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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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....

[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....

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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...

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

[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.

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

[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.

Holy crap...

[Jesselnz]

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

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?

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...

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

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...

[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.

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?

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?

[rovingeyes]

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

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).

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...

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

[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?

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.

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!

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

[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.

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?

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.

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

[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.

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.

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!

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.