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."
There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling.
My 0.02 cents
emigrate to Sweden? Man, not only they make the best pr0n, now they will (hopefully) legalize file-sharing...
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
I'm very proud to live in the Sweden now. Proud of the nation of Pirates! So if you mpaa or riaa are planing to invande Sweden, think again! We will fight to the last man. Yarr!
Actually they recently criminalized _buying_ sexual services. Selling therm is still legal, though.
sudo ergo sum
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.
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 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
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!
Anyone else think that some one at the media forgot to pay swedish politicians? Don't worry, it will soon be corrected when the politicians all of sudden find they aren't invited to any media social events.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'm sorry, but your statement has no basis in fact. Sweden is the world's third largest exporter of music.
"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...
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.
Please re-seed. I'm stuck at 67%.
Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex.
That's wrong, Sweden produce, percentage, most international music of all countries in the world. Why Sweden is in the front of the filesharing debate is because we have the highest internet and computer use in the world. Every home in Sweden have at the worst a ADSL-link connected.
And just how much Swedish "culture" is their on piratebay?
Is "erotica" the same as "culture"?
Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex.
FTA:
That's not the same as the synopsis:
Now, I RTFA and it reads to me that he feels that the media/IP industries will never be satisfied with what the state does and that he doesn't feel it's the states place to police the Internet. Both of these are admirable and sensible statements, in line with what many people actually think.
But I really don't think he is advocating Sweden as some sort of torrent haven as some posters seem to be suggesting.
A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
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
"...little IP..."
Ahrem... just because the country barely has 9 million people doesn't mean they have little IP. The cool thing with Sweden is that it has IP where it matters and LOADS of it.
ABB, Ericsson, Tetra Laval... I could go on.
That you got 5 mod points is insulting.
Yes and Slashdot is full of cultural connoisseurs.
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 think you'll find that Sweden has a HUGE number of companies that generate considerably more patents (and therefore IP) per capita than the US
source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pat_gra_percap-economy-patents-granted-per-capita
Keep scrolling down, past Latvia... and Mongolia... and Kazakhstan... and you find the US in 40th position.
Now admittedly, you're actually talking about copyright IP, pertaining (mainly) to music and video which can be easily packaged up electronically and transmitted without authorisation. Might be a good idea to have stated that.
Beer Coat: The invisible but warm coat worn when walking home after a booze cruise at 3 in the morning.
As much as I would love to see this go through, the numbers make this look like a fringe movement to me. There are 349 members of the Riksdag (Swedish Parliament) and the article says only 13 MPs have come out in favor of this. Even though this originated from a member of the leading party, it is still a long ways from becoming more than rhetoric.
I'll definitely be keeping my eyes open for updates on this, though.
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.
Actually you immigrate to a country, emigrating implies going FROM a country. Use it correctly and the women flock around you at parties.
A word of warning before crossing the pond:
But if this is not too daunting, you're very welcome to join!
bork bork bork!
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.
Actually you write it grammar, grammer implies you don't know how to spell. Use it correctly and...well, women won't flock around you at parties, but English teachers will be less inclined to hit you with bricks.
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
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.
Argh. I knew I should have checked the facts before making assumptions. The Canadian DMCA *would* have been ridiculously bad, but it didn't get passed.
A word of warning before crossing back:
Police will be carrying guns at all times, but are still pretty much useless
You may have to learn an entirely new language... like Spanish! :-)
Don't plan to get rich
Gun Toting Red-Necks had their own country at one point
In rural places people are typically stupid, expect a lot of identity theft, credit card theft, and overall a large amount of fraud
The taxpayers' money is spent on a lot more useless stuff than Europe... by far... it's not even close.
Welcome back, you'll be strip searching, polygraphed, and racially profiled at the door!
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 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
Prostitution is a funny case. Often, the "seller" is in a position of peculiar weakness compared to the "buyer" and "broker" (pimp). If buying and broking is illegal but selling isn't, then the prostitute has immunity from prosecution, giving him/her a great deal of negotiating power they wouldn't normally have.
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!
Actually he did mean Nokia. You see Finland is just rebellious province of Sweden, lost for temporarily, but not permanently. No truly Swedish have never accepted the loss of the empire. As the time will come right the Stormaktstiden will come back! The rightful lands of Finland, Norway, Estonia and parts of Russia and North-Germany will be returned under the reborn Swedish Empire!
Survey research tool for commercial and scientific use
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.
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've been wondering in similar lines, how they seem to get such and unending supply of really HOT US chicks to do porn. I mean, even the low cost production, almost amateur stuff is full of young, very good looking chicks?!?!
I mean, do you just buy a camera, put an ad in the paper or something and they flock to your door?
One other thing to ponder, if you 'perform' in your own videos....how do you keep the cops from arresting your from prostitution....is it legal to 'pay for sex' if you film it and call it making a movie?
Oh well, just some questions.....next week..."How do the blue lines in hockey work?"
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
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.
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.
The claim is that many hookers are not selling sex out of their free will, and that given an alternative, they would stop selling sex. Thus, the legislators did not feel like coming down hard on a group that already has a difficult time.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
"Property taxes refer only to real estate property"
Total and utter BS. Educate yourself.
Have you never heard of the Personal Property Tax? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax
"In the United States, another form of property tax is the personal property tax, which can target
* automobiles, boats, aircraft and other vehicles;
* other valuable durable goods such as works of art (most household goods and personal effects are usually exempt);
* business inventory;
* intangible assets such as stocks and bonds.
In some states, it is permissible to separate the real estate tax, into two separate taxes--one the land value and one on the building value. (See Land Value Taxation.)
Personal property taxes can be assessed at almost any level of government, though they are perhaps most commonly assessed by states."