot about this in Atlas Shrugged. Of the idea that the "looters" buy up the government and basically make it so everyone is a criminal. That it's practically impossible to not break the law. Then they, the looters, can go and control you. If you disagree with them or their policies, oh look! You're a criminal. Time to prosecute.

Re:Abdication of Responsibility

[Derekloffin]

Ah, government... never has an institution of such importance lowered my expectations for humanity so much. This is just pathetic, and worrisome doesn't even come close to describing it. Right in their own declaration they make something illegal, yet say they won't enforce it. Then why was it made illegal you twits?! You just gave sanction to every idiot with some authority to selectively prosecute as they please. That should never be tolerated. Laws are supposed to be universal, not selective. The really sad thing is this isn't limited to Finland by any means, every country on the planet is guilty of this kind of *bleep* I'm sure.

Re:Abdication of Responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Every country, state, county, city, town has a rediculous number of laws that are either not enforced, are unenforcable, or have been superseeded by newer laws.

Which are only applied to people that the 'man' is trying to annoy/hurt.

Re:Abdication of Responsibility

[Alsee]

In my part of the world we use laws like these to persecute individuals we find personally offensive while the rest of the populace gets off with a free pass

Would that be the part of the world above the molten core and below the stratosphere? Chuckle.

-

Re:Abdication of Responsibility

[dswan69]

The government and more particularly the police have always had this option. They can choose to ignore the law up to a point. For instance in many civilised countries the police are told to ignore small-scale drug possession and use - i.e. don't waste the court's time with someone carrying a couple of MDMA tablets.

Holy crap...

[Jesselnz]

This actually makes me glad to be an american... for the first time in a while...

Re:Holy crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, savor that enjoyment, for it will dissappear soon.

Re:Holy crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, I'll fix it for you:

Heh, you $(NAME_OF_COUNTRY)ians and your so-called free country :)

Re:Holy crap...

[crkpot]

I can understand but also as an American and musician with two records as of yet as well as several released songs I have to state some of this makes sense. I do believe as a musician it is nice to be compensated for my art. If Americans want to change this why dont they work on offering artist grants in exchange for open art as they say. I believe if an artist wants to release his or her art free of charge that is his or her decision but who gives anyone else the right to take it. For God sake I can't just walk into a concert and blab off that this is art and I have the freedom to hear it if I so choose. I should have the right as any business to charge people for my art and not have to be concerned with whether it is enforceable if someone decides to steal it. The real problem is the big record companies. I am dumbfounded by the fact I get such a little amount from my CD sales. This is rediculous. I agree that the average consumer says "I dont want to pay that" So be it but that DOES NOT give you the right as an American or anyone else for that matter to jump in and take it. For me even making as little as I do from record sales, it is an ethical issue.

Re:Holy crap...

[EvilNTUser]

"This actually makes me glad to be an american... for the first time in a while..."

Do you remember where all this neo-copyright bullshit started? Do you remember what corporations lobbied the EU to pass this legislation?

Re:Holy crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's an American, of course he doesn't!

Re:Holy crap...

[rovingeyes]

Ok, I get it - we are doing it over there so we don't have to do it here?

Re:Holy crap...

[dajak]

This actually makes me glad to be an american... for the first time in a while...

Why? Because the current US government's inefficiency somehow makes up for it's destructiveness? The US government is moving in the same direction; It just takes it longer to get there.

Re:Holy crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can do what you want and call it art, however you can no longer sell it because there no longer exists a viable business model under which to do so. Congratulations, please add your 'profession' to the list of jobs that were obsoleted by technology.

Re:Holy crap...

[Jherek Carnelian]

Do you remember where all this neo-copyright bullshit started? Do you remember what corporations lobbied the EU to pass this legislation?

Here's a hint -- he did not say, "I am glad to be an American mega-corporation."

He glad that as an American, at least we still have a semblence of governmental sanity that such laws have not been sucessfully passed ... yet.

Re:Holy crap...

[olman]

Do you remember where all this neo-copyright bullshit started? Do you remember what corporations lobbied the EU to pass this legislation?

Leastways this will hopefully shoot to neck the stupid smug superiority/inferiority complex we have about americans. Of course we're smarter. Of course Yankees pass stupid laws. Of course we'd anything as insane as DMCA couldn't happen over here. Except it did.

Now here's to wonder whether my modded Xbox and PS2 already make me a criminal. Or if it just happens the next time I rip an Xbox game into the HDD for easier access..

Re:Holy crap...

[dswan69]

Why? Because your equivalent law was passed 7 years earlier?

Re:Holy crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA is an American law, you retard.

Copyrights? What happened to democratic rights?

[ZigiSamblak]

despite the public critique even in mainstream media, the parties currently in coalition government decided to approve the legislation

Is it just me or is the tendency of so-called "democratic" governments to make laws that seem to please big companies and p-off just about everybody else seem very "undemocratic"? I wonder if people are forgetting it's their rights they ought to be defending, not defending big companies against citizens wanting to exercise their right to make a copy of a CD or DVD they bought for private use for instance...

Re:Copyrights? What happened to democratic rights?

[alexandreracine]

Right here...

Re:Copyrights? What happened to democratic rights?

[kharchenko]

I also thought that government was getting carried away serving its own selfish interests, but then majority voted to reelect Bush. So the people have spoken. Now shut up and buy another DVD.

Re:Copyrights? What happened to democratic rights?

[dswan69]

Democracy and police state are not incompatible. It is one of those myths people have been brainwashed into believing, that democracy and freedom are equivalent.

In many countries, the US and UK included, you are left with a choice between sharks who have only their own interests at heart so you choose the less vicious shark or you simply don't vote.

It's nice to see

[$RANDOMLUSER]

That the entertainment cartel is getting their money's worth from the Finnish legislature.

More information here

[timeToy]

More information here:
http://www.effi.org/tekijanoikeus/laki/index.en.ht ml

Re:More information here

[Anonymous Coward]

This information is outdated!
There's more to read (in finnish only, sadly) at the homepage of Jyrki Kasvi - an elected techie (yes, they exists!) http://kasvi.org/index.php?278.

The link in the parent also contains more updated information in finnish, they haven't gotten around to translating that yet.

The links on that page lead to transscripts of the finnish congress (don't know the exact word in english) discussion regarding this law.

As one can see, owning a device for breaking encryption is no longer considered a crime in the new version of the law - because this would have made for example permanent markers illegal, as discussed in the links above.

What's truly worrying though is that the Finnish consumer rights department - a government organ - asked to be heard regarding this law, but the workgroup headed by our minister of culture Tanja Karpela (yes, she's considered Evil from now on) was not interested.
http://www.tietokone.fi/uutta/uutinen.asp?news_id= 24773 (text in finnish)

So the law that's beeing passed is better than the one describes in english, but it still sucks, as it is still illegal to break encryption to make personal copies. The grounds for this, as can be read from the transscripts, is that next-generation copy-protection can allow consumers to make a few personal copies (inferior quality is not mentioned, as far as i can see). The result is that it's left to the producers to arrange for copy-once-material. The effect of this law is supposed to be monitored, and if it threads too much on consumer rights then it's supposed to be "updated" in a couple of years.

To my understanding (i'm not really into lawmaking, and have mainly followed this through news media) the big change is in encrypted media. It's still legal to download divx-movies and mp3:s as before. What's changed is that copy-protected content that "requiers an effort to circumvent" cannot be opened for your own use (someone clearly knew about the press-shift-stuff). As before, distribution of copyrighted material to a not-closed group is illegal.
Linux (the kernel) is not illegal, linux-programs (and others) that can read non-music cd:s are not illegal to own, but if they are difficult to work then use of them is questionable.

Conclusion: let's all make user-friendly rippers!

Re:More information here

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still legal to download divx-movies and mp3:s as before.

Right in theory. The new law requires the source to be legit. For example, downloading a DVD rip is illegal as the copy-protection has been illegally circumvented according to finnish law. It used to be legal to make a personal copy of any published work and now it is only legal if the work is not copy-protected. The goverment will not sue you, but the industry can. I don't know if they will be able to get contact info from ISPs as this is a civil matter, not a criminal case.

Distribution is a crime. To my knowledge there is no precedent on whether bittorrent and the like constitute distribution when the intent is download. I think it could be argued in a sane court that the distribution is a secondary effect intended to make more efficient use of limited bandwith. In Canada placing a file for download is not distribution as the downloader actually initiates the transfer (the sharer is not actively distributing). Knowing how we finns stick to the letter of the law, I would not bet on this reasoning working here.

whoops...

[advocate_one]

Distributing (even for free) tools (whether physical devices or software) that allow circumventing copy protection mechanisms will be illegal. (this includes DVD rippers, tools that allow copying copy-protected CDs, etc)

[...]

Possession of tools that allow circumventing copy protection mechanisms will be illegal. Even for personal use.

there goes Linux... a wet dream for Microsoft... getting Linux outlawed...

So, basically -- buy a portable MP3 player and a copy-protected CD. And you can't copy the music from the CD to your MP3 player legally any more, as you'd break law if you circumvent the copy protection mechanism found on CD.

and there goes the entire point of owning a personal MP3 player... now the users will have to purchase any music specifically for that player, even if they already have it on CD...

Re:whoops...

[Anonymous Coward]

now the users will have to purchase any music specifically for that player, even if they already have it on CD

It's easier selling the same thing over and over than it is constantly having to find new stuff to sell.

Re:whoops...

[gr8_phk]

"So, basically -- buy a portable MP3 player and a copy-protected CD. And you can't copy the music from the CD to your MP3 player legally any more, as you'd break law if you circumvent the copy protection mechanism found on CD."

I think they'll allow "industry approved" devices to copy the tracks. At that point, it's not copy protection but cartel protection. Why can some companies make stuff that can copy it but others can not?

Re:whoops...

[orkysoft]

No, in reality it will just mean that people will see no point at all anymore in purchasing the copy-crippled CDs, and will just fill their MP3 players with downloaded files.

Sounds to me like this is yet another make-everyone-a-criminal laws.

Re:whoops...

[Sancho]

there goes Linux...

Where the hell do you get that notion? DeCSS is not a part of Linux.

Re:whoops...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the good piracy tools are windows only.

Still waiting for a linux version of dvdshrink...

Re:whoops...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but all those excellant copy-protections tools that rely on auto-run features of windows are nicely circumvented by communist software like linux.

Re:whoops...

[Tim C]

Possession of tools that allow circumventing copy protection mechanisms will be illegal. Even for personal use.

there goes Linux...

How so? Windows "allows circumventing copy protection mechanisms" just as much as Linux does, in that neither of them currently attempt to prevent it.

If the law outlaws Linux, it also outlaws Windows (and BSD, Solaris, etc).

and there goes the entire point of owning a personal MP3 player

Here in the UK, it is technically illegal to format-shift content - that is, it is technically illegal for me to rip my legally-purchased CDs to mp3 to play on my iRiver. It doesn't stop anyone, no-one has ever been sued for it and you know what? No-one's ever *going* to be sued for it either. That doesn't make it right, of course, but it does make it something to not bother worrying about (there's already plenty enough of that sort of thing as it is)

Re:whoops...

[Skippy_kangaroo]

That doesn't make it right, of course, but it does make it something to not bother worrying about

Actually, it makes it wrong in a fundamental way. You can check all the Ayn Rand quotes elsewhere in this discussion about one problem with it.

I guess I am different to you. I object strongly to things that are fundamentally wrong as a matter of principle. Not enforcing old laws that have been rendered irrelevant by the passage of time is one thing. But instituting new laws that they claim will not be enforced is an entirely different matter. What fundamentally is the point then? There is no good that can come of that and many bad things.

By way of counterpoint to Finland, we have similar copyright laws in Australia to those in the UK. There is practically no legal use for an iPod in Australia because there is no allowance for format-shifting, no allowance for fair use, and the record companies have blocked the launch of iTunes because they want more money. But, guess what, the government is actually conducting a review to see whether the laws should be updated to reflect the times by instituting a fair use provision. I'm not holding my breath, but at least this is moving in the right direction. The Finnish approach seems to be fundamentally flawed at the start - deliberately implementing a law that is not meant to be enforced. That's very troubling.

Re:whoops...

[DoctorFrog]

Distributing (even for free) tools (whether physical devices or software) that allow circumventing copy protection mechanisms will be illegal. (this includes DVD rippers, tools that allow copying copy-protected CDs, etc)

Does that also include markers?

Re:whoops...

[MadMoses]

Possession of tools that allow circumventing copy protection mechanisms will be illegal. Even for personal use.

Like say, a Mac?

Re:whoops...

[consonant]

there goes Linux... a wet dream for Microsoft... getting Linux outlawed...

Ignoring the obviously flawed premise, let me just say - WOW! Linux outlawed in Finland is like curry [or cows] outlawed in India...

Re:whoops...

[wheany]

Linux will not be outlawed because it has significant other uses. The same with Macs.

What I don't know is wether an mp3 made on Linux or Mac from a cd that has copy protection (that works when you have auto-run enabled in Windows) is illegal.

Hide those Sharpies!

[peaworth]

Possession of tools that allow circumventing copy protection mechanisms will be illegal. Even for personal use.

So if some particular copy protection is totally shitty and is defeated by common items, those common items suddenly become contraband?

Re:Hide those Sharpies!

[Anonymous Coward]

When Sharpies are outlawed, only outlaws will have Sharpies.

Re:Hide those Sharpies!

[soft_guy]

I guess I could blackmail people who make paperclips by threatening to make really bad locks causing paperclips to be "illegal tools for circumventing my locks". But somehow this is acceptable in the world of software.

Re:Hide those Sharpies!

[Argonath]

Hey, do you remember that crappy audio-cd copy protection, which installed a driver to your windows when you put disc into your drive and interfered ripper enough not getting 1:1 copy? And which could be avoided installing by keeping 'shift' down when putting audio disc in..

Well I guess that manouver is as good as 'circumventing copy protection', thus rendering your keyboard (and Windows too, as it allows this) as illegal device..

'All citizens, prepare to format all of your windows partitions and after that, please take your Windows installation discs and keyboard to the nearest recycling center and wait authorities to arrive. Have a nice day.'

Okay, so...

[CyanDisaster]

From the article:
Possession of tools that allow circumventing copy protection mechanisms will be illegal. Even for personal use.

Would this also include keyboards that happen to have a shift key on them? What about OSes like Linux, where the copyright protection software cannot be loaded?

Hope be with ye,
Cyan

The problem is...

[bigtallmofo]

Corporations provide more money in a more directed manner than individual donors. Money pays for shiny ads to say good things about you and/or bad things about your political adversaries. Shiny ads convince people to vote for you.

Corporations = Money = Ads = Getting (re)elected

Any surprise they cater to corporations and not invididuals?

Extremely Disturbing

[duerra]

IIRC, it is only illegal in the US to distribute tools that allow the circumvention of copyright, but not to possess them (in other words, you're free to back up your DVD's as long as you create the tools to do so yourself; someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

This legislation could have some seriously negative effects on Finnish consumers that want to do things such as rip their CD's into MP3's for their digital music players, or want to rip and watch their movies on some of those new Video iPod's that are being rumored.

Innovation is being killed by the day in today's "civilized" world. I would love to think that there's something that we can do about it by being a democracy, but even that doesn't seem to be working well these days. It's been my opinion that a democracy only works if the people are informed, but from the sounds of the article there was already a lot of public outcry against this law in Finaland, but the cries have fallen on deaf ears.

Re:Extremely Disturbing

[schon]

IIRC, it is only illegal in the US to distribute tools that allow the circumvention of copyright, but not to possess them (in other words, you're free to back up your DVD's as long as you create the tools to do so yourself; someone please correct me if I'm wrong)

More of a clarification than a correction:

It's not tools that 'circumvent' copyright, it's tools that circumvent a 'technological measure that effectively controls access to a coprytighted work.' And it's also illegal not just to distribute them, but to bring them into the country from outside (even for your own use), or to talk about them (as the 2600 guys found out with DeCSS), or to talk about where to find them.

So... you're allowed to backup your DVDs as long as you design and build the tools yourself, without anyone's help.

Re:Extremely Disturbing

[xgamer04]

Depending on the meaning of "effectively", one could argue that crappy DRM does not effectively control access to the work, so bypassing it is not illegal. If the meaning is flipped around, one could argue that telling someone how a CD-drive lens reads data off of a disc is, in fact, a violaiton.

Re:Extremely Disturbing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to clarify that posessing these tools and programs is NOT illegal, as long as that is not done for commercial purposes or redistribution. You can also bring them to the country, and probably even order them from abroad, but for personal use only. If there is suspicion about redistribution, then it becomes illegal.

The same goes for works of art: you can still order books/comics/music from abroad and outside the EU, for personal use. (It would be illegal to resell them after that, unless they are already published inside the EU)

Anyway, this law is crap. I am really looking for ways to fight it, scrap it altogether, or leaving the country. Unfortunately there are no perfect countries, not even in this copyright sense only.

Re:Extremely Disturbing

[schon]

Depending on the meaning of "effectively"

This has already been debunked, ad nauseum, during the 2600 DeCSS trial. "Effective" means something else to lawyers than it does to engineers.

What?!

[orionware]

Distributing (even for free) tools (whether physical devices or software) that allow circumventing copy protection mechanisms will be illegal. (this includes DVD rippers, tools that allow copying copy-protected CDs, etc)

things that are now illegal:

• black pens.. Hate to allow those crooks to get around the "gill the gap" trick on those protected CD's
• all recording devices
• Speakers. In case the microphone ban doesn't go through

Why are you glad?

[CyricZ]

Why would it make you, as an American (or so you claim), glad that the freedom of the citizens of another nation have been eroded? A true American, one who actually believes in the ideals of freedom and liberty expressed by the Founding Fathers, would be horrified and disgusted by this development.

Re:Why are you glad?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Why would it make you, as an American (or so you claim), glad that the freedom of the citizens of another nation have been eroded? A true American, one who actually believes in the ideals of freedom and liberty expressed by the Founding Fathers, would be horrified and disgusted by this development.

Dunno how you got that. He essentially said "I'm glad that didn't happen to me," not "I'm glad that happened to you." Pretty substantial difference there.

It's like if a rock falls on you, while I may certainly have pity for you, I'm still pretty glad it didn't fall on me.

Re:Why are you glad?

[rovingeyes]

I agree with you partner. A true American would prepare to invade that country and spread freedom and liberty!

Re:Why are you glad?

[CyricZ]

Invade? No. But to express joy at the destruction of freedoms and liberties in another nation? Never would a true American patriot do such a thing.

Regarding your half-assed attempt at a point, it's quite obvious anyone with a brain, be him or her liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialst, etc., that the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were not and are not about freedom, nor democracy, nor liberty.

Re:Why are you glad?

[soft_guy]

Sadly, the terms "American" and "Lover of Freedom" are not synonymous anymore. Some would argue that they never were synonymous, but I think that for the most part of the 19th and 20th centuries, true American patriots were on the side of freedom everywhere in the world - at least from a moral support point of view.

It was only during the cold war that we started to think that the ends justify the means - prop up a dictator to keep communism out. A globalised economy also encourages this type of thinking because it promotes a race to the bottom between nations to auction off liberty to the various corporate interests.

Re:Why are you glad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that none of these ridiculous laws would exist if it weren't for the way-too-powerful-for-anyone's-good US music/movie industries.

Re:Why are you glad?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's time to invade Finland. This is clearly a rogue regime which is violating fundamental human rights.

Re:Why are you glad?

[Jesus_666]

I thought it already happened to you...

Re:Why are you glad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, every country has assholes. Hell, I live in Texas; we have three main exports: oil, cattle, and asshole politicians (Bush*, Perot, LBJ, etc.)! I agree though that too many of us have lost sight of the Enlightenment ideals this country founded itself on.

Re:Why are you glad?

[RosenSama]

A true American, one who actually believes in the ideals of freedom and liberty expressed by the Founding Fathers, would be horrified and disgusted by this development.

true American patriots were on the side of freedom everywhere in the world - at least from a moral support point of view.

I thought "true Americans" BELIEVE whatever they damn well please so long and they don't DO anything that violates another's rights.

Re:Why are you glad?

[EvilSporkMan]

I'm pretty sure you meant to say "true libertarians".

Re:Why are you glad?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Nope. They tried that shit and the Supreme Court told them to fuck themselves.

Re:Why are you glad?

[Alsee]

Really? Was I asleep when the Supreme Court struck down the DMCA?

-

Re:Why are you glad?

[toddestan]

And it's quite obvious to anyone with a sense of humor that the post was a joke. Geez, lighten up a little, ok?

Re:Why are you glad?

[CyricZ]

It's difficult to tell when a raging liberal like rovingeyes is joking or not.

Re:Why are you glad?

[Mr. Underbridge]

The case in the article isn't parallel to the DMCA. There have been a few attempts to stifle free speech regarding technical topics that could have been used to commit illegal acts, and I don't know of a one where they weren't stricken down.

Re:Why are you glad?

[socrates09]

How can this be modded "Insightful" when it totally mis-interprets the meaning of the post it criticizes??

This actually makes me glad to be an american... for the first time in a while...

Where does this say they're glad the fins are getting a raw deal?? They're just glad it hasn't happened to them.

The rest of the point may be valid but don't go making it at someone elses expense. Try "flamebait" next time.

Re:Why are you glad?

[Anonymous Coward]

As an American (and don't say "as you claim", what a stupid thing this get uppity over), I'm irritated that Finland, a country I held in such high esteem as to learn its language in college despite its tiny population, has done something so stupid and irrational. But! What this really means is that intelligent people are intelligent people regardless of nationality, and while Finland may have had more intelligent leadership than the average country, it's not a utopia and everyone everywhere has to deal with stupid people making laws that govern intelligent people.

The law is not legimate, it's as simple as that. Inferior intellects have no business controlling superior intellects, we don't accept their so-called rules, and that's all their is to it. They are not legitimate. We will do what we want, other people don't count, and history will vindicate us and wonder how other people could possibly have been so stupid.

Please develop the confidence to think and act for yourselves, as you do quietly, but please do it loudly. You are right. We are right. Don't worry. History will be on our side.

Re:Why are you glad?

[ultranova]

A true American would prepare to invade that country and spread freedom and liberty!

Soviet Union tried that twice, and failed.

Besides, why bother invading, when the current political leadership will bow to any foreign interest just to make themselves feel important ? You don't even need to bribe them - just say "good boy" and they'll roll over, nearly delirious from the joy of being noticed by some foreigner; for surely that must make them Really Important Great Leaders. State you demands and they will be made into a law, just like this new copy and speech restriction law shows.

Yes, I am a bit bitter for this betrayal by my government. Then again, it was inevitable - incompetence, well-founded inferiority complex and ambition are a bad combination for leaders.

Re:Why are you glad?

[Grishnakh]

Inferior intellects have no business controlling superior intellects, we don't accept their so-called rules, and that's all their is to it.

Who's the superior intellect here?

Re:Why are you glad?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was kind of nasty, but why was it modded up? You're never going to go anywhere if you play petty one-upmanship games instead of discussing issues. I am always disappointed by slashdotters. All talk, but when it comes to action, nothing ever happens. Stop correcting people, lead by example, and don't kick people, it's a nasty habit and no one will want you around if you act like this in person.

Re:Why are you glad?

[Grishnakh]

WTF?

I'm not normally a spelling nazi, but when someone spouts off about "superior intellects", and then in the very same sentence makes a glaring spelling/grammar error that a 5th grader should know better than to make, I feel compelled to point it out. If this guy wasn't making bold claims about being superior to other people, I never would have bothered pointing out his error.

this is f***ing goofy!

[yagu]

Dejà wow! So, this legislation looks the same as that being passed around in the United States. Again, the gist is the consumer taking any actions on their own in fair-use context (not sure that exists there, but I'm assuming) could be accused of violating these proposed laws.

And, again, I see nothing in these proposed laws that are ensuring protection for the artists. All references seem to indicate protection of music labels , something quite different than artists.

Aside:

Psychiatrist: So, Mickey, you say you want to divorce Minnie Mouse because she's crazy?

Mickey Mouse: (in high squeaky voice) No, I want to divorce her because she's fucking Goofy!

Re:this is f***ing goofy!

[ZachPruckowski]

And, again, I see nothing in these proposed laws that are ensuring protection for the artists. All references seem to indicate protection of music labels , something quite different than artists
Yes, this is a problem with me too. We all say "DRM", and it's all "pro-DRM" or "anti-DRM". But according to Wikipedia, "DRM" is "Digital Rights Management". I so, I have to ask, why do only the fat cats get their rights managed?

As I see it, publishers in particular, and the RIAA in general, have too much of a role in everything. They seem to be more important than the artists. that strikes me as art is supposed to be about the creativity, which is the artists, not the record label. I feel that the record label gets the money and copyright by virtue of being the middleman. I think we should "Digital Rights Management" to include the digital rights of consumers and artists.

Blast!

[dj245]

My dreams of moving to a nordic country for the comparative freedoms and advantages they offer over the states is slowly slipping away. Its like the evangilistic christians have taken over Marklar with their marklars and marklars.

Re:Blast!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, don't mock the Christians. Their party (Kristillisdemokraatit in Finnish) was the other of the only two parties which voted against the law. The other party was the Finnish patriotic party (Perussuomalaiset)

Re:Blast!

[Anonymous Coward]

...yes but the minister of culture, Tanja Karpela who pushed through the new law, also takes every opportunity to advertise her Christianity. Those guys seem to be in need of a new Jesus to overturn the tables of their **AA overlords of Mammon.

Re:Blast!

[eosp]

Darn, beat me to it...I guess Canada will have to suffice. [removes Finland from happy-and-content-places list (even though my wife is from there)]

It won't change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ridiculous. I have to stop copying my cds to my mp3 player, because it requires me to circumvent a copyprotection. And, I can kiss deCSS goodbye. And my windoze games won't work on linux without a no-cd patch, so I'll have to dump them too.

Oh wait..

This law sux.

[JollyFinn]

I'm not so jolly Finn anymore.
This made my future voting decision simple.
Christian democratic party and Nationalists(Perussuomalaiset) where ONLY parties which all voted against the law.

Re:This law sux.

[bersl2]

I wouldn't know for sure, but it sounds like the Nationalist party voted against it for all the wrong reasons (such as it being a directive originating outside of the country).

Re:This law sux.

[Werrismys]

Finland is a single-party system.
There are three major parties, but the politics of them are identical - only the rhetoric differs.

I have voted for the most nationalistic party (Perussuomalaiset) in the last 2 elections, and for a reason. Finland is no longer a democracy, it's a socialdemocracy.

Re:This law sux.

[Anonymous Coward]

Christian democratic party and Nationalists(Perussuomalaiset) where ONLY parties which all voted against the law.

You know it's bad when the only people on your side are fundamentalists and fascists.

Re:This law sux.

[EiZei]

You forgot the leftist party too.

Re:This law sux.

[slux]

I'd rather look at the votes that were given to the strongly worded statement that would have made it necessary to immediately start preparing a new version of the law. Many representatives voted for that one and I suspect they didn't bother trying to get the whole law rejected because they felt it would not be possible and instead aimed for a compromise.

Re:This law sux.

[Anonymous Coward]

Finnish christian democratic party is somewhat like evangelical christian wing of US republican party and Nationalists are.. well.. very nationalist.

Both parties are quite autocratic and want people to live as they see fit - their actually core ideals are quite the same: home, religion and fatherland.

Re:This law sux.

[Anonymous Coward]

And if youre not planning on voting christians, youve fell right into mr. Soinis populism-trap. Do you REALLY want to support what they support? Is this copyright law all you care about? Things like taxation, healthcare, education are worth nothing to you, just as long as you get to rip your cds and talk about copyprotections.

Not to mention the simple fact that the opposition from mr. Soini and his party was simply because mrs. Karpela wouldn't change the law with the excuse that she wanted to follow the advice of some bureaucrat in Brussels. This angered mr. Soini who really doesn't like EU, and thus voted against it. Regardless of the technical problems with the law, he would have voted against it.

Please, do the rest of Finland a favor and go shoot yourself, taliaivo.

Re:This law sux.

[JollyFinn]

I'm planning on voting christians.

Correction to Afterdawn article

[Anonymous Coward]

Ms. Tanja Karpela is the cultural minister of Finland, not education minister.

Implications for hardware could be severe...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Possession of tools that allow circumventing copy protection mechanisms will be illegal. Even for personal use."

So, I guess this means the new Finnish keyboard will be without a "Shift" key.

Re:Implications for hardware could be severe...

[Hymer]

No... That means MS Windows is now a forbidden OS in Finland... the "shift-key bypass" is a feature in MS Windows...

Anyone using Windows should now format the drive containing the tool of evil...
...and everybody must contact the authorities so the distribution of Windows in Finland can be stopped ASAP...

Re:Implications for hardware could be severe...

[GodGell]

that's actually a very good idea.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Linuxfr hax0red

UN Agreement on Human Rights

[TubeSteak]

I'm glad you brought up the UN Agreement on Human Rights

Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

And I'm not claiming human rights allow you to bypass DRM, I'm claiming that its dumb as shit and in violation of international agreements to try to restrict speech & freedom of assembly.

That's what happens when people read the document you try to use to refute their point.

Re:UN Agreement on Human Rights

[shawn(at)fsu]

I'll give you that, but they aren't saying you cant assamble thay are saying you can't assamble and discuss breaking copyrights, I don't think that violates Article 20 IMHO. You may have an argument about Article 19, but I don't think this right or pretty much any right hsould be limitless. Again thats just my oppinion. And I still think it's petty for people to whine about DRM's and try to relate this to a violation of human rights. Maybe I just don't get it.

Re:UN Agreement on Human Rights

[Jherek Carnelian]

I'll give you that, but they aren't saying you cant assamble thay are saying you can't assamble and discuss breaking copyrights, I don't think that violates Article 20 IMHO

Your rationalization fails the laugh test. If that kind of arbitrary limit on assembly were allowed then there would be no teeth to the article at all. For example:

You can assemble, you just can't assemble and discuss civil rights abuses

You can assemble, you just can't assemble and discuss government corruption

You can assemble, you just can't assemble and discuss drug legalization

You can assemble, you just can't assemble and discuss banned books

You can assemble, you just can't assemble and discuss corporate malefeasance

You can assemble, you just can't assemble and discuss protest marchs

You can assemble, you just can't assemble and discuss gay marriage

You can assemble, you just can't assemble and discuss forming a new political party

Re:UN Agreement on Human Rights

[sir99]

Careful about telling people to read the whole document. They may flip out about Article 29(3): "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Seriously, there was a lot of discussion about this in a previous story about the UN. WIPO, part of the UN, seems partial to DRM, so would Article 29 come into effect?

Re:UN Agreement on Human Rights

[dajak]

Your rationalization fails the laugh test. If that kind of arbitrary limit on assembly were allowed then there would be no teeth to the article at all.

Treaties obviously have no teeth (except where they are used by a country as an excuse to attack another one). Rights are useful to the extent that they have to be restricted explicitly by law. The right only means that exercising the right, as a substantive fact, is not illegal (a strong permission) and that there should be some legal way of exercising the right (to vote for instance; the protective perimeter). Absolute rights are just political rhetoric.

In combination with other arbitrary facts exercising the right can be illegal: no assembly obstructing traffic (unless you have a license), no criminal organization, etc. Freedom of speech can be restricted in front of minors (for indecency), in commercial advertising (no advertising for pharmaceuticals), because of its insulting or libelous content, etc. It also does not give you permission to start a radio station without a license, for instance. You are free to express your opinions, but not anytime, to anyone, or by any means. You can also only exercise the right (to vote) in compliance with any legal procedures devised for that purpose.

We have all of the above restrictions in the Netherlands, and (fortunately) a pretty transparent constitution (compared to the vague and ambigous US one anyway) that in most cases explicitly states for what reasons basic rights can be cancelled. Since Finland and the Netherlands both usually rank very high in freedom ratings (example), we can safely assume that other countries do not interpret rights in a more comprehensive way in legal practice.

Notably, the Netherlands and Finland are also the only two Western countries with a written constitution, as far as I know, that have no form of constitutional review whatsoever. The constitution doesn't really seem to make a substantial difference. Prosperity and social peace creates freedom and democracy, and poverty and strife creates slavery and tyrrany.

Re:UN Agreement on Human Rights

[Jherek Carnelian]

That's nice and all, but really has nothing to say about the original point that the right of assembly means nothing if it is only about physical proximity and not about communication of information during the congregation.

Re:UN Agreement on Human Rights

[dajak]

the right of assembly means nothing if it is only about physical proximity and not about communication of information during the congregation

The right of assembly is only meaningful in the context of freedom of expression, and that right does not cover exchanging copies of someone else's expression without permission, unless in the public interest. It is not uncommon to prohibit specific instruments, attempts, conspiracies, and criminal organization. Criminal organizations don't have a right of assembly. I agree this attitude to copyright is wrong, but Finland is not restricting human rights in ways that are unacceptable to most people or most countries.

Re:UN Agreement on Human Rights

[symbolic]

Wow...if that isn't self-serving, I don't know what is.

flexible?

[scapermoya]

Don't you mean inflexible?

Re:flexible?

[KevlarTheSleepinator]

i think the summary is trying to say that the old laws were flexible, and these new ones much less so.

Re:flexible?

[scapermoya]

I get that, but isn't flexibility a good thing?

Finland is next to Russia.....FREE Russia!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those bozos in the Finnish government should realize that freedoms that many Finns will want to have are freely available in Russia. Russia is a short drive away along a long and unpatrolable border. Suppose many Finns just decide to go to live and work in St Petersburg and forget all about the fools in their own government. All they would have to do is get in their cars and drive a couple of hours, and if the Finn border guards did not shoot them for conspiracy to seek freedom, they would be home free

Fatality

[lordmoose]

Lawyer: Your Honor, this young man was caught downloading illegal music

Judge: Finnish him!

No, the real problem is...

[ZachPruckowski]

Corporations = Money = Ads = Getting (re)elected
See, the logical answer to your question is: but don't we vote? And if all the money in the world didn't change our minds, wouldn't the money then be worthless? The only problem is that no one is going to vote on DRM alone. Unfortunately, the issues are what the media says they are. The media is swayed by that money, and also by the fact that they sort of naturally line right up with the MPAA and RIAA, just by nature of their industry. So, the real problem is that we can't get heard, and we can't get people to make this THE issue in their minds. No politician is going to win on something like this, because it is dwarfed by abortion, and healthcare and prayer in schools and so forth. It may be more important, but people don't realize it. More than the anti-DRM fight belongs in the courtrooms, it belongs in the court of Public Opinion.

Re:No, the real problem is...

[SpaceLifeForm]

Taxation without representation.

In the long run, money *is* worthless. Afterall, it is a created concept used to control the masses.

At some point, the masses won't have any money to spend, and the greedy corporations will demand handouts from the governments, but the government won't have any tax revenue. Result: global economic collapse. But in the meantime, the corporations are going to attempt to get theirs before it's too late.

Re:No, the real problem is...

[EvilSporkMan]

Don't the masses _work_ for the corporations? don't those same masses include stockholders in those corporations? (i.e., the people who get a good chunk of the money?) I'm not supporting capitalism, but let's at least have arguments that somewhat mesh with reality.

Re:No, the real problem is...

[ahodgson]

From what I hear, the masses mostly have no savings and large personal debt. They certainly are not shareholders in major corporations.

Demonstration meant nothing

[halfnerd]

I took part in a demonstration against this law on tuesday 1300 Finnish time. There were over 300 people outside the parliament demonstrating against this, and this amount was assembled on under 5 days (or so we were told by the organiser). Only a handful of the members of parliament came out to listen to us or answer our questions, most of them already aware of our case and supporting it. I saw many people peeking out from the windows, looking scarily at us and then leaving, without coming out. One speaker told us something like "we'll have your mp3s sorted out later". What an idiot! Seems like no-one cared to even read the parts of the new law that we stated were problematic. And to think that we only cared about mp3s. We need more people in the parliament who actually understand what this new technology is about. Most of them would probably have problems grasping it if it was explained as LPs and cassette players. Geesh!

Re:Demonstration meant nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

http://masinointi.setti.info/ there is some pictures from that demonstration and there were probaply more like 500 than 300 people...

Selective Enforcement

[mcc]

From the perspective of corrupt authority, it is often rediculously useful to have laws which everyone is breaking, but which aren't "enforced". Set a speed limit that everyone always breaks by 10 MPH, for example, and you'll find that you can pull over absolutely anyone you like, just because you feel like it or you don't like their bumper sticker or whatever. What's that sir? No, I wasn't singling you out, you were breaking the law.

Expect the "we won't persue copying" claims, in practice, to mean that people will continue pirating, everyone will continue pirating, but only those who politically are the enemies of the record labels will be singled out for it. Want to download the entire Led Zeppelin song catalog, in clear and obvious violation of law? No one will stop you. Want to create an innovative new software program which could change the way music is distributed, but which incidentally could maybe be used to pirate music? Prepare to have the copyright directive, and tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills, come down on your head.

Ayn Rand's said exactly one lucid thing in her entire disastrous body of work, and it was this:

Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? ... We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--and then you cash in on guilt.

Re:Selective Enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

She also said "The smallest minority in the world is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Which I always thought was pretty correct and concise as well.

Re:Selective Enforcement

[TwentyLeaguesUnderLa]

I'd just like to bring up a country where something of the sort is on the verge of being the case - Russia. That's why some Russians are quite frightened by the Yukos case, involving Khodarkovsky. Basically, the story behind it is (apparently) that he tried to get involved in some political things he shouldn't have - so the government slapped him intto jail for Tax evasion. According to the tax code, he was most definitely guilty of that. The thing that worried people is that the laws were unreasonable, pretty commonly ignored (and these infractions ignored by the government), effectively making EVERYONE guilty and thus suspect to prosecution whenever the government felt like it.

Re:Oh noes!

[cnerd2025]

Mod up. For those mods who don't have a sense of humor, parent post is sarcasm.

Lost faith in Finland - We're Screwed

[Kassiopeia]

As a Finn, I have always taken pride in our country - even though we don't have things like the Bill of Rights, we have our fundamental rights, and our copyright legislation isn't at least as horrible as the DMCA. Well, that has now changed. Finland has enjoyed #1 position in international competitiveness ratings and has been considered a vanguard of the spearhead of information age societies, but this piece of legislation has now set us back years, nay, perhaps even decades.

What wrenches my gut is that despite Finland's top rating when it comes to low corruption, shenaniganry in creating and passing this piece of legislation has been plentiful. The law was prepared in the Ministries of Culture and Education in close rapport with people who work for the very organisations that lobby for stricter controls on what citizens can do with the things they have bought. When sixty-six expert statements were collected on the law, only one was from a consumer-oriented organisation, that being EFFI.

Its passing was surrounded by nothing but smoke and mirrors, with misleading statements based on intentionally erroneus interpretations of the already-muddy law by its supporters. And finally when a demonstration was arranged in front of the Parliamentary building on Tuesday, when the bill was discussed for the very last time, a representative of a musicians' organisation was put on the wires stating the demonstrators' cry for free speech was tarnishing the concept for free speech because the demonstrators just want to download songs in its name. This while behind him people were touting DeCSS signs and spreading out short DeCSS programmes on flyers with the text "distributing this flyer will become illegal".

Not to mention the EEA statute, which makes distributing works not published in the European Economic Area illegal in the EEA, unless they have been acquired for personal use. No more import manga from stores if the publisher overseas decides that the market in Finland is too small.

Well, now there's a galvanised group of a few hundred people who are just really pissed off. We're already setting up forums for "organised discussion" and thinking up ways to turn ourselves in en masse to swamp the system. The Parliament has made an initial decision to modify the law later on, but until then, we'll have to just suck it up.

And guess who used her authority to press the bill through no matter what? The Minister of Culture, a former Miss Finland, whose only merit in getting into Parliament was that she was Miss Finland, and whose only merit in getting into the Ministry was that she raked in so many votes. No, I didn't vote for her.

Finally, what comes to the EU directive garbage, it was just an attempt to deflect blame by the Government. There is only an alleged record of a single EU official stating how tightly the EUCD should be implemented. Finland now has the strictest EUCD implementation in existence. Greece implemented it with most of the stupid parts axed out; a French court has now declared that copy protection (more like "use restriction") has no protection of law. DVD area codes are illegal in Belgium. The only thing the EU directive argument served was the populist and anti-EU True Finns party.

Oh FFS. I think I'll just move to Canada. Bonjour Monsieur, ca va bien, eh?

Re:Lost faith in Finland - We're Screwed

[Anonymous Coward]

We're already setting up forums for "organised discussion" and thinking up ways to turn ourselves in en masse to swamp the system.

Any links? (Finnish is fine.)

And there's more

[Aggrajag]

This nice piece of legislation also makes it illegal to import copyrighted material outside of the EC. For example, it is illegal to buy an anime DVD from Japan if the DVD in question isn't already being sold within the EC.

Re:And there's more

[jakuis]

This nice piece of legislation also makes it illegal to import copyrighted material outside of the EC. For example, it is illegal to buy an anime DVD from Japan if the DVD in question isn't already being sold within the EC.

It's illegal to import copyrighted material with the purpose of selling it. It's not illegal to import for personal use.

Re:And there's more

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there's really no point buying a DVD from anywhere, since if you're using Linux, there's no way you can watch it without breaking the law. I can almost hear ÄKT(the Finnish RIAA) shouting '
PROBLEM SOLVED!'

Re:And there's more

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the region coding is part of the copy protection mchanism, so you cannot have a region free player. Fancy buying one for all the regions?

I have an illegal tool

[temcat]

that allows breaking copy protection. It's called brain. Oh Lord, now I'm a criminal!

mod parent up

[GodGell]

yeah, unfortunately we don't have a marklar to defend Marklar from the marklars this time.

The More Things Change

[Prototerm]

Not so very long ago, in many countries, you had to be a land owner in order to vote. Times may have changed, but government power hasn't. Today, governments aren't run by the people, but by the large multinational corporations. Either way, the vast majority of people wind up with no say in how things are run. Even if they vote (which is rare enough), they have a choice between corporate candidate #1 or corporate candidate #2, with the occasional choice of extremist candidate #3, just to give the media something to panic about during the 6 o'clock news.

Orwell was right, gang. The government is not under our control, we are under its. Our every step, and every breath, is monitored from birth thru death by our corporate overlords thru credit cards, phone bills, Tivos, and spyware. Free speech is censored by Google, Yahoo, and others. The openness of the Internet is a lie spread by ISP's who advertise huge bandwidths but close down anyone who actually tries to use it. 1984 was filled with dim-witted, ham-fisted amateurs, compared to the real world.

Re:The More Things Change

[KillShill]

it's called breaking unjust laws.

perhaps you've heard of Rosa Parks?

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. -Martin Luther King Jr.

and please, no childish arguments comparing "digital" issues with civil rights being absurd... if you have more than 1 active working brain cell you can see that yourself.

laws not in the interest of the public, deserve no respect. - ME.

Re:The More Things Change

[plasmacutter]

There are STRONG interests in the USA which have been lobbying against the DMCA.

multiple large nonprofit groups, HUGE tech corps like intel, individual citizens, the million strong ACU for christ sake! NOTHING has happened on this front. Do you honestly think the finnish people will be able to change this law?

I'd also like to point out that while individuals can break unjust laws, this does not change the fact that COMPANIES cannot. This means there will be no commercial development of black boxes/computer programs which break DRM there.

Without the black boxes, only a fraction of a percent of the population will have the technical knowhow to break the unjust laws..

In other words, the effects of this law will be to deprive people of even the capacity to break them, and the chances of getting this law changed are less than zero.

they are thoroughly screwed, just like I as an american am thoroughly screwed. Until our government pushes people to the point of rebellion, we are stuck with this bad law. Every time i think of it i curse whatever supreme being there is for sleeping on the job, and continuing to ignore his duties.

Right on...

[maynard]

...thanks for setting me straight with some facts from the field. Your reply is worth every modpoint wasted on my original snark. Hope you get modded up. --M

So you are saying...

[hackwrench]

That choosing to put things into your body that puts your health and life, and in some cases being a factor in you potentially hurting or killing others, as well as the medical costs associated with all of that is worse than not letting an artist insist upon getting paid again and again and again from their hard work. Nobody has a right to profit. Nobody has a right to even income, unless they enter into a contract of some fashion.

Re:So you are saying...

[FidelCatsro]

This is cannabis we are talking about , not heroine .
The worst people on pot do is lack the ability to realise Dave is at the door .

Re:So you are saying...

[JLF65]

Marijuana has carcinogenic factors in it, just like tobacco. Heavy pot smokers may develop lung cancer just the same as people who smoke tobacco products.

A little snippet from http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1516.html

"Burning marijuana for smoking releases many substances other than THC, the ingredient which produces the drug's psychoactive effects. THC does not appear to be carcinogenic, but some of the other chemicals released by both marijuana and tobacco smoke are problematic. These include tar, carbon monoxide, and cyanide. One known carcinogen, benzopyrene, though found in both types of smoke, seems to be greater in pot smoke."

So I guess the lesson is bake your MJ in brownies, or use a bong. :)

USA/Finland

[Imdabess]

I think its funny all of these comments dissing on Finland when people know nothing about the country, i mean compared to the US finland is way better, have any of u been there? If not read some of these.. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/09/13/ge rmany.corruption/ -- CNN= Finland least corrupt http://wef.typepad.com/blog/2004/10/finland_most_c o.html -- Finland, worlds most competitive economy http://www.eubusiness.com/Finland/55691 --- Finland= Worlds most technologically advanced country yeah sure maybe this/some laws or whatever are stupid, but the US has plenty of those too,it doesnt mean the whole cuntry sucks just cause you don't agree with one thing.

Re:USA/Finland

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but you have that funny language.

Ainenmaahänenkenaiässkäarvuohyväpiejaatkaksiaine nlukhäntieteenonenviiskäarinennaumuojouhyvänäktämä huotuoolknäkenkenainenpieälkäettiihyväjoulhkaahkaa älkähäntuotuonauullennaunauenkenmuoolkettiihkaavii hyväenkenmikäpieainenullenmuohyväavuotoinenettiiti ivälkäälkänäkvuovuomaainenmuoullkäullenrakaullentä mähuoolkolkikkirakapainjouljlägtuojounäknaulukskäa rullenpietoinenjlägnäkskäarmuomuohänkukkatämätoine npainhyvähyvätuopoäjoujoujaatluktiivolkskäarkaksij oulullenpoävuolukmikäainenullenmaavuojouettiipaino nenmaatuokaksirakavuoolkjoukukkaettiijouettiipiejo ulinenhänviilukvuohyväettiiinenjoulaiäsjoujaatkaks ikukkapienauhkaanauinentämäonenullenpoäullentämäik kiviijoulpoämuoonenluktiivenkentuohyvätoinenälkäai nenullenlukjaatkukkamaainenjlägviijaatlukenkenvuoä lkähyväahänmikämuojlägtoinenhuoviitieteennauviipie skäarolknaumuotuokukkatuoviienkenjaatullkäskäarpoä toinenvuotämäkukkalukrakaälkäaiäsikkinaujouolkhkaa painjläghyväahänhuojoulolkinenhuotoinennäklukullen tieteenhkaaaiäsjouonenmikätieteenmuoviihyväonenälk äainenpiemuoälkäainenmaainenonenhuokukkaaiästuoälk ätämäullkähyväaainenmikäullkähuoenkentiivmikäaiäsh kaaainenkaksiinenmaarakaenkenviimaanaumuoikkimaaet tiiskäarpieaiäsmuotuonaupienaurakaullkänäkinenmaaj ouljouhkaahyväettiikaksitiivjaatjaatlukaiäsenkensk äarmuorakatiivhuonauhäntämäpieälkäskäarenkennäktuo kaksijaatpainpainkaksimuokukkatiivhänpoänäktämärak aälkähyvätuopainskäarhyvälukullkälukhuonäkolkolkpa inikkionenmikätieteenhänmuopoähyvälukolkullenskäar ikkiullentämätieteenjouenkenettiihyväullkätiivpain älkätuoettiiikkiikkiolkinenjoulhkaatieteenonenpoär akajoujoulmikäjoulmikäainenullkäainenainenmuoettii kaksiettiiälkäviinäkonenainentoinenullkäettiimuotu omaahuohkaajlägälkämuoullkäpainenkenjlägaiäshuovii skäaraiäsenkenikkikukkavuotuolukjoulaiäshkaatämäti ivhuopiemuonaunäkpoätiivluklukrakajaattieteentuojo uhäntieteenolkainenainenmaaälkämuoälkäpoähuotietee ntoinentieteentuovuomuomikähyvähuojouikkiviienkenh kaaviitämäullenhuoullkäjoupiehuoolkpoäkukkakukkati ivrakahyväajlägskäarullkäainenkukkajoupiehuotoinen ettiitämäainenrakajoutämäjaathuoettiiskäartiivhyvä aiästiivmikäskäarhkaahänhännäkullkäainenullkäälkäi nenjaattiivhkaanäkskäartoinenjoulullenettiikaksiti ivhänhuoettiilukolkullkätieteenjounaulukjaatinenai nenmuonäktämänäkskäarhänainenaiäsviihkaajaato

Re:USA/Finland

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on... I guess you are one of those "pidetään oma pesä puhtaana" people. The more bad publicity Finland gets for this the better. Full disclosure in all areas is the key. If people don't complain nothing will change. Well, I don't hold my breath but silence is the last thing we need.

Re:USA/Finland

[monstro23]

ah, dude, thought I should let you kjnow that "country" usually has an "o" in it... looks weird without it.

Illegal advertising links

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, the part of the article that mentions the illegality of linking to information about DVD rippers was flagged by the site's keyword advertising service and automatically linked to a page with reviews and free downloads of DVD rippers.

Only in Holland

[Bootvis]

you can buy pot and you may carry up to 4 grams. In the rest of the EU it is forbidden.

How about this one...

[tofi]

Looks like you haven't heard of Eläkeläiset.
(No, despite the Umlauts: It's not Metal... ;-)

Re:How about this one...

[CastrTroy]

OK, now I've heard of them. Too bad I still can't pronounce their name.

Hexedit

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess Hexedit and other hexeditors are also banned now then...

Tervemenoa goa

[Werrismys]

Goa trance published in Israel but not in EU area cannot now be legally purchaced in any way.

Fuck this law.

Downloading or ripping your cd's..

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloading mp3 from the internet or creating mp3 out of your own copy-protected cd, both are illegal acts. I dont really get the "anti"-piratism part of this law. Now you dont need to bother to buy the cd, you will be breaking the law anyway!

DRM+EUCD can prevent peaceful assembly

[SgtChaireBourne]

Another way to look at that would be that DRM violates both points of Article 20 of the UN Agreement on Human Rights.

Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

The right to peaceful assemble would be violated if the DRM in anyway starts restricting access to non-DRM'd sites, documents, or e-mails. Nothing can be done or organized without full web and e-mail access these days. Cutting that off is cutting off the right to peaceful assembly.

Compulsory membership in an association would be where the DRM is tied to a specific platform or ideology. You can still (for a short while longer) argue whether or not MS is a political movement or ideology, but you cannot argue that a DRM forcing people to be customers of a specific company is not compulsory membership. Later on down the road if the vendor- or platform- specific DRM is used for voting, then it amounts to a poll tax, too.

The EUCD make these hypothetical problems real legal problems.

Right and wrong at the same time

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right that possession isn't the problem. However in addition to distribution there is use of one of the tools.

So in the US it is legal to own a circumvention tool, but it is not legal to share it or to use it.

If they'd done this 15 years ago...

[argent]

If they'd done this 15 years ago, when Linus Torvalds was in Finland, would Linux even exist?

Re:If they'd done this 15 years ago...

[Anonymous Coward]

-well, probably not, but still, at least swedish law has some cases that have been up i high court who still stands as the basic law on the subject.
I mean' I love sweden and swedish law, as long as they keep holding on to their "cozy" agreements about bt-sites and the fact that bt-sites don't actually are responsible for their users action ;) After all, the files don't exists on the server in question, and the users are all warned that they have the responsibility of cheking that the files don't break copyrightlaws in other countries ;) *evil laugh* ...made with bear, by khj...

But...

[Apotsy]

I thought every country outside the US was an enlightened paradise where everything is wonderful! Only poor stupid Americans have to put up with crap like you describe. I know it's true because every English-speaking non-US resident on the entire internet says so all the time!

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought every country outside the US was an enlightened paradise where everything is wonderful! Only poor stupid Americans have to put up with crap like you describe. I know it's true because every English-speaking non-US resident on the entire internet says so all the time!

We only say that because we're astounished that in the country that calls itself "the land of the free", it's even worse than in our own country.

It's kinda like a poor man living in a shack with a leaky roof, gloating over the homeless beggar that doesn't know any better than his cardboard box.

So Sue Google... ?

[managedcode]

While I reached the end of this article, it said "AfterDawn.com is a Finnish company. So, compare the legislation and what you can find from our site and you probably see certain problem there.." I scrolled up and saw this advertisment from Google.
Copy Dvd Unlimited
Fast Safe Legal Copy Dvd Software Copy Any Dvd In Just One Minute!
DvdWizardPro.com
RIAA run after Google now. LOL

Copyright as Trade Protectionism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... interesting. You know, I don't think the real target of this legislation is just the music industry; I think the real goal is to rewrite case law, in Finland, and in other similar nations.

The distinction between breaking into software by learning secret codes(increasingly illegal, often with criminal charges), and just reverse engineering a hidden trade secret (currently legal) is a blurry one. By criminalizing "code breaking" they're effectively criminalizing reverse-engineering to find secrets, as well; as the Sylarov case in the U.S. showed, the distinction between "a file format", and an "encrypted work" can be miniscule.

Reverse engineering for intercompatiblity is vital to economic competition in the marketplace; if I can't build something to be compatible with your hidden standards, I can't market a product that competes with yours. All a competitor has to do to stop me is just claim their secret format is "in code", and suddenly the encryption laws will apply; most judges won't know or care that there's a technical distinction.

That's trade protectionism being snuck in under the radar, and it's not just happening in Finland. It's going in all over, and most people won't even realize it until it's too late. Sure, it benefits the music industry. But it also benefits entrenched businesses everwhere; they can hide trade secrets behind a veil of secrecy that it's now a crime to lift.

That's the greater worry here; could someone who reads Finnish please let us know if there is any mitigating language in the law to prevent this kind of monopoly ploy from working?
--
AC

Crimes with the same maximum sentence!

[Anonymous Coward]

This page (in Finnish) has a list of crimes that have a maximum sentence of one year as a consequence of this legislation and for the sake of comparison other crimes with the same sentence (compiled a couple of days ago and AFAIK nothing changed this). A brief translation of the most important parts:
* Circumventing a copy-protection mechanism in order to copy the work or in a manner which "otherwise causes notable damage".
* Distributing/selling/renting/advertising a device for circumventing copy-protection mechanisms (a DeCSS shirt qualifies).
* Publishing a method for circumventing copy protection (such as pressing the shift-key).

And the maximum sentence is the same for...

* Insurance fraud.
* Breaching a restraining order.
* Prison escape.
* Using counterfeit money.
* Buying sex from a minor.
* Possession of child pornography.


This is seriously FUCKED!!! I have now decided that until this changes I won't buy a single fucking CD or DVD. If I can't get enough good free music legally or enough entertainment from television or the software I need as FOSS I'll live without it. Period.

Re:Crimes with the same maximum sentence!

[Ledgem]

Yeah wow, I won't buy a CD or DVD either. I mean, if I'm going to get put away for that long, I wouldn't want it to be for something as lame as "evading copy protection." I'd definitely rather go down on charges of having bought sex from a minor - and having paid with counterfeit money!

Kidding, kidding :)

Re:Oh noes!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, the funniest thing in the whole law is that it doesn't say squat about downloading copyrighted material. Therefore it encourages people to download all their entertainment (which is currently legal as long as you don't share it), instead of ripping their legally bought copy-protected CDs/DVDs, which is now a crime. I seriously doubt that this law will survive the scheduled re-examination, unless of course the greedy Artist's Unions ram it through from that as well.

Civil disobedience plans under way (Finnish sites)

[Anonymous Coward]

Finns, check these forums and this news group! It can get really interesting if (hopefully tens of) thousands of people break the law and report it straight to members of parliament and the police. What are they gonna do about an exponential increase in crime rates?

Boycott Finland

[nurb432]

Boycott their tourist industry and all products exported from that country.

Perhaps if you kill them financially they might think again about selling out.

Personally, thats one less place I will be visiting and taking my vacation dollars to.

Re:Boycott Finland

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah boycot Nokia and Linux :p

Re:Boycott Finland

[nurb432]

Considering 'linux' isn't a Finnish product that creates direct revenue via exporting, that wont count.

Nokia? sure.. boycott those bastards.

It is a time to sue

[egoshin]

It looks like it is a perfect time to sue some big retailer on the base of that law. He definitely sells DVD readers (tools for copyright protection violation) etc. Some big splash about suit in media can help to get attention to this law.

Power drift

[Falcon040]

Yeah, its pretty normal for power to become centralised over time within a nation. It has happened so many times before throughout history.

This happened in Ancient China, in the Roman Empire (The Roman Republic turned into the Roman Empire with an all-powerful Emperor (President)), in the British Empire (The Parliamentary (Republican-like) system was largely to the wayside of the Queen (Emperor), and now in the US of A, the Federal Republic power is being centralise on the President (Emperor).

More and more laws are made until there is very little flexibility (the term 'freedom' changes meaning), change and innovation, and 'stability' is

Often at a moment in history laws seem obvious, such as, the first born son must follow the father's profession (Of course this is obvious - Technique and expertise would be lost otherwise woudln't it!). But of course, we know a different system today with greater flexibility and competition and innovation.
But again 'obvious' patent laws are being created. It is 'obvious' that patents protect people's ideas. But then this also reduces competition and the ultimate rate of innovation.

Power is naturally centralised for 'stability' reasons and 'obvious' laws tightened.

But this over a long period of time ultimately leads to the nation's downfall or dramatic change.

just forget russia - it's not in the equation

[Anonymous Coward]

Not gonna work.

The russian economy is too badly fucked up for it to have any significance to Finnish citizens in the next 15 years or more depending when the russians again gets their act together. No Finn could find a legal or even semi-legal dayjob in russia to pay for his living in Finland - russia is like a 3rd world country.

Besides; We have different livingvalues.

Here in Finland we value human life. Like they do in sweden, Norway, and Denmark, too - these scandinavian countries have a long history of friendliness and a common abhorrer towards russia and their inhuman callous ways.

Solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Worryingly, even "organized discussion" on how to circumvent copy protection mechanisms, will be illegal."

Aren't you glad that Freenet exists, hmmmm? Time to get on board and donate to it and I2P.

Australia

[Doyle]

A massive step backwards though this is for Finland, us folks in Australia have it worse. IIRC over here you're not allowed to copy or rip a CD at all, regardless of whether it has copy protection or not.

This changes how I will vote in the next elections

[Anonymous Coward]

This completely changes how I will vote in the next presidential elections that will be held in 2006.

For example, I was going to vote for Heidi Hautala. But now that I saw how she voted FOR the new law, I decided that someone worth my trust is going to get my vote instead.

Internet really is a handy tool, it didn't take me long to find out how everyone voted.

correction (for US-citizens)

[lordholm]

The meaning of the word liberal in Europe is not the same as in the US. Here (in Europe) it's meaning is more related to libertarian, i.e. economical and individual freedom.

Copyright?!?

[flinkflonk]

I find it mildly disgusting that people talk about copyright, when all they really want is to not give you the right to copy at all. Incidently some of those people are the ones behind such stupid words as "copyleft".

Remember, the copyright is a right for the consumer to copy what he bought from content providers (publishers, be it books, audio or video) under certain circumstances (yes, that's what is called "fair use"). Denying the consumer this right has nothing to do with the original meaning of the word and should therefore be named something else. How about "monopolised content" or something to that effect, because that is what we are going to get (and are already getting, un-cd anybody?).

Re:Copyright?!?

[latroM]

Too bad that the Finnish word for it is "tekijänoikeus", creator's right. The politicians said that "tekijänoikeus" is about the right of the creator, not some other.

Re:Copyright?!?

[dswan69]

Copyright is not the right of the consumer to make copies. The owner of the copyright has the exclusive right to make copies for the duration of the copyright (this used to be a limited period, but now is effectively unlimited). Fair use recognizes that it is unreasonable to expect consumers to purchase a CD for every CD player or other playback device they own. Some countries go further and recognize that people trade music, it is human nature, part of our normal social interaction.

Detailed information here!

[10Ghz]

List how the MP's voted is here.

Of note:

- Everyone in the Center Party voted for the law. 18 were not present in the vote
- In SDP, only two voted no, 37 voted yes. 7 were not present
- 9 Conservatives voted no, 25 voted yes. seven were not present.
- In Left Alliance, 11 voted no, 9 voted yes
- 8 Greens voted yes, 3 voted no
- In the Swedish party, everyone voted yes

Remember these results during the next election.

Copy Protected

[Anonymous Coward]

So the new law makes copying a copy protected CDs illegal.

Wait... so it's copy protected... and if I copy it... no wait... if it's copy protected, then how can I even...

Idiots.

Re:This changes how I will vote in the next electi

[Anonymous Coward]

Do better.

Stand outside the booths, and point out to those with MP3 players how she voted and offer to upload a 'how to vote track'.

You have many months to spread the word. Having a few hundred letters sent to her 2 weeks before the election outlining that one unacceptable vote was non-negotiable, cost not only your vote, but many of your friends - who will be now vote along non-party lines.

No, it doesnt.

[Anonymous Coward]

The law prohibits you for importing that sort of material for commercial purposes. You are also prohibited from passing/selling it on.

RTFL.

Some wild thoughts

[crysaz]

Ok... This is illeagal too: http://cs.helsinki.fi/u/janmatti/copyprot_readme.t xt

Re:Oh noes!

[Big Hairy Goofy Guy]

I agree, mod up grandparent. If the slashdot crowd can only muster mod-down "censorship" in response to this kind of attack, then collectively we are doomed. Because this kind of "flamebait" is exactly the kind of mockery the intrenched interests can make which is quite convincing.

We could bring up the issue that strong DRM provides protection long past the current legal limit of copyright. We could argue that providing tools now for DRM circumvention is necessary for a guarantee that digital works will be accesible when the copyright expires. We could argue that region-coding prevents legal viewing of DVDs when individuals move their home from one country (region) to another. In short, we could argue for the legal benefits of unencumbered digital media.

We could also condemn illegal filesharing as an abuse of the unprotected nature of digtal media, not as the purpose of our resistance to DRM.

I have to add a link to a speech by Lawrence Lessig (audio) and a link to the Baen Free Library's copy of a speech (text) made during copyright debates in Parliment in 1841. Both of these have recently affected my thinking on the legitimate purpose of copyright and the consequences of extending them.

So, boycott the US as well then?

[cheros]

Given that the root of all that trouble resides in the US (MPAA, RIAA, DCMA, abuse of process and international relations to apply US laws abroad - DVD Jon et al), the same logic would suggest you refrain from the same in the US.

Unless you live there, in which case moving appears to be an option.

More sane, however, is realising that government people country..

See www.starwreck.com - that's a better idea of what the people are like 8-).

Finnish/EU copyright virus in the wild

[rannala]

http://cs.helsinki.fi/u/janmatti/copyprot_readme.t xt

The 1,000,000 question is

[coralsaw]

Does the Finnish government have copyrighted their copyright legislation?

If so, then we're cool. No other coutry can copy the legislation without paying the Finns big money, which they won't. Come to think of it, other countries can't even possess the tools to circumvent their copyright, that is, the formal authority to pass new copyright legislation. Cool!

All your bases once more...

What if I

[ScreamingHeadlessDas]

Tattoo the DeCSS on my butt, then i would be real BadA$$.