Slashdot Mirror
Legalize File Sharing, Say Swedish MPs
CrystalFalcon writes "In the past week, the file sharing debate has exploded in Sweden, with numerous mainstream politicians finally having understood the issue. Last week, seven Swedish MPs wrote a prominent opinion piece saying that fully legalized file sharing is not just the best solution, it's the only solution. Now their number has increased to 13, and the issue continues to grow. Good summaries at TorrentFreak and P2P Consortium. Original opinion piece in English here."
After all, in a democratic country, if a very large percentage of the population willingly infringes a law, there is a very strong case that the law is wrong, not the people. So I guess in any (truly) democratic country file-sharing and similar attitudes regarding "intellectual property" should be legal.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
It seems that any actual societal progress comes from Europe these days, while the US is sinking deeper into a Republican/corporate mire. This is just another example.
That's not Picasso, that's Kandinsky!
"Politicians who play for the antipiracy team should be aware that they have allied themselves with a special interest that is never satisfied and that will always demand that we take additional steps toward the ultimate control state."
It boggles my mind that there aren't more politicians who have figured out this gem of wisdom. Restricting the rights and freedoms OF YOUR VOTERS for the benefit of a corporation or trade organization, who will never be happy and will continue to push for more and more restrictions and limitations, is a sure way to decrease your chances of being re-elected...
That's just not true. I live in Sweden, and prostitution is very much illegal. You must be thinking of the Netherlands or something.
I tried to purchase "intimate services" just a couple of months ago, and the only people who would offer it were Chinese immigrants (nothing wrong with that, I like asians) - and only under extreme secrecy.
Again, please remember that Europe isn't one big Eastern equivalent of the US - the countries in Europe are very diverse and have very different laws. And no, Sweden and Switzerland aren't the same country.
So yes, it would be a net gain. There would be at least one country in the world that values its citizen's privacy.
I agree, but not only because there are so many people pirating, but simply because this is the right thing to do. It's not about pirating or saving a few bucks: one of the primary reasons for the existence of nations is to contribute to the diffusion and development of culture (I live in Italy and here we have this clearly written in one of the first articles of our constitution; the proposed European constitution says pretty much the same thing).
Copyright was established as a state-created monopoly, for a limited time, to encourage the creation and diffusion of artistic works. Not to guarantee an endless stream of money to the MAFIAA lawyers. It's pretty clear that the creation and diffusion of art, music, movies, books, etc. is doing pretty well today (probably better than any other period in human history!) despite, and sometimes thanks to, the huge diffusion of filesharing and piracy.
So there's no need to outlaw it. It's that simple: copyright isn't a law of nature, it was accepted as a compromise to achieve an end and can be changed if necessary.
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
You know there is only one way this will end.
Hi! Could you also tell me next week's Powerball numbers?
I'm sorry, that's just bullshit. If what you speculate was anywhere NEAR the mark, the **AA's would have already coerced ISPs to block sites like Pirate Bay. That they haven't should speak volumes about your theory.
Insightful indeed.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The Berne convention leaves a lot open to interpretation.
Rick Falkvinge (the leader of the Swedish Pirate Party) has written a great analysis of this on his blog -- unfortunately it's in Swedish
Rick Falkvinge: Sverige kan legalisera fildelning imorgon
There are a lot of nice quotes from various treaties that show just how much flexibility a signatory to a treaty is -- some of them in English.
I do not earn money from copyright laws, but that is not the point. You see, The media industry is ripping of you too.
A CD here in stockholm cost more or less 150 SEK, of that about 10 SEK go to the copyright holders. If I want to buy a song online, the price at www.ahlens.se is 12.90 SEK.
From that I can easily see that although the distribution-cost practically has vanished, the media industry still want the same price for the music. They are ripping us of. A fair price for an album would be 30 SEK, 10 SEK for the distributor and 20 SEK for the artist. And a fair price for a song would be 3 SEK.
The problem with the copyright law is that it allow these abuses, and it enables the media industry to undermine our integrity and rights society through spending vasts amount on lobbying.
That is why copyright is Evil.
OTOH, you could argue that for music, most of the money will shift to live concerts, and for gaming, most of the money will shift to on-line gaming. This would mean that a not unlikely future would create huge problems for the movie industry (where Sweden has little to lose) but less problems for the areas where Sweden is comparatively strong.
That would be overthinking the issue from the point of view of the MP's. They just argue that civil liberties are more important than copyright infringements, and that's that. Quite reasonable, IMHO.
They say information is the enemy of ignorance. Maybe you should try a dose. This time, I've done some of the work for you:
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Economy:
"Sweden is an export-oriented market economy featuring a modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, and a skilled labour force. [...] Telecommunications, the automotive industry and the pharmaceutical industries are also of great importance. Agriculture accounts for 2 percent of GDP and employment.
[...]
Sweden is ranked as having the best creativity in Europe for business and is predicted to become a talent magnet for the world's most purposeful workers. [...]"
All the typical signs of a post-industrial economy which relies quite heavily on copyright, patent and trademark laws.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
God, I hate pseudo-arguments like this; taking one aspect of the argument and spinning it, but ok, I'll bite
a) worked on many different TV shows
b) worked for a record company
c) have a couple of patents
and d) I write.
Of course, you'd know of d alrady - I wrote the piece for TorrentFreak.
The point of the pieces through, isn't abolishing copyright, returning to anarchy, but instead that attempting to criminalise a large section of the population, because an industry hasn't moved on, nor learned from past attempts (with the VCR and MP3 players specifically mentioned).
I just hope your writing is a damned sight better than your reading comprehension.
http://www.torrentfreak.com
http://neuron2neuron.blogspot.com
http://www.piracyisnotacrime.com
He's talking about important IP creations like amazon's one click pattent. You know, the stuff that makes the US a world leader in IP crap.
So you gain from copyright, fine. not a problem. Where the problem occurs is that for the next 100 years after your death the corporations involve still gain and still rip off your hiers. Not to mention if your work has been making them lots of money they will attempt to extend the copyright near the end of the 100 years ... example Disney Co.. successfully got the copyright on Mickey Mouse upped from 50 to 100 years by convincing the American Congress that Disney without a copyright in Mickey Mouse would some how kill the company and probably "endanger" children by allowing misuse of said copyright.
The media companies need to revamp their marketing to take advantage of the new error.. not try to circumvent the law to maintain effectively a criminal enterprise.
Who says I dont pay?
It is my freedom that they are stealing, with the legal structure of copyright as an excuse. I am not saying that they should take away protection from copyright-holders, I am saying that copyright law is being abused and it has to change.
Morality is subjective and can of course never be codified into laws that should hold for everyone. There isn't any "right" or "wrong" in a democratic process, there is just the process.
In a world where content is created only by those who really enjoy doing it, and not by those who are simply in it for the money, there would be no Britney Spears albums, no Michael Bay movies, and no more anything by Dr. Phil. The Church of Scientology would dry up and disappear due to a shortage of funds and perceived "star power". I am having a very difficult time understanding what is "bad" about any of this.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
I think the mistake you make is in using "share files" - people I've known have always shared books, LP's, mix tapes, CD's, the works - computers have merely made it easier and cheaper for them. To most of them there's no difference between borrowing an album and making a copy of it because, from their perspective, there is no difference - they're getting to experience something they probably wouldn't have bought anyway for zero appreciable cost. They haven't seen it as "wrong" or as "theft" since their dad borrowed his neighbours mix tape to lisen to on that family holiday they went on when they were 6. It just seems to be a natural thing people do, and legislating harshly against human nature generally results in ugliness.
In summary, you're completely right and we're probably both preaching to the choir, but alot of people seem to think that it's computers and the internet that are the root causes of the "piracy problem" when, as ever, it's people that are the problem.
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
Now here's my perspective:
I have not created anything that I have been paid for, but that is not for lack of trying. I have wanted to create comic books since the 1970s.
To get the @$$-holes out of the way, let's just agree to say that my work sucks and is not worth publishing. There, now we can probably discuss this as adults. :)
Here is the situation after a few decades:
I was NOT willing to travel to New York to work for slave wages in the offices of Marvel or DC; therefore, I stayed in sunny California, got a real job that paid my bills and allowed me time to work on my "hobby".
After several decades I have a decent retirement account built up, I have had paid vacations, sick-time (that I have periodically abused), a real career, regular decent pay checks that have enabled me to buy a very large house in the not-cheap San Francisco Bay Area. I still work on my "hobby". I hope to one day publish my work.
On the flip side, I hear horror stories of some of the comic creators whose work I enjoyed as a child not having basic medical care in the older years. Some live in poverty!
True, a few have made out like bandits, notably the Image comics guys (they were all guys, weren't they?). By and large though, I seem to be better off NOT having "succeeded". I get a chill trying to imagine my life if I had gone to work for Marvel of DC in the seventies or eighties.
Copyright law did not protect the creators of my youth! In fact, the "Work For Hire" provisions FUCKED OVER people I admire and respect!
I do NOT want to eliminate copyright, I just want FUCKING POLITICIANS to remember that copyright is a benefit We the People grant to creators for a temporary time, not for FUCKIN' ETERNITY!
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
d) so-called "intellectual property" will be treated as real property, including the levy of "property tax" on the fair market value of the so-called "intellectual property". This would encourage artists and companies to maximize the value of productive property and abandon property that is not productive.
OMG. This is one of the most insightful ideas concerning copyright since its conception. If anything, this would be a huge leap towards more balance between those that create and those that use that creation, either to consume it or to create something new out of it.
I wouldn't do a "property tax", I'd rather have IP holders pay an annual fee for their creations to "keep" them. That would immediately eliminate all discussions about whether copyright should be 10 years, 20, 50, 70 or infinitly. The IP holder himself could determine how long his property is valuable to him, and release it into public domain as soon as it becomes "worthless". There is so much IP lying around, because it's "worthless", but cannot be used sensibly by anyone because it is still kept under lock by the one holding the rights to it. It could be reused, recycled, in art as collages or music as remixes, and new art could arise out of old. A new art form could emerge out of it.
You, sir, single handedly shaped an idea that could revolutionize the way we handle IP. Please write to your congressman (or whatever similar entity exists in your country)!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If the general public is not firmly committed to the society's laws and legal system, that's a problem with the laws and not the public. The government, and thus the law should be an extension of the will of the people. If the people routinely break the law it is obviously not an expression of their will, and so it deserves no respect at all.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And free sharing of information was legal long before copyright existed. Copyright is frequently ignored because sharing information is natural behavior for humans.
--- SER
Kindly explain why you think it is a bad idea for people to share what they have, and that we should stop them from doing this. Note that this is the exact opposite of what most children are taught is the "right" way to behave.
The internet has finally brought these two fundamentally opposed notions into direct conflict. There can be no compromise between those who want to base society on taking/withholding and those who want to base it on sharing, and that's what we're looking at here.
Do you share your ball with the other kids on the playground, so that you can all enjoy the game, or do you reserve it for the few who can afford to pay you, which means there aren't enough players for a good game but you'll benefit more from it? It's all the same ethical decision at the bottom of it.
I fail to see how it's the copyright law that is letting artists get screwed over by the recording labels
It is not, it is allowing US to get screwed over by the recording labels/Hollywood. Think about it: copyright is very much like a patent in that it grants a monopoly for a limited period of time in order to encourage creativity. The difference is that the "customer" for patent holders are often other firms and it is certainly other firms which have their rights limited most by patents. Now compare the term of a patent (20 years) to the term of copyright (70+ years), where we are the customers and it is us who have our rights limited the most.
I understand that legally copyrights and patents are separate things but conceptually they are very similar. So why is it that we have such huge term lengths for copyrights? If artists can live off their old work for the best part of a century why can't inventors? The main difference to me seems to be the lobbying power of the group whose rights are restricted.
> if I want to charge money for my work
You can charge for your work even when people are allowed to share files. See radiohead. No, what you want is a right to prevent some six billion people to share something you published until they pay you and you want the state (all of them) to punish everybody who shares it anyway. Your swedish counterparty (and not only they) obviously want to even to force ISPs to snoop on peoples private communication and report them if they share a information you "own", to ease the process of their punishment.
Is it privateering, then?
No sig for the moment.
1. Given that you can't create competition with copyrighted works we have market failure in this case. I would suggest 14 years copyright for music - long enough to make back all money invested + healthy returns but not too long to inhibit the creation of new music and not too long to deny people the right to copy it.
2. We need to allow people to copy music even if the rights holders don't agree, IF the price they charge is too high. I would suggest that any other company could charge whatever it wanted so long as it paid 15 cents per track to the rights holders. That way if for example the music company together with some distributer charges 99 cents a track, another company is allowed to compete with them and charge 25 cents a track. That way 15 cents goes to the artist and original music company and the new distributer has 10 cents per track to cover their costs. Of course if they want to charge 30 cents they can do that too. We get real competition. We just need to keep a small fee paid to the rights holders that is not exorbitant. 99 cents per track IS exorbitant.
3. We need to force limitations on DRM. If you want to use DRM you can but under the following provisos (companies can choose not to use DRM if they do not like them):
a. Since this mp3 should last for life in the same way a CD does it needs to be compatible with a lifetime's wirth of devices. So at any given time it must work with at least 5 different devices and you should be able to remove one and add one as you acquire new devices through your lifetime.
b. If the format in which the file is encoded becomes obsolete you need to provide a way to convert it to a new format free of charge (ie via some downloadable program).
c. No personal information like email addresses or name is allowed in the DRM file.
d. The company must allow me convert from one DRM type to another DRM type if the file is not compatible with one playback device. Eg if Apples' DRM does not work with Zune then apple must allow me to convert it to another DRM type that does work.
e. If a company violates the above rules the copyright is automatically voided for the songs involved, I can sue for damages and I am allowed to crack the DRM.
4. Members of a household are always allowed to share tracks no matter what the end user license agreement says.
5. Libraries can 'lend' out digital music files so long as they pay for each one separately. Of course they must be digitally returned - perhaps by a DRM expiration on a specific device.
But they'd still be raiding the musical booty of other countries, so they still can hoist the old Jolly Roger.