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...
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
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.
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
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.
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.
And free sharing of information was legal long before copyright existed. Copyright is frequently ignored because sharing information is natural behavior for humans.
--- SER