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."

Comments

Hmm, maybe..

[rotide]

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.

Re:Hmm, maybe..

[famebait]

I think NO penalties for ignoring copyright infringement is a bad idea,

I'm a bit confused about what you mean here.
Who is ignoring copyright infringement and should be penalized for it?

The pirates today are _performing_ infringement.
The Swedish MPs in question want to change the law so that it is _not_ an infringement.
In free countries it is not normal to punish civilians for ignoring the petty crimes of their fellow citizens.
Is it the law enforcers you want to punish, than, if they fail to crack down on file-sharers?

Re:Hmm, maybe..

[tkrotchko]

You are correct. However, my preferences would be to change the law to:

a) Force the party suing people to first prove they know the exact person who infringed the copyright - it's kind of like those speed cameras. Since they can't tell who was driving, the fine is $40, no points, and by law they can't be used by insurance companies to raise fees.

b) The punishment matches the crime - If you share a electronic copy of a CD, the retail price is about $8-10, as determined by the market. That would be the maximum punishment. If this is someone who has never been convicted of sharing copyrighted materials, there would be no punishment for a "first offense".

c) The fines/fees from any punishment would be used to fund the arts - this allows the RIAA/MPAA to put their money where their mouths are. They keep saying they're protecting the artist (RIAA), or that every time a movie is copied, then a stuntman or gaffer is put out of work. Well, this allows the arts to flourish, and deters people from sharing copyrighted material.

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.

What percentage of people share files?

[pieterh]

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.

Re:Sure,

[Marcus Green]

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.

Re:That is the democratic way of dealing with it

[morcego]

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.

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 /.ers agree with limited term copyright. Copyright is not about morality. It has a use. These days, we keep seeing it being abused.

Re:That is the democratic way of dealing with it

[Joe the Lesser]

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.

Re:That is the democratic way of dealing with it

[Opportunist]

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?