Slashdot Mirror
Germany Accepts Strict Piracy Law
A beautiful mind writes "The TimesOnline is reporting that Germany has accepted a new piracy law, currently the toughest in Europe, which comes into effect on January 1, 2007. From the article: 'Germans risk two years in prison if they illegally download films and music for private use under a new law agreed yesterday. Anybody who downloads films for commercial use could be jailed for up to five years.' Many politicians defended the new law, amongst them Günther Krings, the Christian Democrat legal affairs spokesman, who claimed: 'There should be no legal distinction between stealing chewing gum from a shop and performing an illegal download.'"
That's just crazy, two years!? You wouldn't get that if you went out and stole the DVD itself.
Darn. For a moment, I read that as "Germany accepts strict privacy law" and said "cool, some good news for a change"...
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Last time I went to the box office, I wouldn't call it "piracy". Somewhere between fraud, misrepresentation and highway robbery.
Why would I "pirate" something, you couldn't PAY me to see!
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
That would be 'rich, monopolistic thieves'.
And dont be suprsied if we dont get those laws here in the US, or worse... Remember the WTO? They will mandate all other members follow suit.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
How much does it cost to keep someone jailed for two years? I'd imagine it costs more than a DVD does.
It seems like an unenforcable law. They are going to have to put 1 out of every 5 people in jail for 2 years, and that's not going to fly.
If you overstep your bounds against the populace, you'll find that, while they might stretch at first, they will soon 'spring back' and you'll find yourself in a worse position than before.
--Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
Okay, so here's what I would like explained from your comment:
Is entertainment a necessary good and/or service in your mind?
Is this 'group of thieves' (who produces and sells entertainment, that apparently you believe is a necessity) morally worse than people who infringe upon their rights? Is this infringement done in the name of good in your mind?
What is just about taking the results of someone's hard labor and giving them nothing in return for it?
I anxiously await your answers.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Many people believe that this is due to corruption, it can no longer be attributed to "goodwill" towards the industry and stupidity alone. In any case, it goes way beyond being irresponsible and neglecting the government's duty to take care of its citizens and the long-term effect of this will be civil disobedience and loss of respect for laws in general.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Hey, anyone in germany (including me, I guess) - for two years in prison, click here http://images.google.com/images?q=mickey+mouse&hl= en&btnG=Search+Images. I wish bubble gum would come this easy!
Most popular music out today isn't even worth a stick of chewing gum!
"Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
That's the whole problem - people feel that a lot of the stuff out there isn't worth the asking price. The "asking price", for a couple, is a LOT more than the ticket price ... and it doesn't help that the theatres don't make any money on the screening itself, so they have to gouge on the food concessions.
Lower the price to $5 a head, give half to the theatre so they can charge reasonable prices for eats, and make it up in volume. So Jim Carey won't get $20 million for his next movie unless its really good. The solution to THAT problem is obvious - make better movies.
It's been said before, but if you're going to steal, create a company first and make sure to steal millions so you don't get punished. You think anybody served jail time when the music industry was convicted of price fixing? Of course not. You think anybody from Sony will serve jailtime under hacking laws for the rootkit fiasco? Of course not, unthinkable.
German politicians are very much like every other politician or normal person not awar of the general principles of IT. They are blissfully ignorant of the actual consequences of todays IP laws they pass. The last draft of internet copyright protection law that made it into the real world was a haphazard and naive mess, littered with wrong vocablurary and barely made it not to be a classical 1984 "Thought Crime Law" as the US american DMCA is. This new law is a step closer to that though. ... No word about that in the law.
Brigitte Zypries said it right there though: She can't be bothered bugging the decision boards with such minor details as seperating IP control and access/market control and thus doesn't care about the effects. Politicians have other things to worry about - like the deficit. When asked if it where a proactive DRM circumvention if copying a CD on PC Linux (where current DRM is unaffective) she said something like "Well, in that case I would say, sort of, that if DRM is unaffective it's not there so it's no circumvention in this case."
It boils down to the courtroom again, where it's up to the judge to introduce sanity into the process again. I understand there are some US judges that have ruled the DMCA as unapplicable in some cases, as it's against the american constitution.
Goes to show what we all should never forget: Laws are made by humans and should be subject to perpetual scrunity.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
How much does it cost to kill someone? If someone wants to do it it costs nothing.
Still, those people who do murder someone should be jailed and it costs a lot of money. Thus, cost can't be a factor in prison sentences. If not cost, then what?
Justice. It is why this law in Germany is so bad - because it is not just.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
So, you can get two years in prison in Germany for stealing chewing gum from a shop? Cool.
... or so I heard ... not that it has happened to me ... well, honestly not!
If you are on probation.
Piracy: max. 2 years
Rape: max. 5 years
Obviously, women are now worth twice as much as DVDs.
Like in most countries, charges are dropped by the state attorney if it's a small offense (shoplifting of small items)
TFA does not answer the most interesting question. AFAIK in germany you can copy a copyrighted work as much as you want within your household under fair use provisions. This is supported by an extra levy on CD writers, blank media, etc. Does the new law change any of these provisions in favour of the plutocrats or not?
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
The problem here is that this law isn't going to be enforced properly.
By sneaking in these laws, they prosecute one or two people in the country every now and then. The laws stay in place, people don't care about them because they figure it "won't happen to them", and the movie/music companies are able to bribe politicians into creating even more ridiculous laws.
If only they would attempt to enforce this law en-masse, they would end up with at least 10% (probably more) of the population in jail. Then people would start caring about this and everything would be set right.
Instead, they're going to slowly introduce even worse laws, but only prosecute a tiny percentage of the population. It is an unfortunate situation.
When you kill someone you take their life, the question you should ask is how much is a life worth, not how much killing costs.
The original statement said it costs more to jail someone than the DVD is worth.
It did not say it costs more to jail someone than it costs to DOWNLOAD a DVD.
Punishment should be DIRECTLY related to the cost/impact of he crime.
101010b 2Ah 52o
Law abiding citizens like you and I have no more to worry about than we did before.
This of course assumes that every law is just. So you never think about whether this whole intellectual property business is good for a society as a whole? Politicians must love you.
And when those recording artists were forced to sign those contracts, guns pressed tightly to their temples, surely you could have saved them the trouble of believing they even should be paid for what they were doing, since people would just take it anyway.
Thanks for replying in a rhetorically bankrupt fashion in an attempt to bolster a point that wasn't even related to mine. Hijacking legitimate questions does work against lesser minds. It doesn't work against me. In general, it doesn't work on Slashdot. Go troll Digg with that crap.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
"So you never think about whether this whole intellectual property business is good for a society as a whole?"
As RMS pointed out, anyone who uses the term intellectual property is either confussed or trying to confuse people. The prase "Itellectual Property" is a blanket that encompasses copyright law and patents, and it also pervays this idea of ownship of ideas. Copyrights are very different from patents, and the two should never be lumped together. Intellectual Property also perpetuates a concept that ideas can be owned. That if two people come-up on the same idea it "belongs" to whoever gets there first, regardless of if any 'copying' actually took place. How can you own an idea, anyhow? It's not a phyical thing. If I give the idea to you, I still have it; unlike a physical product (say, beer).
That isn't to say that I disagree with Copyright. I believe that Copyright is needed; but, the current system is broken. Patents, on the other hand, don't make sense for software.
Even cooler, in California you can get 25 to life. Did you have any specific point?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
If what you are downloading has no value, why do you download it? Obviously, you download it because you appreciate the entertainment value of the content. The asking price for making that copy available to you is the rental price or sale cost for the work. You have two choices: either pay the asking price or do without. If you feel the asking price is more than the entertainment value, don't buy it or rent it.
If you aren't willing to pay the asking price, do without but don't try to justify theft by playing logic games. The creator of the work went to the expense of creating it with an expectation of being compensated by those who enjoy the work. If you enjoy the work (that is it has value to you), you should be willing to pay for it. If you aren't willing to pay for such entertainment, stick with what is legally available for free.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Hello looser evil government people (that dont know what real work is)
Since my wages havent increased 12% yearly over the last 10 years like many govt people, I hereby
like to claim a 'stolen' amount of cash of $100,000 . The corporates who earned massive returns
have the cash, I would like to see them locked up and my cash returned, because in an infaltion economy
everyone DESERVES inflated revenue, even if their business models are crap.
So wheres my tax discounts eh?
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
"Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility" Ambrose Bierce
Zing!
Two years of jail for copyright infringement? That's pure overkill. I can't even begin to understand the valid reasons for this.
Even from the other side of the equation it makes no sense at all. I've spent the last couple of years or so working on some games. This is my baby, the result of me working my ass off. The thought of someone depriving me of potential income by downloading a cracked copy does make my blood boil. An appropriate consequence of them getting busted with it? Compensation for the loss, yes. Some sort of fine or community service, yes. But jail time? For duplication of an entertainment product!? You can't be freaking serious.
This is greed, pure and simple. Perhaps a demonstration of a massively overinflated sense of self importance (defy our will eh?.. off to jail with you, consumer!). It is also a demonstration of the very, very dangerous consequences of letting a powerful lobbying organisation get their way with the laws. I hope this doesn't remain on the books for long.
PS. Copyright infringement has never been, and will never be, theft. The former deprives someone of potential future income, and the latter deprives someone of something material immediately. Equating copyright infringement with the forced boarding, theft and murder of a ship at sea is an arrogant and flawed analogy.
Rant off.
Unless there is also a levy that compensates shopkeepers for stolen goods, the levy on CD writers and media should now be immediately revoked.
Tell a man about a new band, he'll know another band. Teach a man how to discover new bands, he'll discover new bands for a lifetime.
Music sharing is also the ability to know what you may want to buy before you actually buy it, it's the ability to make informed choices about buying the first CD of that little band that isn't aired on TV or radio instead of buying the current top album with a crappy single and 7 even crappier other tracks that get all the air time.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
...I don't listen to the radio much any more, nor do I watch TV all that often. I DO listen to things like RenRadio, which is populated by performers that don't give a flying flip about what drivel the bulk of your ilk produce. You know what, I've been listening to real music for about 2-3 years now and I'm not very likely to be turning back any time soon- mostly because the media companies have been strip-mining culture for a couple decades now and it's almost all rubbish these days.
Go ahead, take a year off. Other people will gladly step up that don't have contracts that seem to love what they do and are actually GOOD and produce something worth listening to/watching for a change.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I'm glad you raised that often overlooked point. Of course it is also a pure fantasy that every single downloader would have otherwise paid real money for the product, but that's how they create these crazy numbers. My gut feeling is a lot of downloading is purely opportunistic.
"Looking good Vern."
Some notes - although this is an insanse law, Germany isn't proposing torture and medieval style executions for offenders. I do not know your particular stance on this, but I find the whole overall attitude here hypocritical because I see many people on /., in all serious terms, suggest that torture and painful executions are appropriate punishments for spammers.
There is no sense or debate in the government that this may have a chilling effect on free speech or be used for selective enforcement.
In increasingly technocratic societies, you will find that (for better or worse) that more laws are needed. As a result, the legal system becomes insanely complex and it becomes so to such an extent that its hard not to break a law doing something in everyday life. Richard Nixon used the IRS and its insanely complex tax code to scrutinize his political enemies. And, as long as laws exist, its pretty hard to stop selective enforcement.
However, I fail to see how this law specifically, on its own, significantly contributes to the detriment of free speech.
If you want to talk about German laws that stifle free speech and expression, just look at their laws against untolerable political opinions such as neo-Nazism or holocaust revisionism. Laws exist to specifically FORBID these kinds of speech yet I do not see you or anyone else here speaking out about those on a regular basis.
And, make no mistake about it, while in the US, laws like this may be on the books as a deterrent and rarely enforced or even effectively invalidated by the courts, the German legal system will enforce them regularly.
Says who? The DMCA gets enforced pretty regularly. Our drug laws are enforced very strongly. California (and others?) even have the "three strikes" law - three felonies and you get life in prison.
I'm glad the German military has been defanged to the point where that nation can't impose its blind sense of order and trust in authority on other nations. Unfortunately, the legal precedent that this sets will probably still harm people in other nations.
Everyhing works best when other nations do not diddle in the affairs of others, regardless of their domestic policies. I really don't see how German law affects law elsewhere.
No it shouldn't. That's why we have murder and manslaughter. In both places the victim ends up dead, but the pushisment is different, and rightly so.
Punishment should be DIRECTLY related to the cost/impact of he crime.
Someone else has already pointed out the murder/manslaughter distinction, so I'll leave that. There are other distinctions too, where the end result is the same but the exact circumstances of the crime can make a large difference to the punishment.
Even ignoring that, however, there's another factor that can greatly increase the punishment - the perceived ease of commiting the offence and likelyhood of getting away with it. If it's seen as not really being of any consequence, and is hard to detect and prosecute people, you're going to get more people thinking "why not?" and doing it. To help combat that, you make the punishment harsh; the theory being that people will think "I probably won't get caught, but if I do... it's not worth it". That's part of the reason why these laws all have such stupidly high penalties. It's not just the companies lobbying for unrealistic punishments, it's meant to bea deterrent too.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
What is interesting, according to various articles, is that Germany has about 82 million people, but only 127 million CD sales, a nearly 50% drop over 7 years. So each german is buying 1 maybe 2 cds a year.
These statistics make more sense if you approach them from a CDs per household point of view. Married people very often share things like CDs.
Germany actually used to 'export' CDs from their retail industry: many Swiss and Dutch used to buy CDs in Germany because they are cheaper there. I can imagine this market has largely disappeared because of P2P technology and integration of the European market.
I guess not that Germany is a completely a western country, they must learn that the best way to grow a bussiness is to supply products the people want. And, of course, if artificial barriers are erected to try to force consumers to buy stuff they don't want, then those consumers will just find another way to get they stuff they do.
Considering that Germany is the biggest exporter of the world, and that music and film is one of the sectors where they are relatively unsuccesful and foreign (read:American) products dominate the home market, I really fail to see your point.
If the Germans had a protectionist inclination they would not help the American entertainment industry to collect their money in Germany by discouraging piracy. They would instead legalize piracy and use the (higher) fee collected on blank media to subsidize their own entertainment industry exclusively.
European countries should have much less worries about piracy than the US if they approach it from a strictly economic protectionist point of view. The English language market always proportionally suffers the most from piracy, because of:
- economy of scale: finding an uploader of the thing you want is the easiest in the biggest market.
- lack of empathy: artists in smaller language markets make less money, even if they are equally successful in the smaller market. People are more inclined to pay for the CD of an artist that speaks your language, regularly appears on your TV, and is not filty rich.
Legalizing piracy probably increases the market share of the non-English entertainment industry in many countries.
Let me counter-propose another VERY common scenario:
What we don't realize, is that his kid found the movie on the shelf at his house, ripped a copy, and uploaded it to the 'Net for thousands of others to download and enjoy, for free.
Who is the violator here? Who gets the bill when the MPAA comes-a-calling? Who broke the law?
This kind of sitation happens a LOT more than people realize, with not just movies, but music and software as well. Sure, my friend's kid is truly the violator, but since he never "owned" the movie to begin with, and I never broke the law by loaning it to him (only 1 copy in circulation at once), and my friend wasn't an accomplice to the infringement, where do the fingers point?
Right, back to me.. because I legally bought it and loaned it to him to watch.
I can't control what people do within the confines of their own homes, nor do I care to. I don't police them, and I don't expect them to police me.