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.
Every lawsuit against people not judged to be criminals by their friends and family is just another mark against the recording and film industries. You know what they say about business: anger one customer and they tell 10 friends.
These lawsuits go beyond anger, they financially hurt customers. For every $10,000 they receive in settlements, they could be losing multiples of in lost future business.
My luddite parents discovered P2P because of some news article about these suits in the U.S. They were blind to Napster since its inception.
I wasn't surprised to see Limewire on my dad's PC a few months ago. This is a guy who never touched a mouse until 2003.
You can stop a river with a boulder when it is still a 6" trickle. Yet the boulder does not one bit when the river is a torrent.
In the long run, ISPs who share privilege information will go out of business. I hereby amend my previous position: "Information that hurts no innocents wants to be freely accessible."
Call me a bleeding heart, but aren't there more important problems than file sharing in the world, such as starvation, aids, poverty, political repression, terrorism? It amazes me how many resources are wasted on this file sharing crap, and I'd never vote for a legislator who spent more time on file sharing than real problems.
$8.95/mo web hosting
How about these concepts as a starting point; These are simply ideas that in my opinion are not too controversial.
We want to ensure its's possible to make a profit from creative works.
People will copy data.
Sharing between friends is not going to bring down the music/movie/software industry.
Online file sharing should probably be discouraged, or at least not strongly encouraged.
Awarding disproportionately huge damages against file sharers is not a just solution.
A distinction should be made between small scale copying for free, and large scale copying for financial gain.
When we have the government siding strongly with the media cartels, and disproportionate penalties for file sharers, as well as the invasion of privacy by a private organisation means that people loserespect for the law. This is generally speaking a bad thing. m'kay.
Most people agree that copyright is largely a good thing. Most people also have no qualms about using pirated software. I'm sure we can find a compromise.
Where do we draw the line? Are those 5gigs quotas gonna be enough in 2010? :(
PB, based in Sweden, has some fun to read legal threats from Microsoft, Dreamworks, EA, White Stripes, etc. along with PB's responses.
[alk]
You can have all the free entertainment you want. Don't you know how to entertain yourself? There are libraries for books and some audio/video entertainment even if you can't entertain yourself. I'm sure you could also find other free entertainments. But no matter how much you wish or think something should be free, it is not logical to think someone should entertain you for free. They are creative, and some work hard for what they do, be it creating books, songs, movies, comedy routines, etc. and demanding that they give you it for free is the same as the grandparent said, "It's like stating all car repairs should be free!"
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Your precious China's economy is rapidly becomming a capatilist economy (one could even argue that its already there). Moreover, in case you hadn't been keeping up, China does charge for their entertainment, they are funding space exploration, and there are poor and homeless in China. What was your point again? I'm not seeing the wall here.
Come on man, think! Use that brain you were born with.
You need to point out however that the real problem here is a theft and bandwidth (which unlike copying, is a limited resource).
I'd have to point out the similarities to prohibition. Yes, selling alchohol was illegal. However, stealing and killing over it was wrong.
Alchohol (or filesharing) isn't the problem... it's prohibition that convinces people to do things they wouldn't usually do.
Why do your company allow the fishermen to use ftp instead of something secure like ssh? Why aren't password complexity rules enforced.
Certainly there is a cost to be absorbed in doing business safely and securely over the internet. Seems like your company is taking it in the wrong end.
The Swedish Data Inspection Board gave the APB a green-light to collect IP adresses.
It's not quite a big deal, since the anti-pirate folks already can do that legally in a number of countries (such as the US) which don't have strict data-protection laws.
And the ISPs are not only doing the right thing but probably the only legal thing, since it'd quite likely violate the very same data-protection laws if they gave information about their customers to a private third party without permission from either the government or their customers.
The "Anti-Pirate Bureau" isn't a government agency after all. And while the USA seems to have happily handed over law-enforcement to the copyright holders, Europe has not. So far.
In polls in swedens biggest newspaper, with 80000 respondants, on this question: "Is it morally right to download movies and music illegaly?"
> 85% answered yes.
The pirates and antipirates has debated in newspaper, television and the "piratbyrån" (pro piracy organization) has even published a book which has recieved good critics. The sum of all this is that the pirates is seen as normal humans that download stuff on internet and the antipirates are greedy corporate a**es. Its not hard do figure out which side will win the hearts of the population.
This has even gone so far as the minister of justice has stated in media that "with the new anti-piracy laws the police should not go hunt for teenagers downloading music, but for big scale for-profit copying"
Since we have a democracy the only outcome I can see in the long run is that not-for-profit private piracy will become legal, even two parties in our parliament has expressed support for piracy.
Also, the results of a lawsuit will be released next week which will determine wether it will even be possible for police to request information on IPs from ISPs when they suspect piracy. One pirate has ben sued because he shared a movie on the internet, if he gets anything below prison swedish privacy laws will make it impossible for the police to request identy of IPs in the future. (which says that for the identity to be reviled for the police it is required that the crime commited has prison as one possible punishment).
(* with piracy I mean copying of music/movies over the internet without any money going to the owner of the work).
In Europe a lot of countries have stricter privacy laws then elswhere. If anybody except law askes for information with my provider and they give it, I have won my case, because the evidence was not recieved in a lawfull way.
I could even sue my provider.
Now if they just forward the mail, I can just ignore it and wait for a lawsuit, wich brings me back to step one above.
In Belgium, if you just fileshare and not sell, there is a pretty big chance that they will put your case at the bottom of the pile. The law in Belgium already once told them they would not go after each and every file-sharer. They will spend their time with people who try to make money with it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"Music, information, entertainment should be free! ... If the owner of said item wants it to be."
We, the public, are the owners. It is just on loan to the so called creators for a limited period of time, the period being copyright length.
I think it's time to severely reduce that copyright length. It may have made sense before but not when when costs, and thus the risks, of publishing is reduced due to online avenues for distribution.
Here's the deal: I have no problem paying ARTISTS for their work. I have a problem paying corporations who through lobbying and slimy lawyer tricks control the distribution chain for an artist's work. If
Car repair shouldn't be free, but the MECHANIC should get be the one getting paid. That's why I take my car to a locally owned shop (Frank's Auto Repair) where Frank gets my money instead of "Giant Corporate Auto Repair Inc." where they pay a mechanics $15/hour yet charge the customer $90/hour for labor on repairs. I want to see the WORKER get the money.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
The music industry would like you to pay every time you listen to your CD.
They would also like for pay every time you end up with defective cds .
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
No, I don't think I'm entitled to free music. But I don't think artists should be entitled to a monopoly on how their creations are used. What I mean is, if no one wants to make music because they can't protect it, I'm willing to live with that as a consequence of removing that protection. And I'm willing to donate my income to support or commission work from artists who I want to encourage. But as part of that, I expect that that work becomes uncontrolled once it is released. Let those who still want to make music do so, and if no one does then so be it.
Yes, I currently do have a stick to get such things as a freely-given multimillion dollar idea or a piece of music I have composed or sourcecode or research or whatever back. That is the sort of law I am arguing against.