First Swede Convicted For File-Sharing Now Cleared

Caine writes, "A 29-year old Swede, who was the first to be convicted under last year's new file-sharing laws, has been cleared on appeal. The court of appeal did not consider the screen dumps provided by the Antipiracy Bureau enough evidence to be able to convict the man. Since the crime does not carry a high enough punishment under Swedish law to allow for a search of the defendant's house, this means it will be virtually impossible to prove file-sharing crimes in the future."

Comments

Heh

[B3ryllium]

Technicalities like that always amuse me, especially when they work out in favour of "the little guy". We have a few laws like that here in Canada, and I hope they don't change.

Re:Heh

[Headcase88]

It's nice when a technicality works for the little guy, but a technicality is still a technicality and ideally, none should exist. The law should be fair and make sense. Not that that ever did or ever will happen.

Re:Heh

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Technicalities like that always amuse me, especially when they work out in favour of "the little guy". We have a few laws like that here in Canada, and I hope they don't change.

I don't consider this to be a technicality. I consider this to be the law working exactly as designed. Swedes consider privacy important, thus the police violating your privacy (seriously infringing your rights) in an attempt to find evidence of a much less serious matter is pretty idiotic. It would be like the police being allowed to shoot people they see speeding. It makes a lot of sense to me.

Re:Heh

[hkBst]

lack of evidence is hardly a ``technicality''

Re:Heh

[aadvancedGIR]

OTHW, a judge able to see that this kind of proof can be faked in 5 min by a 7 year old child can be called a technical expert.

Re:Heh

[IAmTheDave]

It's true, but your argument puts it as exactly that - a technicality, where one law is rendered virtually unenforcable by another. In this case, privacy wins, and it would make sense for Sweden to simply remove the law from the books, since it's unenforcable clutter at this point in time.

Re:Heh

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It's true, but your argument puts it as exactly that - a technicality, where one law is rendered virtually unenforcable by another. In this case, privacy wins, and it would make sense for Sweden to simply remove the law from the books, since it's unenforcable clutter at this point in time.

I disagree. The law makes copyright infringement illegal, but not a serious crime. People may still be convicted of it, it is just that the evidence needs to come from something other than an invasion of privacy. People can still be convicted of this, just not en masse by some sort of automated system like the music distribution representatives would like. For yet another analogy, it may be illegal to smoke pot, but the cops can't invade your home to check without evidence. This does not mean the law can't be enforced, it just means they have to bust you in public places or when they break in with a different warrant.

Re:Heh

[Hinhule]

Well I believe the law itself is there to prevent people from profiting from copyright violations.
As long as you are just running your torrents or whatever and not bringing in any money to be taxed, I think you are safe.

Re:Heh

[rapidmax]

It would be like the police being allowed to shoot people they see speeding. It makes a lot of sense to me.

For me too.

Re:Heh

[voice_of_all_reason]

Wait... what?

The law is fair and does make sense. Not all crimes allow for a search of the person/property in question -- speeding, littering, etc. If the article summary is true, then the police broke the law by searching this guy's house. Pointing out your rights were violated is not a technicality.

Re:Heh

[Caine]

Ehum, the police never searched his house, and neither the summary or the article itself says that as far as I can see. What it does say is that the police is not allowed to search someone's house for proof of file-sharing crimes, which means, together with the fact that screen dumps and logs are insufficient, that it's very hard to get someone convicted for filesharing.

Re:Heh

[ceoyoyo]

The cop could only shoot the shoplifter if he could beat the shopkeeper to it.

Re:Heh

[Ravensfire]

And you would, of course, be wrong about that.

-- Ravensfire

Re:Heh

[suffe]

What is worth to take not of as well is how the Swedish legal system works. In the first instance there is no judge to quote the law at you and then throw the book on you. Instead it's a group of people (I want to say three, but don't trust that) that usually have some sort of political agenda. You don't need a law degree to judge in the first instant, you need little more then the clothes you wear and some political work. As you move one step up though, things get more organised and proper, which this case is evidence of if nothing else.

Now, I don't mean to make the Swedish legal system sound whimsical and pointless, it's just that you have to understand it.

Re:Heh

[suffe]

But look at the low rates of shoplifting in the US. Clearly it is working. Chewbacca is a wookie.

Re:Heh

[grazzy]

And here we have the reason americans are fat in a nutshell :p

Re:Heh

[ShieldW0lf]

The point they're trying to make is this:

We should not be here cheering because a man wasn't convicted under this law due to lack of evidence.

The laws should be fair. If someone is breaking the law, we should WANT them to be caught. We should want the truth to be out.

When the people are cheering because the state can't use the mechanics of society to effectively enforce the law, that means there's something very fundimentally wrong.

But of course, when you're running a societal operating system that was built during the time of Kings and Emperors, then hacked to accomodate the co-existance of that system with some sort of "Representative Democracy", then hacked by special interest groups and international cartels ad nauseum until it resembles some sort of Fascist regieme dreamed up by Hitler and George Orwell, you expect there to be a little cruft now and then...

Re:Heh

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

American: If they didn't stop, I guess they would. Me: That's dumber.

This is a real and serious problem. There are just too many stupid people in the world. Cops, even in the US, are not allowed to shoot fleeing shoplifters, or pretty much any other fleeing suspect that is not pointing a gun at them at the same time. Personally, I don't have a strong stance on whether or not police should carry guns. The US system is broken as we have no punishments for violating the authority given to a police officer. That is to say if a cop here breaks the law and uses his badge to do it, he will likely get a lesser punishment than an average citizen, rather than a stricter one. As for the UK, they seem to have an obsession with weapons, rather than actions. Their police seem to be carrying guns more and more from what I've heard.

Re:Heh

[SQLz]

I wouldn't call it a technicality. Lets hope that noone ever considers a screen shot actual evidence in a court of law. The lawyers must be Counter-Strike players, "Look your honor, he was teh h4xor!"

Re:Heh

[shatfield]

...something other than an invasion of privacy.

This isn't something that Americans (of which I am -- for better or worse -- one of) know anything about -- we have no idea what "privacy" means. Especially in this day and age when police can "think they heard someone scream" and break down your door, or "think they smelled soemthing funny" and search your car.

"Privacy" is something that "used to be important" in America, you know "way back in the 50s".

I was raised by older parents who taught me the importance of privacy, and in the post 9/11 "everyone is a terrorist until they're not" world of today, privacy is just not something that Americans want to be bothered with anymore -- until it's their door that is being broken down, that is!

Re:Heh

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Does a fleeing criminal always know a cop isn't allowed to shoot, or might he pull a gun and go to shoot the cop, thereby giving the cop an excuse to pull his gun?

It is the law in every jurisdiction across the whole US, as far as I know, and it is general knowledge for anyone who watches TV. Anyone with a clue knows, but that does not mean everyone will always know or remember. Does it matter? If a criminal is willing to pull a gun instead of surrender, then shooting them is probably not the worst thing that can happen. They are obviously violent and dangerous.

The only real problem comes when someone pulls something that looks like a gun and isn't or the cops make a mistake. Also, the cops can hit you with a non-lethal weapon, like a taser, and do so far to often, IMHO.

Re:Heh

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Me: So a policeman in the USA would shoot a shoplifter if they ran away?
American: If they didn't stop, I guess they would.

That guess would be wrong. Deadly force is not permitted to stop someone suspected of committing this kind of crime. However, if the shoplifter was in Brazil, I think the police could use deadly force. I have always been amazed by the Brazilian legal system. There's no death penalty and the maximum penalty for any crime is 30 years, although in practice it's really 29 years because 30 year sentences carry an automatic appeal. However, the cops can legally shoot you if you run away.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

FWIW, our rank-and-file police officers have consistently resisted calls for more general arming of those in the service, for a long time now. Most of the "initiatives" to arm the police more widely come from the higher-ups and the politicos, not the guys who are going to be faced with the decision to pull the trigger. Obviously there are times when a police response involving firearms is called for, but personally, I'm happy that this be the exception, and the guys with the specialist weapons be specially trained to use them, and it seems like most police officers here agree with me.

You're certainly right about the obsession with weapons rather than actions, though. When we wind up banning things like small-calibre pistols used for sport shooting and traditional weapons used in martial arts classes, yet violent crime (and in particular gun crime) stats are not showing big improvements (probably because almost no-one uses a .22 or a katana to commit armed robberies...), then you have to question whether the policies are aiming in the right direction. But it's politically incorrect to suggest that we undo the earlier legislation or, God forbid, we go further and legalise concealed carry of certain weapons that are effective equalisers for self-defence but hard to do mass-damage with. (After all, it's not like every police officer does carry at least "non-lethal" weapons like batons and spray for self-protection. Oh, no, wait, they do.) I guess we'll have to wait for reality to kick PC's backside a bit more before this happens.

The US system is broken as we have no punishments for violating the authority given to a police officer. That is to say if a cop here breaks the law and uses his badge to do it, he will likely get a lesser punishment than an average citizen, rather than a stricter one.

We have similar concerns over here. Theoretically, police officers are supposed to get hit harder if they break the rules. In practice, we have an authoritarian government pushing for ever greater use of "summary justice" -- a quaint euphemism for letting the police officer be judge, jury and if he wants, executioner, where the only way to avail yourself of due process is usually to give up any possibility of taking a "procedural penalty" like a formal caution or fixed penalty.

Re:Heh

[Mad Dog Manley]

Me: So a policeman in the USA would shoot a shoplifter if they ran away?
American: If they didn't stop, I guess they would.
Me: That's dumber.

Police won't shoot a shoplifter if they are running away. In fact, wasn't it British policemen who shot an innocent man 7 times in the head for running away?

However, it is a good thing for cops to carry guns. There are a lot of college students in Montreal, Canada that are very thankful that nearby police (who just happened to be at Dawson College on other business) had guns when the shooting rampage happened a couple weeks back. If they didn't, it could have been a lot worse.

Re:Heh

[mmalove]

I'd like to add on that it was just a week or two ago, a man basically went storming into the US Capitol building with a loaded weapon, and the police did not respond with lethal force.

Having a gun is like having a condom - it's much better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

Re:Heh

[PriceIke]

> When the people are cheering because the state can't use the mechanics of society to
> effectively enforce the law, that means there's something very fundimentally wrong.

Unless there's something fundamentally wrong with the law. Then it's a reason to cheer.

Re:Heh

[lbrandy]

As has been pointed out, that American is wrong. The point here is that you ran into a stupid American, not a stupid American law. Cops don't carry guns to catch shoplifters.

Re:Heh

[brouski]

If the law is fundamentally wrong, then the law should be thrown out on its own merits, or lack thereof.

Re:Heh

[PriceIke]

> f the law is fundamentally wrong, then the law should be thrown out on its own merits, or lack thereof.

And it would be so nice if that actually happened.

Re:Heh

[EvilIdler]

America may be stupid, but most cops don't even pull their gun on a friggin'
shoplifter (or a naked, drug-addled running man ;).

Re:Heh

[dwarfking]

Agree in sentiment that if the law is flawed, technicalities help prevent it being enforced. But is this law fundementally flawed? If so, on what grounds? If not, then expect the technicality to be fixed.

Re:Heh

[Jugalator]

Avoiding sending police in... Coming up next from the Antipiracy Bureau:

Hot spy babes trying to become girlfriends to Pirate Bay geeks and get into their rooms!

Silicon boobs funded by the RIAA! :-o

Re:Heh

[Fordiman]

The law, in this case, is fair, and does make sense. A screen dump can be altered with relative ease, can refer to an IP adress that, while one user had it for a given period of time, doesn't necessarily point to the defendant. The file refered to by the screen dump could have a name which looks copyright infringing, but doesn't contain copyright infringing data.

The real way to get evidence in cases like this is to use 1) logs, 2) an actual download of the offending file, with a logging P2P client, and 3) a per-minute IP log from the ISP, linking the IP to the defendant, and 4) a bonded third party doing the investigation (since logs and downloads are very easily forged). This screenshot nonsense has gone on long enough. Yes, they're very pretty and easily understood. That doesn't make them valid evidence.

Re:Heh

[Fordiman]

'should'.

Isn't.

See the difference?

Re:Heh

[stewwy]

I suspect the Swedes are very happy with this, they've kept the US happy, (and they've probably been under US pressure to do so) Whilst ensuring that none of their own people will suffer from Draconian US laws.
Its just a pity that this will increase the general disrepute the laws, increasing 'lawlessness' in the world.
Something US policy in general seems to be very good at doing.

Re:Heh

[R D Girl]

Would be better if we didn't need technicalities. Old story but the content industry needs to realize that their business model shifted while they were asleep and now they introduce DMCA and all that wonderful stuff to stay in business.

Re:Heh

[ShieldW0lf]

If the law's not flawed, we should be upset that we weren't able to determine conclusively what really happened and might have an anti-social criminal wandering in our midst. The fact that we as a society are not upset speaks volumes.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Cowpat]

In practice, we have an authoritarian government pushing for ever greater use of "summary justice" -- a quaint euphemism for letting the police officer be judge, jury and if he wants, executioner, where the only way to avail yourself of due process is usually to give up any possibility of taking a "procedural penalty" like a formal caution or fixed penalty.

I've found that amusing (and worrying at the same time). The General British policy is to solve something that many people do that Daily Mail sees as a problem:

1) Declare it illegal
2) Institute a fine
3) Realise that you're now having to prosecute thousands of extra people per day
4) Decide to skip the court system and due process and just hand out the power to fine people to policeman (who seem to be wearing more and more black) under threat of a larger fine & court costs if you want it done by the book
5) Profit! (and instant criminals)

No-one ever considers 4b) repeal law declaring it illegal because it is clearly not the will of the people.

Re:Heh

[wootest]

Reportedly, they did log the packets over the wire too, but I don't know if the exact format in which they're logged are easily falsifiable. (I would *not* be surprised if the APB turned out to indeed manufacture data in order to clinch these cases, especially when a precedent is being set. )

Re:Heh

[dwarfking]

Is it the fact that many aren't upset because the law is flawed or because they just didn't agree with the law in the first place so they are happy someone got off on a technicality? It's a subtle difference.

A law should be considered flawed when it unfairly criminalizes an activity. What is the flaw in the law as written? Why is it unfair?

I'm geniuninely asking as I have not personally seen the law so do not know how it is written. Is there something wrong with it, other than being semi-unenforceable?

Re:Heh

[jp10558]

This still doesn't prove a specific individual did the downloading. Or are we saying that the ISP subscriber is legally liable for anything that comes from their IP address? I'm ok with this, however I think if this is the case, there needs to be a big notice about this change somewhere for people who don't know/understand that.

Re:Heh

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

The law as it was written - before the new version - was that downloading a song from the Internet was not a crime. It was also allowed to share it with family and friends. Thus P2P of others material was basically lawful before the law was changed and a large number of people was used to this activity being legal now found themselves being criminals. In fact there exist parties in parlament (yes not only the Pirate Party wants this) that want the old law back as it was before this was was changed.

So there are many in Sweden who think the law needs to be changed. Many feel that the copyright law was heavily changed in favour of the music industry and not taking into account peoples former rights regarding copyrighted materials.

Re:Heh

[lordmetroid]

I disagree with you about copyright infrigement not being considered a serious crime. According to the law it states a maximum punishment of 2 years in prison. Which is the limit needed to allow violations of privacy and it is being pushed by special interest to become 4 years in prison so they can classify it as severe as terrorism. Which would allow for even more severe violations of privcaies. Ridiculues. Totally Ridiculues!

However the evidence in this case has been gathered by the AntiPirateBureau a special-intrest organisation like the RIAA. Which in the past even planted their own evidence, and got caught doing so at an ISP("Hu? Who's server is this...?", kind of situation). But that is nothing really to bother about. The mere fact that the evidence presented makes use of a screenshot taken by this organisation is laughable. Really? How can a screenshot be considered as reliable evidence? Specially when it comes from an organisation with an attitude of "We do anything to get a conviction, including breaking laws and forging evidence!". Technicality my ass! There really should be a counter sue towards this organisation. As well as a seperate trial on the use of screenshots as evidence...

Re:Heh

[rucs_hack]

my god. I must rush there and talk loudly about my impressivelly huge file collection in public places full of hotties immediatelly!

Re:Heh

[Some_Llama]

"People can still be convicted of this, just not en masse by some sort of automated system like the music distribution representatives would like."

Which makes sense as this would still convict people making thousands of bootleg copies, but someone casually file sharing is not "important" enough to devote police resources.

Re:Heh

[Some_Llama]

"Now, I don't mean to make the Swedish legal system sound whimsical and pointless, it's just that you have to understand it."

Unfortunately your description came out a little garbled and left me somewhat confused.

I think what you were trying to say is that the legal system requires only a basic grasp of the law in order to defend yourself in the preliminary "hearing" (using an american term, also i could have said lower courts), but if your case goes to a higher court (passes the first "hearing") then the standards of law become more formal and require further evidence to prove a case.

Is that right?

Re:Heh

[tezbobobo]

Actually, as for the law being fair and making sense I would have to object. The law, at least in common law countries is fundamentally founded on natural law. Finding roots in all Roman, Greek and christian law these laws should favour the little man. Law should always be in favour of the underdog. A true discussion on the meaning of 'fairness' would focus on the egality of application - not the progmatic application.
As for making sense, the majority of law is taken up with civil rubbish that is, laws such as having to rive on a certain side of the road. These are arbitarily decided to enable society to fuction properly. If it were the case that it was meant to make sense and be fair then

a) people would realise it is a load of crap made up by well intentioned, but fundamentally floored people (eg the people who told us we should all be wearing seatbelts whilst failing to realise their introduction INCREASED MORTALITY RATES).

b) Many of them are unjust. We are trying to build a FAIR law that doesn't operate according to justice principals. There is no discussion about such things as natural law or liberalism. John Stuart Mill's idea of justice WOULD NOT ALLOW a law which made people were seat belts, or even sue a doctor because they were allowed (under the law) to see their bleeding child in hostpital. There would be discourse about such notions as the catagorical imperative.

These are the reason's I left law school during the final year. There are major problems and this is only a small tip of the iceberg. My personal belief is they cannot be rectified.

Re:Heh

[suffe]

Well, I guess that is one way of viewing it. Another way would be that the first instance is almost political in nature whereas the others are more legally focused. Any case that is important will be appealed after the first round by one or both of the sides. After that there is one more chance of appeal, which is not a 'gimme' like the other one.

Re:Heh

[Some_Llama]

"Another way would be that the first instance is almost political in nature whereas the others are more legally focused. "

So does this mean the first instance has no legal repercussions or is political because you automatically get an appeal if you lose the first instance?

Re:Heh

[suffe]

Oh, there are legal repercussions all right. It is a court of law. Another flawed analogy might help. Look at it like the headmaster of a school. At first you complain to him/her and if you're not happy with what happens (or the other party is not) then you take it up with the school board. I'm not sure how 'smalls claim' court works in the US, but there might be similarities.

Bottom line is, of course he was going to appeal, he was sentenced by a screenshot.

Re:Heh

[Some_Llama]

"I'm not sure how 'smalls claim' court works in the US, but there might be similarities."

Well IANAL but have been through the legal system in the US (both criminal and civil) small claims court is Civil, meaning a dispute between 2 parties, criminal means a law has been broken and is being prosecuted by the state (or federal govt.) against an individual.

In both types of court cases (civil and criminal) appeals are available.

Re:Heh

[marcello_dl]

Indeed the law should be fair and make sense. Now, in soviet Italy, same place that makes possible for people avoid judgement by running for a place in parliament, same place where a guy who killed 2 boys, raping one is going out of jail after 12 years (life sentence converted to 30 years, now the "indulto"), people risk up to 4 years for filesharing.

Not fair, makes no sense to criminalize people that way. Also i suspect majors are not mainly afraid of people pirating the music. Back in the day people could trade tapes and record em off the radio, but still we bought the stuff. I think They are afraid of the net becoming a channel for spreading music and film content which is not easily controllable like radios and tv. Once people grow up their own tastes, all the evil superstructure that is music and film promotion crumbles.

It's not artists against sharers, it's their managers. A well behaving RIAA would have people still buying music. We could trade tapes and record em off the radio, still we bought the stuff. Now it's war. Well too bad for them. Only OSS, used vynil and creative commons music for me.

Re:Heh

[Fordiman]

"Or are we saying that the ISP subscriber is legally liable for anything that comes from their IP address?"

While that seems like a very simple and reasonable idea, the implications are enormous; for example, it gives a spammer a very useful loophole in the US.

Example: A spammer gets his repeater bundled in with some Very Stupid software (a smiley program, for example). Many non-EULA-reading humans download and run this. Later, they are arrested for spamming, under the 'Your IP, your responsibility' rule. They claim it's the spammer's fault, but the spammer points out that it was 'clearly' stated in the unread EULA, and gets away to spam another day.

A good wave of spam and ddos arrests could create a new public awareness about needing security on a home machine. I mean, these are people who obviously don't have enough invested in their data to take an interest in protecting it; perhaps the threat of jailtime would incentivize them to protect themselves.

I'm not saying it's a good idea: While I'm pretty sure about my computer's security, we all make mistakes. Meanwhile, a well-written bot doesn't degrade your system's performance enough for even a trained professional to notice on casual use. It would quickly become an unenforcable law.

Still, it's very interesting to see the - hey, I just noticed; Firefox 2.0 has spell checking everywhere you can type - cross-spectrum implications of policy change for a specific purpose.

Yay

[Anonymous Coward]

Let Slashdot rejoice in the prevailing of illegal filesharing... um .. that is.. we support this because we ... uh.. download Linux ISOs? Yeah!

Re:Yay

[Cruise_WD]

This is a bit like "this only affects criminals/terrorists/paedophiles."

The usual rejoinder for which is, who defines criminality or terrorist behaviour? What stops that from becoming broader?
Considering some of the behaviour currently being flagged as suspicious by over-enthusiastic law-enforcement, not much, apparently.

Ditto copyright. DRM has already given much greater control over "copyrighted" material than copyright ever did, and the lobbying doesn't appear to be slowing down. How long before it becomes illegal to read anything without paying per word? It's nice to know there will be some countries where it won't be illegal to use your computer, or acquire information for yourself.

Re:Not exactly 'scot free'

[Scarblac]

If you Google for "best countries to live in" and click a few links, it seems that Sweden comes #5 once, #6 once, and #2 on a few other lists (that may have the same source).

I'm off to Sweden

[Chris_Jefferson]

I went to Upsalla (sp?) in Sweden on holiday a few years ago. The people were nice, the food was great, everywhere was clean and the women were attractive. Now I can also do all the filesharing I want to? I'm moving.

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to check up on the tax rates before moving...

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[a_nonamiss]

Unfortunately, I don't think it's that easy to move to Sweden, especially if you don't speak Swedish. I guess I'll have to pull out all those old Muppet Show tapes and start learning...

Ungersh veer hurne, a-gede hu genish gadoo. Yay bursht der horne bersh ter mmmm BORK BORK BORK!

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[JanneM]

"It's spelled Uppsala."

Or Upsala. Either is fine (Upsala is the older spelling).

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[MrZilla]

I don't think not knowing Swedish will be a major problem for anyone wanting to move here. Might be a little inconvenient, but almost the entire population speaks passable English, so as long as you don't mind weird grammar and funny accents, you should be ok.

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[Rogerborg]

Selling bootleg beer from a shop with a "Nej Norsk" sign in the window would take care of all of those problems.

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

As an American living in Sweden I can say... IT IS THAT EASY :). Been here a year and have picked up some Swedelish, but it is hardly required learning.

Hej Då, Y'all.

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[a_nonamiss]

So, and I'm being absolutely serious here, what would I need to do if I were interested in looking into moving there? Would I need to find gainful employment first? Would I need to contact the state department for a work visa? How long should I expect the process to take?

I am an educated, highly valuable IT employee (systems engineer) so I don't think it would be incredibly difficult to find someone who wanted my services, but I don't even know where to start. And yes, I am fed up enough with life here in the US that I would really consider moving to another country.

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[Johan Jonasson]

You're thinking about France methinks... ;)

We swedes generally don't mind that people don't speak Swedish as long as they know at least some English. The younger generations usually even welcome the opportunity to polish their language skills.

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[Lussarn]

I'd like to see that article and have me a good laugh, yes I'm swedish.

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[Troed]

Parent is either extremely uninformed or a troll ... ;)

Welcome to Sweden - we usually speak better English than the average american. At least we can separate they're, their and there both in pronounciation, use and spelling!

*g*

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[pimpimpim]

sweden will be for filesharing what holland is for pot.

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[Hinhule]

That has been taken out of context.

Given that we have a large number of immigrants from old bosnia, iran, somalia, etc who does not speak any language with which to get by in sweden. These have been blamed for all kinds of problems, some might be warranted but probably not all. The law you refered to would be an attempt to get the people who want to stay here to make a bigger effort of getting integrated.

I personaly have no opinion in the matter.

However anyone speaking english would have no problem in Sweden, since we learn english from the age of 7 these days, english/american TV shows and movies are not dubbed etc.

If you would like to learn swedish here is an online course for you:
http://www.slayradio.org/mastering_swedish.php

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[mikael_j]

May I suggest Arbetsmarknadsverket if you're looking for a job? Or perhaps CSjobb?

/Mikael

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[TheRealSync]

There is more to life than money. Even if the government confiscates a large portion of your income, you're still guaranteed to live a very comfortable, productive, and enjoyable lifestyle.

I don't disagree, I just wouldn't call it confiscation - the money goes back to the community, and ensures everyone has equal access to health care, education, and so on and so forth.
I happen to like that (living in Denmark, which has a social structure that pretty much resembles the swedish, coming from a low-income family, but still being able to choose the education I wanted, without ever worrying whether my family would be able to aford it).

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[ceoyoyo]

Quit bragging. Almost EVERYBODY speaks better English than the average American. ;)

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[testadicazzo]

Well, this might have happened in more than one country, but I recall that some bozo (Holland's version of Bloecher) wanted to pass such a law sometime in the last year or two. Sure to do wonders for any countries tourist industry.

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[odourpreventer]

That was in the Netherlands. And yes, he was called an idiot for a while afterwards.

Folkpartiet (the Liberal Party) wants to have a mandatory Swedish test for all who want to become Swedish citizens. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[Foobar of Borg]

sweden will be for filesharing what holland is for pot.

So where do you go when you want to smoke some weed and download some MP3's? If the EU is really serious about cooperation between member states, they really need to address this issue before any more progress can be made!

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[svanstrom]

I wouldn't say that "either is fine", as older spellings are just that... older... It's something that we for one way or another is moving away from; and unless it's a very recent change you better just stick with the "normal" (ie modern) spelling.

If older spellings are ok, then how about older names... where'd we be if some people wrote "uppsala", some "upsala" and others "östra aros"... Some might view "uppsala" and "upsala" as just different spellings, but to some such a change means more than just a spelling, it's a form of identification which you've changed by changing the spelling; just like "janne" and "jane" are not the same name spellt differently.

Just a thought...

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[sharkey]

Unfortunately, I don't think it's that easy to move to Sweden, especially if you don't speak Swedish.

I'd figure the hard part would be convincing your parents to buy a house with a basement in Sweden, but what do I know?

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[easter1916]

Interesting... I speak reasonably good German, and I can generally make out the gist of Swedish text. Sweden's a very cool country. My first girlfriend, Anna Bourcell, was Swedish (her family moved to Ireland). Gosh she was beautiful and I miss her.

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[Mister Whirly]

"The people were nice, the food was great, everywhere was clean and the women were attractive. Now I can also do all the filesharing I want to? I'm moving."

Apparently you have never heard of ABBA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABBA
or Ace of Base http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_of_Base

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[Plutonite]

Very interesting point. Imagine the world becomes a MPAA utopia and only a few rogue states have filesharing allowed. Forget the blondes, people will soon be judging their real estate options based on how clogged the internet tubes are.

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh well...

Most people in Sweden DO speak English (at least around 95% of people with higher education can read it). This together with the fact that Uppsala University is the oldest university in Scandinavia kind of render your language barrier argument to void.

Tax however is a completely different matter...

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[TheJollyBob]

Why not take a look at www.sweden.se ? Especially at 'About Sweden'->'Fact Sheets'->'Working and Living'. ... and by the way: welcome ... :-)

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[jahudabudy]

you don't mind weird grammar and funny accents

Ooh, I was all ready to move until you threw that in there. Coming from the southeastern US, that is just a deal breaker :-)

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[EvilIdler]

Lots of IT businesses in Scandinavia have a large number of foreign workers
that the written and spoken language at work IS English. The neighbouring
country (Norway), where I'm stuck, is about the same in most things, but reportedly has
lower taxes. We've got Opera as one example of a realtively big international
business, and IT workers in general speak English fairly well.

The tax thing in Sweden isn't too bad once you're on Swedish wages, anyway.
Food's cheaper over there than here, which is why you see flocks of Norwegians
hoarding food at the border cities :)
Getting a place to live is much cheaper in Sweden than Norway, too. I know several
Norwegians who've moved or are thinking of moving there.

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[jZnat]

Hey, that's the trade-off for fundamental socialist services like medical.

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[dwarfking]

I agree completely, why shouldn't a country expect anyone that wishes to move in learn the local language? Applying a speak only [insert your language here] on the streets would be dumb for tourists, but as an integral part of gaining citizenship, there is no reason for not learning the local language.

I recall some years back when I was in the Army stationed in Germany. I was in an intelligence unit (cue the oxymoron jokes about military intelligence) stationed alongside combat troops.

Many of us in my unit made concerted efforts to learn German and practiced when we could. Many of the ground forces had the attitude of we're here defending them (during the cold war), so I shouldn't need to learn their language.

Though I was never fluent, what I discovered was that if I made attempts to communicate in German, even though nearly all Germans spoke English, the people were generally friendlier than if I only spoke English. I had more than one store clerk or waitress laugh at my attempts (good naturedly) and switch to English and correct my speech. I found it very rewarding.

The US is at a big disadvantage in not emphasizing multi-language education as many European countries do. The US recently identified immigrants of Hispanic origin to be the largest minority group. Soon, English speakers will be out numbered by Spanish speakers. Would be nice if we were multilingual, but asking immigrants to learn English to gain US citizenship should be acceptable. Interstingly though, English was never codified as the official language for the US. It won by one vote over German during the founding so it was never enshrined in law.

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[rahrens]

...almost?

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[a_nonamiss]

Parent is either extremely uninformed or a troll

I'll gladly admit to the former and flatly deny the latter. I actually looked for the article that I thought I read, and couldn't find it anywhere. Perhaps I dreamed it. I was not attempting to offend anyone, and was not attempting to troll. (although somebody with mod points apparently thought otherwise...)

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[lordmetroid]

What really matters is economic freedom(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_free dom). Where Sweden ranks quite high. For the taxes we pay we get lots of benefits. Like free health care for everyone under the age of 20 and after that very low cost compared to the states. No quaks that advice you treatements so they can earn more money(I've experienced my fair deal of that in the states).
Dental care is free up to the age of 18 and then much lower costs compared to the states. This service is being expected to bt upgraded within short :)
Drug prices are quite cheap and their is a limit of how much you will need to pay for drugs.
Totally free education of choise both schools private and schools public for life, yes even Universities are free of charge. Free meals to all students excluding University level education.
Compared to the states a railroad infrastructure that takes you where you want to go for a cheaper fee.
Roadfees are an exception in rare cases. There is yet to be many highways because of the scarse population though.

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[THEbwana]

Suveränt ! Som en infödd!

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[djp928]

They're supposed to be pronounced DIFFERENTLY?

-- Dave

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[Some_Llama]

After paying Federal, State, Medicare, Social security and Disability I am currently being taxed at about 43% in America (and that's the second to lowest tax bracket), are you saying that Sweden is worse?

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[yarbo]

"There NEVER was a possibility that German would be the official language of the United States, nor was there a vote on such a measure."
"In 1794 some German settlers in Virginia petitioned the U.S. Congress to have certain federal statutes translated into German and printed in both languages. This petition was referred to a committee, which voted the idea down - by a margin of one vote."
Snopes

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[larske]

It is spelled 'Uppsala' (I live there, hopefully I know).

Re:I'm off to Sweden

[jahudabudy]

Yankee poser.

Heh. I don't think I have ever met a Yankee that WANTED to be taken for a Southerner. I have met several that love the South, but even the ones from Jersey take a bit of pride in where they are from (I keed, I keed!).

As to calling it The South, I was responding to a fellow in Sweden. I bet you tell the secretary at work "The WRT 54g is down", and then pretend that SHE is the dumb one when you have to explain you meant "wireless internet".

Screen dumps inadmissable?

[Rob T Firefly]

You mean, despite all that time I spent in MS Paint doctoring screenshots of eMule so the title bar reads "Roy's Internets" and changing the files-in-progress to read "Roy's stealing stoled Metallica musics" and "Star Wars that Roy didn't pay moneys for," my work is now pointless? Damn, I'll never get those three minutes back, and will just have to find some other way to get Roy thrown in jail.

Re:Screen dumps inadmissable?

[grazzy]

It would be funny, it's just that the morons at the swedish "anti piracy bureu" tried just this. They even FAXED the screenshosts - because we ALL know that faxed documents are digital and thus exact copies of everything sacred and holy.

Courts do not have the technical expertise to understand how pathetic and stupid it is to use a screenshot of a common program running as a evidence in a trial that changes the outcome of millions of people. I can accept you get a fine for it, but this was a legal matter which carried a conviction. Not anywhere near where you want evidence like that.

Best part is, they "trusted" the evidence since it came from such a renomed organization, namely the people paid of by the entertainment industry to throw their own customers in jail. Not exactly a outfit I'd enjoy taking care of my savings..

Re:Screen dumps inadmissable?

[roystgnr]

You mean, despite all that time I spent in MS Paint doctoring screenshots of eMule so the title bar reads "Roy's Internets" and changing the files-in-progress to read "Roy's stealing stoled Metallica musics" and "Star Wars that Roy didn't pay moneys for," my work is now pointless? Damn, I'll never get those three minutes back, and will just have to find some other way to get Roy thrown in jail.

What the hell, man? What did I ever do to you?!?

Re:Screen dumps inadmissable?

[andol221]

Try this link to generate your own "evidence" http://www.piratbyran.org/bevismaskinen/

Re:Screen dumps inadmissable?

[ceoyoyo]

I can't accept fining someone based on a screenshot. I can Photoshop you doing some things that carry pretty large fines. I can Photoshop you doing a LOT of things that carry pretty large fines too.

Re:Screen dumps inadmissable?

[Rob T Firefly]

I wasn't aiming at a Texan Roy originally, but I guess since the Swedish Roys are now safe from my meddling, Texas now moves one notch forward on my "Roys to mess with" list.

Don't worry, Roy, there are still a few states ahead of Texas as yet. I really shouldn't be telling you this, but according to my latest projections you may want to take a vacation around April of 2011.

Re:Not exactly 'scot free'

[malsdavis]

Sweden also have amongst the highest HDI (Human Development Index) in the world. HDI is basically the U.N.'s measure of wuality of life based on Health, Education, lack of Crime, lack of poverty etc. Sweden and it's North European neighbours are always jostling for the top spot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ Human_Development_Index (UN HDI Rankings)

Re:FUCK!

[Jedi Alec]

Bring it on....we'll smother the troops in 6 foot tall blondes.

Wait a second...

[ZachPruckowski]

You need evidence to convict someone of filesharing? I thought the big companies just pick a name out of the phone book, and then you're guilty even if you are dead, don't own a computer, can't spell "Limewire" and used to live atop Pike's Peak.

Re:Not exactly 'scot free'

[DynamicPhil]

Myth: Busted:

There is a common belief, especially in the US, that Sweden has a higher rate of suicide than other countries; this is actually a myth, as Sweden has an average suicide rate. The myth was probably started because the secular government of Sweden started to measure suicide statistics openly before other countries did. President Eisenhower saw this as a chance to promote his political ideology, and maintained that the statistics showed Sweden was the country of "free love, high taxes and suicide" (none of this was particularly true at the time). Also, the dark, relatively cold climate of Sweden in the winter has added fuel to this myth. (see "Suicide and Season" below).

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_rates

Re:Not exactly 'scot free'

[jetthe]

"There is a common belief, especially in the US, that Sweden has a higher rate of suicide than other countries; this is actually a myth, as Sweden has an average suicide rate. [...]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide

The ads on TFA say it all

[ronanbear]

Cheap flights to Sweden

Learn Swedish for free

Re:The ads on TFA say it all

[Apocalypse111]

Actually, most Swedes speak english as well or better than Americans, or so I have been given to believe. Looking more and more inviting by the second.

Re:The ads on TFA say it all

[eddy]

I wouldn't say that. Speaking for myself, my spoken English is absolutely atrocious (never have much of a reason to practice it), but I do believe Scandinavians are good at understanding both written and spoken English, so if you're touristing here making yourself understood isn't much of a problem. There is an age barrier here; some eldery never learned English -- my grandmother for instance hardly knows a word.

There's always the Mastering Swedish if you want to pick some of it up :-)

Also, some say alcohol helps. This is probably why the Finns are beter at English?

Re:The ads on TFA say it all

[xtracto]

Well, your country seems very interesting. I for one will look to take some vacations there. I am from Mexico currently living in the UK. On about 2 years I will be looking for work and I am willing to relocate anywhere, and I have always wanted to visit the nordic countries ( watch the aurora borealis, visit finland, etc). If Sweden is as cool as it seems, who knows, maybe I will find some nice work there.

Is tehre any game developing company there (dont mind if it is small or medium)?

Re:The ads on TFA say it all

[Lord_Dweomer]

Just out of curiosity...how hard is it to emigrate to Sweden? How do they view Americans there? And what kind of job market awaits those of us who do not speak the language?

Re:The ads on TFA say it all

[Spand]

http://www.dice.se/

Re:The ads on TFA say it all

[odourpreventer]

Is tehre any game developing company there

Quite many, although the big budget developers hit a recess a few years ago, making that part of the business very hard to get into.

If you have 1337 Java skills you should be able to find something in the Internet/Mobile biz.

Java and .NET programmers will always find something.

Re:The ads on TFA say it all

[odourpreventer]

Forgot to link:

Starbreeze

Ongame

Re:The ads on TFA say it all

[manwal]

Actually, most swedes can hardly speak english at all. Those who claim otherwise are just ignorant of people above the age of ~30.

Re:The ads on TFA say it all

[AGMW]

Well, your country seems very interesting. I for one will look to take some vacations there.

I, for one, welcome our new Swedish overlords, but welcome even more our new Swedish overladies!

Re:The ads on TFA say it all

[Goggi]

If there's 8 months of terrible weather each year then you've choosen a bad part of Sweden, weatherwise. Go north! (-:

Re:The ads on TFA say it all

[ronanbear]

I've been to Sweden. They all had great English so tourists won't have a problem. Learning Swedish is much more important though for working over there from what I've heard.

They're really friendly, hard working and intelligent people but the taxes there will put you off.

Cleared

[certel]

Who cares if he's not for profit.

Re:Cleared

[gomiam]

Actually, the non-profit part of it is quite important in several European countries. (Spanish example) Instead of the "fair-use" clause used in the USA, there's a right to private copy that allows people to duplicate intellectual works subject to author rights (that means copyright and a few more things) unless it damages the author _and_ is done for profit. As long as it is done with no money gain intended, it is (last time I read) legal to do so.

Re:Not exactly 'scot free'

[drsmithy]

Sweden also have amongst the highest HDI (Human Development Index) in the world. HDI is basically the U.N.'s measure of wuality of life based on Health, Education, lack of Crime, lack of poverty etc. Sweden and it's North European neighbours are always jostling for the top spot.

Completely OT, but very cool to see Australia is sitting at #3 :).

Can't say I'd disagree...

Re:FUCK!

[aadvancedGIR]

During WWII, Russia tried to invade Sueden or Norway (I don't remember which one), on day one, they were greatly outnumbering local army and had lots of tanks, planes and so on, a few weeks later, there were only a few survivors running away from their frozen high tech equipment...

Tell me about the piracy situation in Stockholm..

[Hal_Porter]

Jules Tell me about the piracy situation in Stockholm. It's legal there ain't it?
Vincent: Well it's legal but it ain't 100% legal. But that don't matter because if they log your IP address connected to a tracker it's illegal for them to search your aprtment. In Stockholm that's a right the cops don't have.
Jules: That's all there is to it. I'm fuckin' goin'.
Vincent:I know, baby. You'd dig it the most.

"I thought we had what we needed without conducting a search. It is not permitted to carry out a search for this type of crime", she adds.

A raid on the defendant's home would have meant a thorough examination of the contents of his computer.

This ruling will make it difficult for the film industry and other interest groups to pursue the issue in the courts.

Re:FUCK!

[sopuli]

That was Finland. It was called the Winter War.

How it sharing ever became illegal

[pembo13]

is still a point of dismay to me. The least those involved could do was not call it sharing. I do not know much about economics, but I do not see how it benifits a society to not freely share and celebrate music and other forms of art.

Re:How it sharing ever became illegal

[jb.hl.com]

There's nothing wrong with sharing and celebrating music. There's a lot wrong with doing it against the author/artist's wishes.

Re:How it sharing ever became illegal

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I do not know much about economics, but I do not see how it benifits a society to not freely share and celebrate music and other forms of art.

Then I respectfully suggest that you study some introductory economics for a while. The point of copyright and related laws is to offer something to those who create useful works of art as an incentive to share them. Of course there's no benefit to society to give up the right to share the art that's already available, but how many of those works would have been released without the incentive, and how many would not be in future if the incentive were removed?

Now, there is a strong case that some useful works would be still be made and released. Just look at how much software used to be released as freeware, or is released today under some open source licence. But there's also a strong case that it wouldn't be anything like as many as we have now: the vast, vast majority of useful software that gets written was not written purely because someone was kind enough to spend many hours producing a useful or enjoyable work for the benefit of society, and the same goes for books, movies, and so on.

That is what makes the incentive reasonable: you can't share and celebrate art that no-one has.

Re:How it sharing ever became illegal

[Mr2001]

But there's also a strong case that it wouldn't be anything like as many as we have now: the vast, vast majority of useful software that gets written was not written purely because someone was kind enough to spend many hours producing a useful or enjoyable work for the benefit of society, and the same goes for books, movies, and so on.

That is what makes the incentive reasonable: you can't share and celebrate art that no-one has.

Of course, you must also realize that copyright isn't the only possible incentive. It's a bizarre fluke of history that people tend to think of art as a product, packaged and sold in discrete units, rather than a service provided by artists. Even without copyright, artists would still be able to charge for the time they spend working, just like mechanics or barbers, and thus they'd still have an incentive to work.

Re:How it sharing ever became illegal

[computational super]

Your sig seems a tad ironic, considering the tone of your post.

Re:How it sharing ever became illegal

[Shai-kun]

What if the author/artist is not the copyright-holder of his own work?

Re:How it sharing ever became illegal

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Sorry, you've lost me. The existence of copyright doesn't confer any particular power to the state, other than incidentally in cases like Crown Copyright in the UK. Of course it's a law created by the state, but then so is any other law. I don't see your point, unless you're arguing that all laws are infringements of liberty (which of course they are, viewed in isolation, but the question is whether they're a net plus).

Re:How it sharing ever became illegal

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I would totally agree that copyright isn't necessarily the only possible incentive. I generally come down pro-copyright in these discussions, because I think that the principle is sound and it serves effectively as a possible incentive. While there certainly are abuses going on, I think they are almost invariably "implementation faults" with the way the principle is legislated in some jurisdictions.

However, I don't agree with your alternative proposal. The basic problem with arguing that we could just revert to art as a service industry is that it removes a convenient economic mechanism for many people to contribute a small amount and all receive a work, when the cost of producing that work is significantly more than any one individual consumer would consider it worth. You're back to only rich patrons being able to afford to commission new works, and potentially hoarding them in private collections rather than sharing them for the general good. Everybody else can still pay a few pence for a mass-produced paperback, but they're limited to such content as artists choose to give away for free, which as I argued before is a big reduction compared to the choice available today.

Re:How it sharing ever became illegal

[arose]

The basic problem with arguing that we could just revert to art as a service industry is that it removes a convenient economic mechanism for many people to contribute a small amount and all receive a work, when the cost of producing that work is significantly more than any one individual consumer would consider it worth.

Actually modern technology enables more efficient models to this end, curiously that's the same technology that allows file sharing in the first place.

Re:How it sharing ever became illegal

[jb.hl.com]

Then it's the copyright holder's decision.

Re:How it sharing ever became illegal

[R2.0]

"You're back to only rich patrons being able to afford to commission new works, and potentially hoarding them in private collections rather than sharing them for the general good"

I think you miss the fact that a great deal of commissioned work IS publicly displayed, especially large sculpture and paintings. The folks who commision the work often do it specifically for public consumption - it shows how wealthy and powerful they are, that they can afford to be a "patron of the arts".

In my opinion, the commissioned work model never really went away; but simply been institutionalized. Now instead of princes and popes, you have the NEA and galleries and art museums. I also think it is to the detriment of art; peviously, if you displeased your patron, no more support was forthcoming. Now, the artist yelps "freedom of expression" and "you just don't understand the artistic vision", and bureaucrats nod and think they are doing their duty by paying for crap.

Re:How it sharing ever became illegal

[Mr2001]

The basic problem with arguing that we could just revert to art as a service industry is that it removes a convenient economic mechanism for many people to contribute a small amount and all receive a work, when the cost of producing that work is significantly more than any one individual consumer would consider it worth. You're back to only rich patrons being able to afford to commission new works

No, not really.

Consider a political campaign: it costs millions of dollars to produce and place ads on TV, radio, newspapers, etc. No one person could afford to fund all of that by himself (well, a few people could, but they rarely do). But the ads still get made and shown, because lots of little contributions add up, even when the contributors can't see what they're paying for because it hasn't been made yet.

The math works out the same whether the artist gets paid before or after he records an album. If there are 100,000 people each willing to spend $10 to hear your voice, that adds up to a million bucks no matter how you slice it.

An artist could run his business much like a political campaign. Put a thermometer graph on his web site indicating how close he is to the amount he needs to fund his next album. When he reaches his goal, he starts work, and when it's done, it becomes free for everyone to enjoy. If he doesn't reach the goal within X months, everyone gets a refund.

In fact, that would address another problem with the current model, which is that an artist receives an advance on his royalty payment, and may end up owing it back to the company if those royalties don't materialize. If his album isn't as popular as he expects it to be, all the time he put into making it is wasted. On the other hand, if he looks for payment first, he can judge the demand ahead of time, and if there's no money to be made from that album he has in mind, he can decide to spend his time on something else.

Re:How it sharing ever became illegal

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Here are a few problems with your suggestion that come immediately to mind:

• No-one has yet devised an effective system for micropayments. Everyone's got "enabling technology". Being able to do anything useful with it is a completely different question.
• Not all art lives in digital computer files.
• Without any compulsion to pay a fair rate, that same technology would make it unnecessary for people to use the paid-for system in your world, reducing all shared art in your system to donationware. As we saw in a recent article, that doesn't work very well, despite all the wishful thinking.

Re:How it sharing ever became illegal

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

An artist could run his business much like a political campaign. Put a thermometer graph on his web site indicating how close he is to the amount he needs to fund his next album. When he reaches his goal, he starts work, and when it's done, it becomes free for everyone to enjoy. If he doesn't reach the goal within X months, everyone gets a refund.

And just like the vast majority of independent politicians out there, most artists won't even cover the cost of the payment/refund system they have to set up. Why would anyone ever support a new and unheard-of artist?

For that matter, do you really think it would be better if established artists could collect huge advances on a new album and then produce any old rubbish and take the money? Personally, I prefer the current system where the artist has to "come up with the goods" (figuratively speaking) before getting compensated for their efforts, and critics can get hold of a copy to review before everyone else commits.

Re:How it sharing ever became illegal

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I think you miss the fact that a great deal of commissioned work IS publicly displayed, especially large sculpture and paintings.

A great deal? I don't agree. A tiny proportion of all works, usually in a few specific fields, are commissioned and then displayed publicly gratis. The vast, vast majority of works are not, including almost anything that's suitable for file-sharing. One might argue that a few of the big-name open source projects are an exception, where the sponsoring businesses have their own reasons for supporting the project, but that's about as far as it goes.

Re:How it sharing ever became illegal

[arose]

Here are a few problems with your suggestion that come immediately to mind:

Not a suggestion really, more like an observation.

No-one has yet devised an effective system for micropayments. Everyone's got "enabling technology". Being able to do anything useful with it is a completely different question.

As I see it the problem is not in the effectivness of the system, it's limited reach, a system to fund creation of art and entertainment needs a good initiative to sign up for the system in the first place. European SMS payments come close, but are still limited to one or a few countries per system. SMS payments also lack a critical aspect needed for the "ransom" model--refundability.

Not all art lives in digital computer files.

They aren't "threatened" by digital distribution then, are they?

Without any compulsion to pay a fair rate, that same technology would make it unnecessary for people to use the paid-for system in your world,

They have in the ransom model, to receive the work in the first place, sure you could wait for others to pay, but if the work is popular enough for that the artist would get paid (which is the point) and those who paid would have little reason to complain as they had the same option, but choose to pay. If the artist isn't popular enough... I believe the current market makes it far too easy for the little guy to sink production costs on unwanted works.

It's not my world anyway, why my world would contain pre-paid works, it wouldn't eliminate copyright, but limit and balance them. As it stands I'm pretty content with my book, legal-music-download, cheap DVD and random-stuff-on-the-web diet, but living in a relativly poor two million nation severly limits my choice of books and mostly eliminates paid-downloads as they are priced for a different market.

Re:How it sharing ever became illegal

[Mr2001]

And just like the vast majority of independent politicians out there, most artists won't even cover the cost of the payment/refund system they have to set up. Why would anyone ever support a new and unheard-of artist?

Why would anyone support a new and unheard-of mechanic, landscaper, hairstylist, architect, etc.? Hard to say. Is it therefore impossible for new people to enter service fields? I think not.

If you're new and you have a hard time making money because no one has heard of you, there are a variety of things you can do, such as lowering your prices so people feel more inclined to take a risk, or releasing some sample work for free. This problem is hardly new or unique to the copyright-based industries.

For that matter, do you really think it would be better if established artists could collect huge advances on a new album and then produce any old rubbish and take the money?

Nope. Again, there are various ways to deal with that, although I didn't go into the details because frankly, I get tired of explaining it all the time when it should be self-apparent after a few minutes' thought.

The most obvious possibility is to place the money in escrow until the work is finished, and have a third party judge whether it meets the terms which were set at the beginning. Another is to gradually release the money to the artist on a predetermined schedule, and have him release snapshots of his work to the contributors, who can vote on how well it's meeting the terms. I'm sure you can think of a few more.

Re:FUCK!

[Calinous]

Finland?

Psychological benefit

[Mateo_LeFou]

"I do not see how it benifits a society to not freely share and celebrate music and other forms of art." I believe that people -- Americans in particular -- get very wigged-out when it is suggested that anything whatsoever might not be private property.

Re:Psychological benefit

[Znork]

"might not be private property."

Hence the IP lobbyists adoption of the misnomer intellectual 'property' rather than intellectual monopoly, despite the actual nature of the subject.

Re:Psychological benefit

[lbrandy]

I believe that people -- Americans in particular -- get very wigged-out when it is suggested that anything whatsoever might not be private property.

Don't forget people -- Europeans in particular -- get very wigged-out when it is suggested that people actually have the right to get paid for the work they do. (And the fact that it is their societly duty to provide art, for free, that everyone can sit around and celebrate).

Look, you can argue with the merits of the implementation, but pretending you don't understand why "Americans" think it's ok for artists and actors to get paid... that's just being ignorant for no apparant reason.|

Re:Psychological benefit

[Mateo_LeFou]

It is you, not me, who is conflating principle and implementation. Do you think the only way for artists to get paid is through a copyright system? I believe that artists, in general, will actually make more money when and if this system is dismantled/obviated. Not only do I think it's okay for them to get paid, but I think they should get paid more than they currently are.

Re:Psychological benefit

[Znork]

"you don't understand why "Americans" think it's ok for artists and actors to get paid..."

Except, of course, what's actually happening is the artists and creators get ripped off by the middle men 'owners' who take the vast bulk of the money spent.

Paying creative talent does naturally follow by giving someone else a monopoly.

Then again, the whole point of IP was never about the artists and creators, they're just the excuse. The actual purpose was to protect merchants from competition, in exchange for favours for the crown. A purpose which the IP constructs serve admirably.

Re:FUCK!

[sopuli]

Bring it on....we'll smother the troops in 6 foot tall blondes.

Male or female?

The real crime is....

[budword]

That the police and courts, in Sweden or the USA waste their time on this shit at all. They could take all that extra time they have on their hands and follow around some sex offenders, or do some real police work, instead of wasting everyones time protecting winnie the poo's trademark or metalica's artistic works. I am looking into moving soon....maybe Sweden will get a look see....

Re:The real crime is....

[Jugalator]

They could take all that extra time they have on their hands and follow around some sex offenders

*quickly pulls out a snake halfway inserted in his ass*
Hey, now wait a minute, sir!

I am looking into moving soon....maybe Sweden will get a look see....

Oh yeah, I have a room free!

It might only be a technicality....

[zappepcs]

but it is nice to see the playground bully get a black eye, whether he deserved it or not.

Re:FUCK!

[Squapper]

...And Finland (despite resistance from the joined swedish and finnish forces) got pwned. It doesn't make the defensive maneuvers less heroic though...

Re:FUCK!

[houghi]

Bring it on....we'll smother the troops in 6 foot tall blondes.

They even made a movie out of it : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0302855/
I can't find a torrent for it, unfortunatly.

Re:Not exactly 'scot free'

[MrNaz]

We'll see how we (Australians) fare after a few more years of Howard dismantling Medicare and HECS, increasing our military budget and corresponding military activity and continuing to skew the social playing field in favour of his corporate buddies.

Re:Not exactly 'scot free'

[cortana]

It's not all sunshine and roses though.

http://hane05.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!908541C1D7A 8E580!3555.entry

Eisenhower quote

[Dr. Cody]

Does anybody know where this quote came from? Any references?

Winter War

[merikari]

Joint Swedish & Finnish forces? There were some Swedish volunteers in Finland, but not enough to call it a joint force (~7800 troops of a total of 250000). Sweden was a neutral country. Although the official result for both Winter War and Continuation War was 1-0 for the Soviet Union, Finland retained its sovereignity and was never invaded. Finland had to cede territory to the Soviets, but Finland won an important strategic victory. Otherwise, I'd probably speak Russian.

Approximate lineup for Finland vs. U.S.S.R. for the Winter War:
men 250000 vs. 1000000
tanks 30 vs. 3000
aircraft 130 vs. 3800

Re:Winter War

[dunkelfalke]

actually ussr got what they wanted - karelia. that was the goal of the invasion.

Re:Winter War

[merikari]

True, that was one of the goals. Soviets were concerned because Finnish border was very close to Leningrad. Nevertheless, from the beginning, Stalin was very confident that Finland would be conquered easily. He actually ordered his generals to occupy Helsinki in two weeks.

In 20/20 hindsight, Finland could not have fared better against these odds.

Re:FUCK!

[rokkabastard]

They never took over Finland. A ceasefire was decleared and Finland had to surrender some land to them. But they dared not occupy because every finn had some guns under their beds - just waiting for the fools to come in. In the war russians lost 1 000 000 men and finns 100 000 men that tells you how the fight went.

Re:Not exactly 'scot free'

[Arwing]

Hey, in US of A, we have been doing that for years and look at how we are now! High national debt, low health care coverage, poor people stay poor on welfare that covers only fatty food, failing basic education systems and tax cut for rich people!

Re:Riiight...

[MrNaz]

True, but lobby groups and deep pockets allow you to buy their services. In the wors of Mrs. Doubtfire, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"

Re:FUCK!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Male or female?"

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Jesus christ.

[jb.hl.com]

Way to get good evidence; a screenshot. May I suggest that instead of screenshots and other flimsy evidence, the RIAA concentrate on, say, people on forums etc who brag about downloading shitloads of albums off BitTorrent? Written evidence, usually (knowing the "I downloaded 23890248230 albums, aren't I so fucking l33t" crowd) accompanied by screenshots of their music folders. Evidence, see?

Duh. Here in Brasil...

[Wooky_linuxer]

police shoots people before they actualy run or steal something. That way, there is no risk of they getting away.

What the fuck???

[theshowmecanuck]

I call BLULLSHIT! In these 'search' cases the law makes absolutely no fucking sense at all (how do I really feel about this? don't get me started... too late.).

If police do an 'illegal' search on a murderer's house and find a gun that proves his guilt, it proves his guilt. The mental mastribation that lawyers and judges go through to say that the gun is not admisable in court is pure unadulterated bullshit. It is throwing common sense and logic out the window. A fact is a fact, and denying that fact is completely stupid. The proof that the person is a murderer does not really go away even though the lawyers (judges are lawyers too) want to put on blinders. What is really happening is that society is being punished (allowing a murderer to walk free) for a policeman's crime (the illegal search). If one criminal were to break into the murderer's home and steal the gun, and later the police recover it from the thief, it could be used in court as proving the murderer had possession of a murder weapon... even though it was obtained through illegal activities (which the thief will be punished for). Bottom line: if the police broke the law, punish them, not society. The evidence should be still admisable, but the police involved in the illegal search should be punished with enough of a penalty that they won't do something like that at whim. Punish the person who did the crime, not everone else. And don't give any of the 'the police are an extension of society' crap. Police are people too.

This goes for all similar circumstances. A guy pulled over for speeding and the police officer not having reasonable call to search the car still finds 20 Kg of cocain (or whatever your preference) in the trunk. The guy still had 20 kg of cocain in the trunk. etc etc etc. The cop still broke the law. Punishing one person's bad behaviour by not punishing another's behaviour is just plain stupid.

Anyway, stupid rulings and interpretations of the law like this show that we have unfortunately drifted into having legal systems and not justice systems. Somehow we should take a lot of the power out of the lawyers hands to prevent them from coming up with these convoluted brain farts. I know as a now repatriated Canadian that I would love to be able to elect the judges... and would love to have ballots to recall supreme court justices during every federal election.

Re:What the fuck???

[theshowmecanuck]

Early morning... I'll have my coffee now and relax... grmmphhffff....

Re:What the fuck???

[jZnat]

Read the Fourth Amendment and get back to me on how that's bullshit. The US Constitution has the highest authority in the US, period.

Re:What the fuck???

[Maxo-Texas]

It can be irritating.

I don't know if it helps but...

It's not there to protect the murderer.
It's there to protect the rest of us.

Governments gone bad are much worse than an occasional murder or drug dealer getting off.
The founding fathers felt excessive government power was *the* ultimate threat.

The scary thing is... we are just handing it all away to the government these days.

Re:What the fuck???

[rahrens]

It makes no sense at all to you because you haven't been on the receiving end of an illegal search.

The body of case law that requires the prosecutor's office to ignore evidence that has been illegally obtained is designed to stop illegal police searches, period. If the police constantly get cases tossed out because they are illegally searching people, at some point, police management is going to start training the cop on the beat in how to properly and legally conduct a search, and the illegal searches will at least, get less common.

However, if your idea of being able to use the evidence anyway got a legal foothold, any idea of a search being illegal would quickly go out the door, and the police would be able, in practice, to search anyone, anywhere they wished.

Not the way to protect privacy, in my opinion.

As to your idea of punishing the cop that conducts the illegal search, well, that's another story. Rightly or wrongly, our justice system tends to protect the cop on the beat. Sometimes, I think it goes too far, but on balance, they ARE the ones putting their lives on the line for us, and some leeway should acrue for that sacrifice.

As to the punishment, that DOES happen, internally, and out of public view. Do you think that a cop that constantly wastes police time and resources AND prosecutorial time and resources by constantly conducting illegal searches that get cases tossed out DOESN'T get brought up short by his boss? I'll bet they do. Police agencies all over the world are constantly short of budget, personnel, and other resources. Prosecutors' offices are much the same. They can't just let these things go, because they waste time and money. Cops that search illegally on a regular basis get pulled off the street and get re-educated and retrained. Those that keep it up will eventually get canned.

I can understand your reasons for your rant - we all have gripes with the justice system; it's not even close to perfect. But I'd rather the system encourage the cops to obey the constitutional guarantees of freedom the Bill of Rights gives us than allow them to ignore them. Yes, criminals will get released. But most criminals aren't very smart - if the cops don't get them this time, they will the next.

Re:What the fuck???

[Fordiman]

"If police do an 'illegal' search on a murderer's house and find a gun that proves his guilt, it proves his guilt. The mental mastribation that lawyers and judges go through to say that the gun is not admisable in court is pure unadulterated bullshit. It is throwing common sense and logic out the window."

I'm sure it is, but it's the penalty society takes for not following its own rules. I wouldn't want to be a member of a society that doesn't follow its own rules, or at least is not penalized for doing so. (actually, I don't want to be a member of this society for that very reason, but that's neither here nor there).

Meanwhile, if the police find something in an illegal search that *points* to smoking-gun-evidence in another location, the police can use it for their search and anything they find from that search is admissible; just not the fruits of the illegal search itself.

Re:What the fuck???

[Catbeller]

These kids who bow to the government went to with dogs sniffing their crotches for drugs. They really don't get civil liberties or how their rights should be protected at all costs. They went to work for feudal corporations who monitor their every orifice. They've no experience with freedom.

When people go on about how safe their schools are and how wonderful drug testing and E911 monitoring of their kids is, I want to scream at them, "You idiots. You are raising a generation of anti-American drones. You've scared them to death of Stranger Danger and kidnapping and dangerous city thugs and drug epidemics and Moslems, and they've become fascistic, giving in to power at every chance. You've made a generation of Good Germans. You've killed us."

RIP America, b. July 4, 1776 d. Sept 11, 2001.

Re:What the fuck???

[grimwell]

Nice troll. Even got modded up to "3, Interesting".

Very enlightened view-point... the ends justify the means.

Re:What the fuck???

[nasch]

However, if your idea of being able to use the evidence anyway got a legal foothold, any idea of a search being illegal would quickly go out the door, and the police would be able, in practice, to search anyone, anywhere they wished.

It sort of has already. By my interpretation, police are now allowed to get a warrant, and then break down your door without knocking. Any evidence will be admissible. It's not a warrantless search so there's still that check, and police need to be able to break in if no one is there or they're busy destroying evidence, but it's unfortunate they don't have to give you a chance to answer the door.

Re:What the fuck???

[rahrens]

If they have a warrant, then by definition, it is a legal search, and thus, not what I was talking about.

Police will only actually break a door in if there is a situation where they know there is danger to life and limb in say, a hostage situation, or there is no landlord with a key and they require admittance to a property. They usually will, within the limits of not compromising the search (alerting the suspect) try to obtain admission without breakage, but you are right, if they need admission, and there's no one present, and no way to get a key, they will break the door.

But that's not what I was talking about. The parent was ranting about evidence obviously linking someone to a crime being tossed out of court if obtained illegally, and I was answering that rant with a little common sense. Privacy is NOT a dim legal technicality. It is what keeps the police from breaking down your door at midnite and hauling you away without warrant, and without accountability.

With a warrant, there is an outside person, not linked to the police bureacracy, that knows you have been searched or arrested. That warrant gives them the authority to do what they have requested. It also limits them to what the warrant gives them the authority to do. They cannot just haul away anything they wish, and they must provide a receipt for anything they remove. In other words, they are accountable to a court, and that court can force them to remedy an error, either through return of property, or monetary compensation. It also gives basis for a writ of habeus corpus, where the police are forced to bring you before a court after arrest to give evidence you were properly arrested and have a basis for keeping you there.

In other words, there is accountability, which is something that the British Army had little of during the colonial period, which is why those rights were included in the Bill of Rights. During this period, people could, and did, disappear. Troops could search your property for "evidence" you were rebellious, and if the officer in charge found something he really wanted, he could take it as evidence, and you could disappear. Largely, if you were a nobody, that action stuck, and you were out of luck.

With these rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and the police accountable to a court, we are much better protected.

I do not mean to imply that abuses do not happen. They do, but at least the victims often have some recourse.

If you have any doubts as to the value of these rights, please ask anybody that has lived in various South American countries at a number of unsettled times in the past, where people routinely disappeared and never came home. I think the Washington Post had a recent article about the Guatemalan experience, it was horrific, what was done.

If you think the US Government is bad now in its fight with Terrorism, read that article; we've got nothing to complain about by comparison.

Re:What the fuck???

[AmberBlackCat]

Rightly or wrongly, our justice system tends to protect the cop on the beat. Sometimes, I think it goes too far, but on balance, they ARE the ones putting their lives on the line for us, and some leeway should acrue for that sacrifice.

I disagree. Aside from the fact that this would mean firemen, stunt men, ane people who sign up for medical testing should all get to commit crimes unpunished because they risk their lives for us, being a law enforcement officer is a responsibility, and they are given power ordinary citizens don't have. When you're given that kind of power and you abuse it, I think the punishment should not be less strict, but more strict because more is at stake. The entire mission the officer was hired to carry out is compromised. And it makes people less likely to trust or co-operate with the good cops.

As to the punishment, that DOES happen, internally, and out of public view. Do you think that a cop that constantly wastes police time and resources AND prosecutorial time and resources by constantly conducting illegal searches that get cases tossed out DOESN'T get brought up short by his boss?

I disagree with this too. At every job i've worked at, there has been somebody who wastes company time and resources, and gets away with it because he or she has favor with the boss, whether it be because they're friends, family, or they have the same demographic and the people who suffered are of a different demographic.

I'd rather the system encourage the cops to obey the constitutional guarantees of freedom the Bill of Rights gives us than allow them to ignore them.

If you think they should be encouraged to follow the rules then why do you think they should be given a free ride when they break those rules?

Re:What the fuck???

[nasch]

You seem to think I agree with the OP and disagree with you, which is not the case. I was just mentioning that the balance has recently tipped slightly toward police power and away from privacy in the area of searches.

Police will only actually break a door in if there is a situation where they know there is danger to life and limb in say, a hostage situation, or there is no landlord with a key and they require admittance to a property.

Until recently that's been true, because if they burst in without knocking and without good reason to do so, the evidence from the search could be invalidated. Now that they can do this without fear of losing evidence, I guarantee that somewhere, sometime somebody will do it. Maybe they just like busting down doors. Maybe there's an uncooperative witness and they decide to teach them a lesson. There are just too many police forces doing too many searches for this not to happen sooner or later. Again, I'm not saying the search is illegal, I'm saying that the courts have permitted the police to conduct a legal search in a way that was previously at least potentially not allowed.

Re:What the fuck???

[theshowmecanuck]

The point is, if the police break the law by doing an illegal search, punish the police, not society.

Re:What the fuck???

[rahrens]

I didn't say I agreed with it, I noted that that is apparently how the system works. I do agree that police, gov't employees, politicians, etc., should be held to a higher standard. Note that I am a federal employee and still say that.

I didn't say that the system is perfect, or even works, but sooner or later, people that break the rules egregiously DO get their comeuppance. Police DO have issues with resources, and even halfway honest police managers will get down and discipline cops that constantly waste theirs. I don't care if you don't agree, but however unevenly this may be followed across the country, most police departments will eventually discipline these kinds of offenders, at least the worst ones. ...and I didn't say they deserved a free ride, I said that there should be some consideration by society of the fact that they (cops) are always putting their lives on the line. But, yes, when they cross that line beyond where we give them that break, hit them with a heavy brick to get their attention. In fact, that was the point of MY rant, that when the police break the rules, the one very heavy penalty they pay is that all that hard work they did to build that case goes down the toilet, as it should!

Re:What the fuck???

[Maxo-Texas]

No... There was a recent change where now they can break in without those provacations. They have done this. They have done this to innocent people when they accidentally went to the wrong house. I'm not sure - but someone may have even had a gun in one of these cases (memory is a bit foggy here).

Privacy is a derived right. You do not have an explicit right to privacy. It was interpreted into the constitution based on explicit rights granted therein.

Re:What the fuck???

[jwo7777777]

Yes, Your Honor....that's right.....we, the Police, don't know exactly who searched the house.....but we did find a gun.

Sorry we can't point a finger at the cop who actually did the illegal search. Can we take the felon to jail now?

Re:What the fuck???

[theshowmecanuck]

That in istself is a punishable offense that the judge can send someone to prison for. Ubstruction of justice. And they do send people to prison for it.

Re:What the fuck???

[theshowmecanuck]

... errr.... itself, and Obstruction of justice.... those were almost criminal level spelling mistakes.

Re:What the fuck???

[rahrens]

Ah, but are you talking privacy or protection from unreasonable search and seizure?

In the first case, you are right, it is generally thought that privacy as a right is an inferred right, although there is a school of thought that the same right to that protection against search and seizure also includes a more explicit privacy protection. IANAL, tho.

But in the latter case, the constitution explicitly protects us against unreasonable search and seizure, although there is a lot of case law about just what constitutes unreasonable.

Re:"Technicality"?

[Rogerborg]

^^^
And thus dies the Slashdot ratings system. I think you meant "+1, Demonstrates by example"

cost to benefits?

[Phantom of the Opera]

60% does sound like an awful lot. I wonder what sort of quality of life that buys you. When I was living in California, my rent chewed up about 60% of my (after tax) paycheck. (so, ~30% tax, ~5% retirement, 42% rent, 23% of paycheck for food, utilities and the rest) It makes me wonder if the invisible hand of cost of living/taxation is effectively a constant. What does the tax buy me? A social security check whos total is guaranteed not to approach the amount put into it, poorly implemented social programs (why educate when the morphene of money will placate those with crappy fortunes), a wasteful war on drugs (and on other ills that I apparently cannot protect my children from) and a foreign policy I strongly disagree with.

I'd be curious to hear what you get in Sweden.

If you think you are paying more for health care than the US, you would be wrong, however :
    http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php

It's an interesting graph, but I wouldn't say that it was a relationship between quality of care and spending. I think it more points out the general health of the citizenry. Are Americans so unhealthy on average that the amount spent really is required, or is it that US doctors like to buy the latest gee-wiz gadgets or what?

Yes, this is off topic but is still an interesting little discussion.

Re:cost to benefits?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Sweden, your retirement fund is fully paid for by taxes, University tuition is free, and daycare is very heavily subsidized. If you're a regular guy like like me with kids, that adds up! Plus of course healthcare is free, and despite what the parent poster said, it's actually quite good.

Plus you get at least 6 weeks vacation per year.

There are other oddities too which a lot of Swedes won't notice or miss until they live somewhere else for awhile. For example, there's the everyman's right, and as you can see from this slashdot story, stuff like civil rights and privacy laws are taken very seriously.

The taxes also buy you neutrality, which has kept Sweden out of wars since 1814.

Re:cost to benefits?

[Anonymous Coward]

I lived and worked in Sweden for a few years and the tax system there has clearly run completely amok.
And - no - you don't get what you pay for.
I had an employee who was in the top 10% tax bracket in Sweden (which meant we first paid 30-35% on his gross, then he paid 60 % on the remainder as income tax). One day, he called me from the hospital (he'd had an accident - had smashed a tooth) - he needed an advance on his pay since the dentist would not admit him if he could not pay the fee up front (they thought he wouldnt be able to pay the bill). Since the tax is so high - virtually no one can save any money to speak of and subsequently, he did not have the 600 EUR cash they needed up front.
At this time, I felt it appropriate to point out (to the hospital) that I though health care would be free in Sweden - they said: Yes - its free. So I asked, why do you need 600 EUR then ? They said: It's a "service charge".
I'm sorry - but theres no way in hell I can accept that the scenario above could happen in a country that provide free healthcare.

Also, the Swedes are now experiencing a purchasing power that is dropping like a stone. Last time I checked the purchasing power of the average Swede was in 18th place (in the OECD ranking) - just passing Portugal on the way down.

The Swedes also seem extremely adept at convincing themself that they are really well off (which they're not).
I'm happy I didn't stay there for long.

It's really nice to visit during the summer though. Lots of beautiful blondes, everything is cheap (if you're not getting paid in Sweden, that is), people are nice etc.

Re:cost to benefits?

[claes]

Healthcare is free? It is obvious that you don't live in the same Sweden as I do.

Re:FUCK!

[eMbry00s]

That was Finland, and they co-operated with the Nazi's against Soviet. The Finns were highly tactically superior, but lost quite a bit of their land (roughly between a third and a fourth). Later during the war tried to take it back, but they failed and had to pay huge amounts of money to Soviet.

Not to mention how easy screenshot fabrication is.

[Seng]

And logs... I can easily doctor a log with search & replace to show different IPs. If RIAA/MPAA is just digging for out-of-court settlements, who is going to be the one to "validate" the logs/screenshots and testify they saw them in their original form? If we continue to allow corporations to file their own subpoenas without any independent verification, we're all screwed.

Thanks!

[Jugalator]

As a Swede myself, there was a minor disturbance in the force here, but I'm happy to hear things are now back to normal again. :-p

Seriously, I'm happy to see a screenshot of a DirectConnect client not being good enough evidence for a court. To a good Photoshopper, you could just as well give the court a scribbled down note listing an IP address and tell them it's proof. These things are so easy to tamper with, so one should be able to assume these get thrown out of court. However, with how things are going today, I'm still almost feeling surprised by it, and it worries me.

Re:Not exactly 'scot free'

[Jugalator]

I tell you, it's DVD-Jon's achievements and their oil that keeps bringing the blasted Norwegians on top of us!

/ Grumpy Swede

Not true...

[deesine]

if you also consider musicians "the little guy".

Re:FUCK!

[Explo]

The Finns were highly tactically superior, but lost quite a bit of their land (roughly between a third and a fourth).

Not quite that much; the real number is about one tenth.

Difficult or Easy Immorality

[TheStonepedo]

Laws often try to force-feed some kind of morality to the apathetic public. People pirate online because it is easy, not because it is right. I do not think heavy-handed fines are fitting for illegal theft and distribution just because the material being stolen is enormously overpriced; however, stealing is still wrong. While not everyone will agree on how much benefit certain people involved in the production and distribution of certain products should receive, there is no reason to deny everyone involved the opportunity to make a living. I know that [music/movies/software] I download are not my property, are obtained illegally, and could result in my being fined or imprisoned. Ask every person who bootlegs movies, music, or software to shoplift then distribute hard copies on CDR/DVDR/what-have-you. Piracy seems a lot more wrong when it's not so easy.

Re:FUCK!

[eMbry00s]

Oh okay, I've only seen it on maps and it was a long time ago, so you are probably right.

Swedish Proxies

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Anybody have a list a Swedish proxy servers they'd like to share? Free is good, but I'd be willing to pay for a reliable one.

Re:Swedish Proxies

[abelsson]

here you go! Courtesy of Labs2 and The pirate party.

You're not an ACLU member I guess...

[Lactoso]

Presumption of innocence is one of the main tenets of our legal system and an underlying theme throughout the US's bill of rights. Take particular notice of the 4th amendment which PROTECTS US citizens against "unreasonable searches and seizures".

Any governing body, given insufficient oversight, will subvert its charter - usually not to the benefit of the governed. Without the checks and balances of the law, we would be subject to the very conditions which kindled the American Revolution. Are you really saying that as a Canadian, you're happy with writs of assistance and their abuses?

Police are expected to pursue their duties with great zeal. There must be irrefutable parameters from which within they operate. Otherwise, this same zeal will lead them to unintentional abuse of the very people they are charged with protecting.

"It is better to allow 99 guilty men go free than to convict 1 innocent man". Then again, it appears that habeas corpus may no longer apply. :-(

Enjoy your rights now boys, 'cause they're running out quick...

What Evidence?

[fuzznutz]

May I suggest that instead of screenshots and other flimsy evidence, the RIAA concentrate on, say, people on forums etc who brag about downloading shitloads of albums off BitTorrent? Written evidence, usually (knowing the "I downloaded 23890248230 albums, aren't I so fucking l33t" crowd) accompanied by screenshots of their music folders. Evidence, see?

Might I suggest that "bragging" does not constitute evidence. If it did, John Mark Karr would be on trial for murder. And if you think "screenshots" are solid evidence, I suggest you spend a few minutes at your grocery checkout line browsing the "Weekly World News" or better yet do a Google search on Reuters fauxtographer Adnan Hajj.

The whole point of the decision is that reliable physical evidence is necessary for a conviction.

Re:What Evidence?

[jb.hl.com]

Posting on a forum that you have downloaded lots and lots of albums is close enough to a confession for me. No idea if it would be admissible in court, but hell, the RIAA have tried stupider things.

The whole point of the decision is that reliable physical evidence is necessary for a conviction.

Which is why, of course, ATM fraud cannot be convicted because there's no physical evidence.

Re:What Evidence?

[pregister]

Really?

I mean, really?

Posting on a forum is enough to convince you its true?

I have downloaded 5 albums.
I have the Mona Lisa in my closet.
Britney Spears is pregnant with my two-headed love child.
My donkey, DeWayne, looks great in garters and bustier.
It would be a Good Idea for you to send me 25% of your income until I decide I no longer need it. Pssst...don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

-p

P.S. I was kidding about Britney. Its a 3-headed love child.

Re:What Evidence?

[fuzznutz]

Posting on a forum that you have downloaded lots and lots of albums is close enough to a confession for me. No idea if it would be admissible in court, but hell, the RIAA have tried stupider things.

Uh huh... And just suppose that your machine was compromised and all your passwords were stolen. If the thief posted online that you had a pirate copy of all of Adobe's software, would you still be so quick to meet out punishment for confessions?

And in spite of that, you are aware that the RIAA prosecutes individuals that offer copyrighted songs for download, not those that download for themselves. I can download every song in the catalog and if I disallow uploads, the RIAA totally ignores me.

This is the law

[chasisaac]

Since the crime does not carry a high enough punishment under Swedish law to allow for a search of the defendant's house,

This is the law we need here in the United States.
The cops cannot break in unless it is serious enough crime.

This law I really really really really really like

Three cheers for Sweeden.
Now why did all my realtives leave sweeden and come to America?

Re:This is the law

[unix_core]

Though, in Sweden, the police does not need a written warrant to search your house.

Re:This is the law

[Some_Llama]

"Though, in Sweden, the police does not need a written warrant to search your house."

What's the drug policy like?

Re:Heh (Kinda OT)

[Das Modell]

I think Finnish law states that the police can't search your property if the crime wouldn't result in at least six months of imprisonment. This is why the police can't raid your home with a SWAT team just because you refuse to let the TV license inspector into your home.

Re:Heh (Kinda OT)

[IAmTheDave]

I'm a Norwegian, and I have had my home (also my girlfriend's and her son's home) raided by two policemen (every room, every cupboard...). They had gotten a warrant from the local court on the SINGLE GROUNDS OF ONE WITNESS SEEING ME SMOKING A JOINT! ONCE! They found nothing, but unfortunately for me they also had gotten a warrant for "my body", which meant they had the right to force me to piss in a cup... This of course resulted in a fine, and a criminal record.

Wow... remind me not to move to Norwegia...

Re:FUCK!

[ar1550]

I never thought I'd say this, but which way to the US Army recruiting center? I've suddenly realized it is my patriotic duty to invade Sweden...hell, I'll even take point!

You haven't heard of Noone?

[Ahnteis]

He's some guy who goes around internet forums checking for spelling, grammar, and typing errors. Some days, he's just a minor nuisance. Other days, he's a real pain in the butt.

I'm not a German but you're an insensitive clod!

[orzetto]

"You idiots. You are raising a generation of anti-American drones. You've scared them to death of Stranger Danger and kidnapping and dangerous city thugs and drug epidemics and Moslems, and they've become fascistic, giving in to power at every chance. You've made a generation of Good Germans. You've killed us."

Funny thing, the Germans are the people least scared by terrorism in Europe. Even when some terrorist plot on DB trains was foiled some weeks ago, the reaction of most Germans interviewed on TV was "Uh, so what? It's more likely I get killed in a car accident anyway". Anyone who tried arguing with the average Otto should know they are most definitely not like their great-grandfathers, except the usual chunk of dorks every society has.

Re:FUCK!

[chefren]

Wikipedia is your friend.

Sanity at last

[Koraq]

Yes!

Service Provided by an Artist

[MushMouth]

I think that part of you comment pretty much sums up what the groupthink of P2P proponents is. Artists are there to provide you with a service. Do you even leave a tip for them them when they pour you a beer at the local pub?

Re:Service Provided by an Artist

[Mr2001]

I think that part of you comment pretty much sums up what the groupthink of P2P proponents is. Artists are there to provide you with a service.

Uh... sure, I guess, just like barbers and mechanics. That's "service" as opposed to "product": the benefit they provide is through their effort, not a physical item. If they want to be paid for their effort, that's perfectly fine, and there are adequate ways for them to be paid for their effort without having to prevent anyone else from copying or sharing files.

Do you even leave a tip for them them when they pour you a beer at the local pub?

As a matter of fact, I do. The beer is a product, pouring the beer (and keeping the place clean, running the poker tournaments, etc.) is a service, and I pay for both. Is that clear now?

Re:Dumbfuck

[a_nonamiss]

Dumbfuck

Wow... Here in the United States we may not speak English very much good, (OK, that was intentional) but I like to think there are at least some of us that would never use such a derogatory term about someone we've never met. At least I'm making an attempt to learn about other cultures rather than insulting them.

Americans: More accurately...

[bwcbwc]

American corporations (particularly media corporations) and the politicians they lobby. (Yes, that means you, Orin)

The difference.... he lives in a **Free Country**

[EmbeddedJanitor]

To get real freedom you want to live in a country near the top of a list like: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=4116

Rutabaga!

[RoloDMonkey]

Ugh, I've been reading too much British literature lately: Pratchett, Stroud, Herriot. The first thing I thought when I saw the word swede was, "turnip," and then the headline didn't make any sense.