Slashdot Mirror
Sweden's File Sharing Debate Becomes Mass Brawl
praps writes "When Sweden's Data board gave the film and games industry organisation Antipiratbyrån an exemption from data protection laws last week it seemed that file sharers were on the ropes. Then the music industry joined in with some punches of its own, saying it too will hunt those who share songs online. Suddenly, file sharers have the support of their ISPs, who are refusing to cooperate with the big industries - and it's game on." From the article: "Only the file sharer's ISP can link the IP address to the person. If the ISP receives a request for such information from the police, they cannot refuse it, but a few calls from TT revealed that requests from APB would be ignored." We've previously reported on Swedish anti-downloading laws before.
I work for a webhosting firm and almost monthly we get calls from old dudes with fishing websites asking why they used 500 Gigs of transfer and got an insane bill last month. Invariably it's because their ftp password was "cat" or some nonsense and somebody dumped a copy of dreamweaver, or a ton of MP3s, etc. on their account and linked it to a pirate site. But the first time I saw this happen, it made me think: piracy in general can have more economic impact that you realize at first.
For example, when the above happens, we usually do a one-time refund of the bandwidth charge, which is often considerable, and I'm sure we're not the exception. That means we eat the bandwidth bill for that person. Now, consider that all webhosts are likely to do the same and I wonder what the economic impact is across the board?
Interesting how there are facets you don't even realize exist.
Sony ha
So the European equivalent of the MPAA/RIAA will have succeeded in shutting down file sharing of copyrighted material in Sweden only to see it pop up elsewhere in the world.
Actually, they have not succeeded in anything except that they are now allowed to store and process personal information about file sharers. Recently the data board classified IP-adresses as personal information, which meant they needed permission to store and process it without the users consent. They now have this permission. However, since it is now clear that they are subject to this law (called PUL, which means something like Law of Personal Information), they are also required to tell the registered person about the registration. In order to do this they need to know who has a particular IP, and only the ISP can help with this, but they refuse to cooperate. It is all very confusing and amusing to follow.
This is not a sig.
In Ireland both Eircom (www.eircomsucks.com) and BT Ireland (www.btirelandsucks.com) have agreed in court that if any Music or Movie company asks them for customer information that they'll give it to them.
:(
All in all a crap situation compared to Sweden
"WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
You're pretty right... I guess we actually give subvention to those "huuuuuge" companies from Hollywood here in Canada. You know? That kind of public funds helping private companies getting more money ...? Tax refunds and stuff like that. They actually are giving my money to these guys.
... I pay 10$ to see the movie at a cinema places, THEY should give me the DVD freely since I paid my right to see it. If I go see Metallica show somewhere, THEY should give me their latest CD.
Tax refunds are not taking away money from corporations, not giving them money. Most of our tax revenue comes from those corporations anyway, you know. And the rich. More to the point, those "huuuuuuge" companies provide jobs and livelihood to a lot of people.
I don't feel that they should get as much tax breaks as they do, but lets be accurate and realistic here. The government isn't taking your money and giving it to them. They're taking less money from them than you think they should (and I think they should, in some cases). Moreover, often times its money that they earned, by funding, developing, and putting out a product.
When a band comes here, like lets say U2 or Metallica, they often get those subvention
So wait, you say entertainment should be free, but then say that you should get entertainment after paying for it, then say that you actually do pay for it? Make up your mind.
You don't tell me why they SHOULD give you their CD for attending the concert. You are paying for the concert, not the CD. And Metallica has a right to do whatever they want with their property and their events. If you don't like that you don't get a CD, then don't pay for it.
Anyways, 30$ for the DVD, 20$ for the CD is simply extorsion. If it was 5$ I don't say, but they are simply abusing. And the price of the media isn't that expensive. Why did titanic made nearly 1 billion $ in raw income?
Oh boy, you obviously haven't taken any sort of class in economics. First of all, $20 for a CD is extortion to you. There are people out there who feel that $20 is a perfectly acceptable price point, and a fair trade for that CD. They're called customers. Its basic supply and demand. More to the point, while CD's are cheap in terms of reproduction and raw materials, you have to pay to develop the content which actually goes on that CD. Studios, artists, producers, advertisement, instruments, etc are not cheap.
Special effects for Titanic, as well as sets and actors are not cheap either. Raw income is just that... raw income. It doesn't take into account how much it cost to make in the first place. And it made $1 billion because that many people thought spending money to see the movie and buying the dvds was a fair trade for the entertainment. There is no extortion going on here.
And WE don't have pretty much choice if WE like the full album. THEY whine because they make LESS money because THEY abuse our wallets.
YOU have a choice whether or not to buy the album. If enough people thought the price point was unfair, they wouldn't buy, and the price would go down. Enough people think the price point is fair to keep it there.
THEY are not forcing you to buy anything. You are making a choice to buy it, and you are the one abusing your own wallet.
You have obvious problems taking responsibility for your spending habits, and are obviously just making the same flimsy and tired arguments to support your copyright infringment as everyone else. If you're going to try to justify your actions, then you might want to do so with an ounce of acknowledgement to personal responsibility and basic economics.
This idea that ISPs are being noble here is silly. They're doing what they do for the money as much as anyone.
Fact is, many people that pay for an Internet connection do so in part so they can swap music. Getting free
music is part of the value of that connection for them.
Now put yourself in the place of the ISP. You have customers paying you so they can have access to this free music.
Why would you want to stop this? You don't have to pay for the music yourself, but you get a financial benefit from it.
So I don't see anything heroic about these ISPs. Helping to make sure their customers can get free music helps
their bottom line.
And another thing. Why does everyone always bring up that this or that is crap and so it should be free or whatever. If you don't like then ignore it. There are not any laws or moral obligations that say you have to participate in it. If it's crap and you wouldn't have paid for it anyway, why are you downloading it? If it's crap and you don't want it, why are you complaining about it?
What I don't understand is why people think they need new music. Don't they realize there are decades of good music out there already?
I know some people who listen to oldies CDs and still buy the new stuff. Yes they are well aware that there are decades worth of music. I am sure most people are. Most people also have heard of "Leave it to Beaver" but still want to watch new TV shows. Most people have heard of Jimmy Stewart but like to watch new Movies. All gamers know about Pong but still like to play Halo. In fact, everyone has heard of Shakespeare but quite a few still like whatever Andrew Lloyd Weber might come out with next. Just because there is some old time equivalent doesn't mean that people won't like new stuff.
Curiously I wonder: Why do you think that being in the entertainment business is not a "real" job? What are your standards for "productive"?
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Most of our tax revenue comes from personal income taxes. I have no problem with this but the myth that Corps pay most taxes needs to be put to rest.
Looks like you're correct. Can't vouch for the accuracy. My point that tax breaks are equivalent to taking less money rather than giving corporations still stands though.
Thanks for your input.
The Wikipedia seems to disagree with you. So does FindLaw according to this passage:
The jury has the ultimate power to decide whether a person is guilty of a crime. As the "conscience of the community," jurors can free a defendant even if they think the defendant actually committed the crime charged. The name for this power is "jury nullification." It has always been a part of our judicial system.
When jurors nullify a law by acquitting a defendant who has obviously broken that law, judges and prosecutors can do nothing about it. A jury's not guilty verdict is final. Jury nullification rarely occurs, but when it does, it most often involves cases that have a political component (such as the refusal to convict draft dodgers during the Vietnam War) or that have harsh punishments the jury does not want to impose on that particular defendant.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Well, if we're going all the way back to 'Organization A asks for information about John Doe B from ISP C' then I don't think there's a problem with them asking.
It's probably good to have laws limiting how fully, if at all, the ISP can answer. But if you don't have those laws, then it's at the ISP's discretion; might work out well, might not.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
True, but bear in mind that copyrights and patents are not natural rights as determined by the founders. They were supposed to be just enough to compensate their authors for creation of the work. With the extension of copyright duration, the fundamental nature of copyright has changed. The original intent was to allow authors to continue to support themselves while putting creative works into the public domain. Now the point is to simply compensate the owners of copyrights, without thought for the public domain.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Not quite.
A judge can set aside a guilty verdict, if he believes the jury has not made their determination based on the facts; however, he cannot set aside a not-guilty verdict.
Ok, maybe he could, but it would be appealled so quickly his head would spin, and he'd probably lose his position on the bench.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.