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."
While I think NO penalties for ignoring copyright infringement is a bad idea, I also think that suing 12yr olds is even more retarded. The benefits of this idea are that time/money/lives aren't lost and/or ruined by overly greedy corporations. However, I don't think the artists/creators will enjoy this much. But I think we can all agree, those that want to infringe will, regardless of the laws.
You know there is only one way this will end. Within a year of Sweden legalizing file sharing, the MAFIAA with have put enough pressure on all the North American ISPs to block any connection resolving to a Swedish address. Problem solved.
I have to say, getting EU citizenship is looking more appealing all the time.
It would be really interesting to know what percentage of computer users share files...? In my informal surveys, the figure is really high, 80-90%, and the people who do not share files don't do it simply because they don't care, or don't know how.
I have never, once, found someone who actually states that they have a moral principle against it.
The whole "piracy is theft" campaign seems as empty as the "don't smoke pot" campaign. People will do it, and just find ways of not getting caught.
My blog
Hey, you have plenty of smart forward-thinking people over there in the US too. The fact that a dozen or so of our MP:s (in the party who have traditionally been one of the most staunch defenders of the copyright status quo) have finally gathered together enough courage to break from the herd on this issue doesn't mean anything will necessarily happen any time soon. They're still a minority.
The most depressing part is that, as far as I've seen, this has been a completely mono-partisan move by dissident members of parliament belonging to our moderate/conservative party, who are currently the major part of the incumbent coalition in our government. Our so-called opposition is too busy to oppose the incumbent coalition on any and all issues to be seen allying themselves with a group of members of the Moderate party, even a breakaway faction.
It would be handy if people posting responses to this could indicate if they have ever created anything from which they gained a financial return due to copyright laws. I write stuff and generate income from the fact that the law gives me the right to control its copying in return for money. If that law is repealed I will find other ways to spend my time/earn money. I suspect other people will feel and act in the same way. Of course some people will do it for the love of it. Me I quite like going to folk clubs where people do it for the love of the art. Not sure if that is all the creative content I want in my life though.
that is not even legally publishable due to copyright law. Frankly, I'm tired of you benefiting at my expense.
Wake up and smell the coffe. You know as well as I do that this is just desperate sensationalism from 'Moderaterna' (the ruling conservative party) to atempt to regain some of the support it lost by eliminating vast amounts of wellfare.
Of course it does. Morality is not something engraved in stone tablets. It is something defined by society. Is having sex under 18 moral ? Is drinking beer ? How about eating pork ? Owning a gun ? Morality is ONLY defined by the society.
/.ers agree with limited term copyright. Copyright is not about morality. It has a use. These days, we keep seeing it being abused.
There are many reason (that have nothing to do with morality) why slavery is not a good idea. Same about many other "morality" related issues. Many times, morality is just a guise, and there are other reasons. The same applies about copyright. I'm sure most
morcego
and in most instances, so think people who speed. I, for one, don't agree that 60km/h is the proper speed limit for a specific deserted, uninhabited, perfect conditions, three-lane each way avenue in my hometown. The only reason for it to be 60km/h is that it is maintained by the municipality (as opposed to state or union roads). And yeah, they love radar'ing people there.
When I speed I don't think I'm doing something wrong. I'm not very aggressive, I just speed with the flow of traffic...probably going slower would be more likely to cause an accident. I'm confident in my moral superiority, that clearly the road was built for higher speeds than the limit indicates, and the law is silly, or limit too low for realistic expectations of society.
People who fileshare will probably agree there is a law against it (you can't argue with fact), but are also probably certain that the law doesn't make any societal sense, and that they are morally fine.
Exactly the same in my view.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
I fail to see how it's the copyright law that is letting artists get screwed over by the recording labels, I thought it would be more to do with the fact that musicians don't tend to have a degree in business management or economics, and therefor let themselves get screwed over.
which is totally what she said
Really? They are? Did you ask anyone?
I actually thought the same and started asking people. Not just friends. I went out on the street, posed as a "survey man" and started asking. It helps when you studied statistics, you know the drill. And you know how to word questions without leading people to answers.
Interesting enough: 63.4% of the people I asked (sample size 1000, taken in a city of about 2 million inhabitants) did not agree with the anti-terror laws that were created (compared to 8.2 percent thinking we need more surveillance, 23.1 percent saying we have adequate laws and 5.3 percent refusing to answer).
Now tell me again, who wants those laws? Barely a third of the people I asked think they're ok or not going far enough, two thirds are telling me they go too far and they don't want them. What "public demand" do you see?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In taking a queue from a great movie (Modified for context):
Q: Is there a problem with our laws?
A: Our laws are perfect.
Q: Then why do people disobey them?
A: Because our laws will only lead to one possible outcome.
Q: What outcome?
A: Revolution.
And that leaves us with today: It's a revolution, starting slowly, one country at a time.
People wont adhere to the laws that confine us. When people view what they do as perfectly natural, perfectly legal, it becomes harder and harder to keep them from doing it. Information *wants* to be free. And all the laws, all the digital locks, all the copyrights in the world will not stop it.
So why not let it be free?
Revolution my friends, mark my words.
Thomas A. Knight
Author of The Time Weaver
I would strongly disagree that explicitly legalizing noncommercial reproduction of copyrighted works is "ripping out the heart of the Berne convention and pissing on it" as you so colourfully put it. If you want to talk about the heart of the principle of copyright or the Berne convention, you have to go back to the time where the means of duplication of recordings was a tool of power wielded by the few. The original intent of copyright is to prevent profiteering of other people's work, not to stop noncommercial exchange of such recordings. The current incarnation dates back to 1971 -- where nobody could ever dream of an information paradigm shift as significant as the Gutenberg printing press -- the Internet. Nobody wants a society where an author toils away at a work, only to have it stolen from him and sold. Such rights of commercial exploitation by the author should be respected and preserved.
As you say, the US copyright law has a four factor test to determine what is and what isn't fair use in the eyes of US law. That in itself sets precedent -- the determination of what is and what isn't fair use (setting criterion to implement a possible definition of fair use) is a determination to be made not by treaty, but by national laws.
Finally, I would agree with your point that treaties are just words on a paper in the end if somebody disagrees with them. The point was to defuse the argument that the Berne convention does not allow for such reform to take place. It does. You could make the point that it doesn't really matter in the end though, since if the other parties to the convention decide they don't like how you interpret the convention, the treaty is just as little worth as if it had been broken by Sweden first.