Slashdot Mirror
Danish DRM Breaker Turns Himself In To Test Backup Law
coaxial writes "In Denmark, it's legal to make copies of commercial videos for backup or other private purposes. It's also illegal to break the DRM that restricts copying of DVDs. Deciding to find out which law mattered, Henrik Anderson reported himself for 100 violations of the DRM-breaking law (he ripped his DVD collection to his computer) and demanded that the Danish anti-piracy Antipiratgruppen do something about it. They promised him a response, then didn't respond. So now he's reporting himself to the police. He wants a trial, so that the legality of the DRM-breaking law can be tested in court."
This is really brave. Not just rant about how stupid a law is, or how unenforceable, and then just break it. But break it, deliberately turn yourself in, and show how stupid/unenforceable the law is.
From an egoistic short-term perspective this is probably seen as just stupid, but this is the way to actually enact some changes.
Bravo!
Not a smart move. Better to avoid the law even if you are correct.
Civil disobedience done right. The world would be a better place if more of us (and I'm specifically pointing to empty-nest geezers like that one in the mirror) had the cojones to do similarly rather than constantly bitching.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I'm guessing that the law there is similar to the US in which you really can't do much about a law until it actually impacts you. I'm not sure I'm happy with that situation, in that some poor soul (or souls) has to effectively be martyred before the 'protections' kick in.
Or is this case simply one of two laws which contradict each other?
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
If we lived in a true democracy (for the people), DRM would never exist
He's just going to be slapped with an unreasonable fine he can't pay and then he will have to file for bankruptcy or some such thing. Courts are fine with giving out unreasonable fines because "hey, at least it's not jail time." However, fines can make it impossible for you to pay your bills, even if you are allowed to pay them off over a period of time.
Actually, it is probably more like .... Law vs Law, who ever wins, we lose!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Would be they find him guilty. And the penalty is 10 years in prison and 100,000 euro fine!!
If we lived in a true democracy (for the people), DRM would never exist
If you lived in a true democracy you would get the laws that people voted for - this may or may not include DRM
To quote Men In Black
A person is smart, but people are stupid
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Both laws live in harmony. Copying the video is not illegal, breaking the DRM is.
DRM solely exists to provide corporations more control over the products they sell. It in no way is beneficial to the average user.
So therefore the average users, or the people who provide the majority of votes, would never vote for DRM.
Except for all of those people who have invested in said publicly-traded corporations . . .
Being from scandinavia (not Denmark though, but laws are likely quite similar), I can say that I would be really surprised if the fine was any more than a couple of thousand euros. Fines/damages here are meant to be payable and any unreasonable fines/damage will be cut down to a level that's feasible payable for the person in question. That's one of the things you learn in the introductory law courses here.
DRM solely exists to provide corporations more control over the products they sell. It in no way is beneficial to the informed user.
So therefore the informed users, or the people who provide the majority of votes, would never vote for DRM.
FTFY
And how much lobbying would you expect corporations to do to ensure that the general public is not well informed??
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
A true democracy is not 'for' the people. It is by the people, which is an entirely different concept.
Put yourself in a room with ninety-nine other people, and then ask yourself if you'd like to be forced to obey what any fifty-one of them decide they'd like you to do. I'd wager you don't.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Peasant: Well I didn't vote for it
RIAA: you don't VOTE for DRM!
Peasant: Well how did we get DRM then?
I believe you mean "to paraphrase a quote from Men In Black".
His DVD collection consists of only 100 discs?!? How big is his collection of movies downloaded via bittorrent?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I prefer living in a Republic (USA).
He's not a whining sniveling cowardly hypocrite like the Pirate Bay defendants.
This guy's putting it on the line. Does he have a defense fund that can be contributed to?
IANAL .. really
You're assuming the average voter would be aware of the situation. With the number of people who suddenly think that universal health care is Marxist simply because someone on TV said so, I have very little faith in people doing their own research. The vote could easily carry DRM if that's what the media wanted.
We don't live in a true democracy -- a true democracy would be an absolute nightmare. We need a buffer to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. If the United States were a true democracy, it is likely that Conservative Christianity would be the official religion, morality would be mandated on a mass scale (far more than it already is), and things would be an all around disaster. Pure democracy = mob rule, plain and simple.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Is making a backup merely legal, or is it expressed as a right? If the former, you're correct, but if it's the latter then DRM conflicts.
Selective enforcement of laws is allowed in Denmark :
For criminal law - no (like everywhere else, including the US)
For civil law (which is what this falls under) - yes (again, like everywhere else, including the US)
The general principle is that everyone is equal before the government. But ONLY before the government. Not before someone else (you're perfectly free to have you roof done only by someone with black hair, just to name something stupid), nor before companies.
An example : a company demands payment from half it's customers, say it's christmas and everyone below 16 does not get billed (just making up some excuse). One of the customers forced to pay (16 years and 2 days old, say) cannot complain because someone else didn't have to pay. That is "selective enforcement" and is perfectly A-okay, just about everywhere in the world.
A counterexample is that the government cannot choose not to pursue a murderer. It IS a (theoretical) defence for a murderer to claim the government let another murderer go free. This usually gets applied to parking fines or speeding tickets. If you can prove the police let someone else go, you don't have to pay the fine.
The police only intervenes in matters of criminal law. And before you ask, you can get arrested "for not paying a bill", yes. But not because not paying a bill itself lands you in jail, this is civil law and cannot result in incarceration. Ignoring a court's order to pay a bill IS criminal law (it's a felony I believe).
So this guy is basically an attention-grabber who's knows he'll go free, due a basic property of our law system every first-year law student learns. The police won't do anything because that's not their job. Their job is criminal law.
Perhaps he owns a company that sells blank DVDs.
If they could be convinced or tricked into believing DRM is in their best interests, they would gladly vote for it.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Would that be any worse than being forced to obey what a political elite of three people would like you to do?
Well, looking at it from a U.S. perspective it would depend. First you have to look at whether the laws truly contradict and who passed the laws (state v. federal). If law A was passed by congress in 1980 and a contradictory law B was passed by congress in 1990, then law B trumps. The courts would say that law B supersedes law A and congress intent must have been for law A not to apply any longer. This is because congress had spoken on the issue and now says something different. The newer law must reflect congress current intent on the law rather than out of date view of the older law.
Now things change if we are talking about state passing a law and congress passing a law. You have to do a whole bunch on constitutional analysis at that point. State rights vs federal power.
Lobbying? They would do the same thing the do now. Buy votes. I'd wager they might even save money - Congressmen aren't cheap!
If you lived in a true democracy you would get the laws that people voted for - this may or may not include DRM
That's actually a pretty important point. In a system where you can get laws passed based on the majority's will a society tends to develop some terrible foibles. Take California for example. Here in California, we have a proposition system in our state government. Anyone can write a proposition (item to be voted on to become law) and then get that proposition, no matter how biased, stupid, or retarded onto a ballot via petition. With enough activism and bullshitting, therefore, we could literally have a person write a law outlawing use of dihydrogen monoxide in every household, spread some FUD and shout louder than any sane person out there, raise a very passionate but misinformed movement, and get that law on the ballot. Then, if the majority of voters that turn out vote for the proposition, that proposition becomes law. This is one of the closest systems to direct democracy that I have ever seen in government. It has its consequences.
For instance, our population continues to vote for convenience projects funded by the government. We want a high speed train? Turn it into a proposition. God forbid we let a private company develop one. Nope, let's have our state government build it with our tax dollars. We need more revenue? Well we don't want to raise taxes so let's just let our congress figure that one out. This trend happens continuously and, after a few decades of retarded laws and projects, our budget is such a mess that even an educated (maybe) and bloated congress cannot figure out how the hell to solve it.
Another example? Sure. There is a large portion (though not a majority) of folk in California that think gays should have the right to marry. Thus, over the past few years, these groups have written a number of propositions trying to legalize it. They have come in strangely worded forms that helped to confuse the issue in the minds of most voters. They have been, repetitively, met by an equally passionate, and, in my opinion, bigoted, movement that votes down said propositions. Never mind silly things like civil rights, equality, respect for other folks. Never mind studies done to show that gay families can and do function just as well as hetero families and so on. None of those details have stopped a very vocal group of people from implementing a systematic discrimination into our very state laws.
That is the consequence of true democracy. The mob rules. If the mob is stupid, stupidity rules. If this mob is full of asshattery, asshattery rules. If the mob is kind and just and intelligent, compassion, justice, and intelligence rules.
I am not saying that one system is better than another, but I would caution anyone to be careful about wishing for true democracy. It can be a terribly ugly overlord.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
And how much lobbying would you expect corporations to do to ensure that the general public is not well informed??
Case in point, look at lobbying and advertisements in the USA over health care reform. Those with the money to do so, will to the best of their ability, un-inform or mis-inform the masses.
In some ways, yes, it probably would be worse. I'd rather be ruled by the malicious than the ignorant.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
noble idiot?
$ whatis msft msft: nothing appropriate
I do live in Denmark. The danish copyright laws are based upon the copyright rules from the european union, that all member states have to implement in their national laws. One of these rules state that it is allowed to circumvent the copy protection schemes if it is necessary to use the media. That is probably intended to make it possible for Linux users to play DVDs, but in this case it might also be used because if the user has a PC without a DVD drive, then it is necessary to rip the DVD with a different PC. Another european rule states that temporary copies that are necessary for using the media are always allowed. Again in this case if the user has a PC without DVD-drive, then it is legal to store the DVD content on a harddrive (which is not a permanent copy).
Actually, it would be more like the stories popping up about Wikipedia. Whoever has the most time, the most patience, knows the rules best, plays best with the system will win. Expect flash mobs, filibusters, wholly uninformed voting based on loose rumors because no one has time to read it all. Plus you really get mob rule, like Switzerland just outlawing minarets which is quite clearly aimed at restricting one minority's exercise of their religion. And finally, the people do not vote in the best interest of the people. Each person tends to vote what's best for themselves, which is a different thing entirely.
Let me take an example from Norway:
3.5 million eligible voters
2.6 million in workforce
2.5 million working
1.8 million working in private sector
Right now, the private workers are in a small majority among the total voters. Very soon the number of senior citizens will skyrocket and they will lose that majority. Everyone votes for their benefits and public sector people vote for their own salaries, who do they think will pay? It's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
How does he fit through his door with such massive balls?
Just out of curiosity for the lawyer/business/combination types, would defining politics as a market do anything about the lobbying situation? Politicians are already bought like commodities. I'm wondering what effects this would have on the way things operate.
If we lived in a true democracy (for the people), DRM would never exist
I'm not happy with DRM, but it bears to be said that a true democracy is two wolves and one lamb deciding what to have for dinner.
Internet scofflaw
You can copy the data in its raw form and therefore have your right to have a backup without decrypting it and breaking the DRM on the data.
This guy is going to get owned.
You are correct sir, mostly. The USA is NOT a "true democracy", but it is a democratic for of government. Technically, it's a Federated Constitutional Republic utilizing a Globalized Presidential system and representive democracy. Spelled out, Federated (national, state, and locally subdivided), Constitutional (document providing powers to seperated executive and legislative branches), Republic (where the head of state is not a monarch but subject to both pubic vote and suffrage). Presidential (to preside) over a representative democracy (people do not directly vote on laws nor do they have direct power over those elected/appointed). By Globalized, our president gets permission from various world organizations and other governments to perform certain acts, and world opinion has nearly as much influence on our government as our own voters do.
By "true democracy" you must be refering to "direct democracy" instead of "representative" democracy. The USA is only marginally a "representative" as elected politicians are in no way bound to vote in the favor of their constituents, nor is there a formal feedback process (only letters and complaints, which can be easily ignored in favor of lobyists who are not typically working the the favor of the constituents or people, but of themselves or a corporation). This is where the Capitolism enters the playing filed, and where the USA is somewhat apart from others.
It is also correct, though not completely in the traditional sense, to add the work "socialist" in front of Republic, as the USA does use numerous socialist policies. Socialism is not itself a form of government, but can be used to describe any form of government. Commonly, socialism is put by many people on a scale between democracy and communism, as if those could be directly compared as government types, and often it is confused with Marxism. Also, many confuse "socialized" with "socialist" but these are completely different terms. In a socialist nation, goods and saervices are litterally OWNED by the people, and your work efforts provide you a share of those resources equal to the work others do. Socialized services are services provided to those by others who can not afford them otherwise, regardless of effort put forward. Socialized healthcare for example does not mean you have to perform services for the government, nor that you receive certain preferential treatment in healthcare, MEDICARE is already defined as socialized medicine. So long as joinging a government run program is not COMPULSORY (options to select from both public and private options exist), then "socialized healthcare" is simply the fallback coverage for those without coverage, and the choice for others.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
Um, no. Regardless of what the people vote for in terms of laws, we still have a constitution and branced government with balances. A Direct Democracy would simply replace the Senate and House (which would mostly still exest to WRITE the laws they would simply no longer have a part in passing them), but it would not replace the executive or judicial branch, nor scould the people pass (or courts not overturn) a piece of legislation that violated our constitution.
Remember, we still CAN vote direct, to change the constitution itself (that's the only way other than simple ammendements) The PEOPLE vote to hold a constitutional congress....
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
Are there any precedents anywhere for having conflicting laws and what happens in cases like this where it would seem that one of the two laws in question would have to be illegal itself? I would hope that he has his lawyer fees taken care of or is a lawyer himself, something like this sounds expensive.
he just couldn't hear it over the sound of his gong-size balls knocking together.
Seriously. I want to buy this guy a beer.
It seems likely the police/DA are going to be like "what, are you stupid?" and not prosecute the case. But in that case, I should hope that attitude gets used as precedent - if nobody cares enough to do anything to this guy, even when he makes it so easy, why should they do it to someone who makes it hard?
(the preceding is essentially American law, apologies in advance for where it doesn't apply)
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Corporations don't exist in a vacuum, they are owned and run by people. People who vote and contribute to political campaigns. Neither of those things would change in a pure democracy.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I agree with your analysis, I'm just wondering why it would work out that way.
The police aren't going to want to deal with it
Why exactly? I know you're right, but I'd love to know the reason why. A law has been broken. The police have been notified. They aren't in the revenue stream for content producers, so there is no financial motive for them to ignore it. And yet we both know that this will come to naught.
This *will* get buried, but I'd love to know exactly the reasons why.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Short term - sure; letting everyone copy everything for free is great.
Long term - you end up with a society where nobody produces anything that can be copied for free.
I earn a living writing software. People pay for that software; that payment allows me to keep writing software. If tomorrow comes and everyone can copy my software for free - short term, the people all end up with software for free. They are happy. Long term, I stop being a computer programmer and find a profession where my work can't be digitally copied. Maybe I become a plumber. Long term, there is no new software.
Same with Movies and Music. Without $$$ things don't happen. You can't have a high budget action movie without $$$. And you don't get $$$ unless people are paying for your content.
You'd be able to convince a lot of people that laws to protect these things are good things.
Old or new should not matter. What matters is that the laws contradict each other.
If we lived in a true democracy (for the people), DRM would never exist
Indeed, a true democracy is little more than a lynch mob
He could have made the copies but retained the DRM. Or, he could have made exact DVD copies with the DRM in place. OK, so it's not possible to make exact copies of dual-layered DVD but that's a technological issue, not legal.
I don't understand how the two laws are contradictory.
This Danish guy just... Turned himself in? My god, someone save him! Doesn't he know that cops EAT DANISHES?
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Something is awesome in the state of Denmark. And it's Anderson.
A similar analogy is the US first amendment gives the right to free speech, but not the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. Think of it as a Venn diagram. Law A (right to make personal copies) says it's legal to do something. Law B (don't circumvent DRM) says you can't copy something that's been encrypted. Therefore it's legal to make personal copies of anything that doesn't have DRM. So it's legal to copy VHS (unless it has macrovision) or OTA broadcast but not DVD. Why is that so hard to understand?
"if you need a hospital or support for some physical limitation, you won't have to pay through your nose to get it, as this is seen as a basic human right"
Medical but not food as a basic right is amusing; same goes for breathing, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, and excretion.
Only after you take care of these physiological needs do you get to the next tier of Maslow's hierarchy of needs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
where "health" is located... and that's considered a safety issue, after security of: body, employment, resources, morality, and the family, only just edging out security of property.
-- Terry
You seem to be under the impression that it's a proven fact that control over a product that you yourself sell is a bad thing "to the average user". I see two problems with this: First, it's not "the average user" that laws are (supposed to be) designed to protect but people in general -- that is, the law is there to protect the user, the CEO of the company selling the product and every employee that sits between the two. If laws were merely in existence to protect the consumers then, by gross absurdum, all products would be free. Second, you seem to believe it's a proven fact that the creator of a product should have no control over the product they sell, "for the good of man" or so. However, there's no proof that that's the case. Few reasonable people argue for the total removal of copyright or even trademark or patent laws, and for good reason -- there is a greater economic incentive to produce with rather than without those laws. However, the real sticking point is at what level of control is the individual economic incentive large enough to produce but the consumer still retains adequate protections. For example, if I couldn't distribute software I personally produced with a license of my choosing I probably wouldn't create software as a job since my paycheck would probably be lower due to the fact that I couldn't contractually prevent others from redistributing my works.
tl;dr: Prove (or at least describe) your assumptions and think about the people on the supply side of the chain as well when considering overall good.
Nice argumentation, except that you are WRONG!
Sure, things would change. The classical business models wouldn't be viable any more. Companies would have to adapt new ones, but creation of software/content would by no mean end, or be reduced much for that matter.
You can see good examples of business models that have giving content/software away for free. Like for instance Nine Inch Nails. You can download their new albums from their website for free, in high quality. You can do whatever you want with it, and they made a shitload of money with it. Read techdirt for more examples.
You can't deny that free software is out there too. It's made with other business models in mind, and it thrives like never before.
Also, many sane people don't even want to completely abolish copyright, just reduce it to some saner values, like 5-10 years. What the heck do you want with lifetime + 90 years copyright. Not to mention patents. The current system is much more inhibiting for content/software creation than it is good for progress.
Also, when was the last time you saw a really good movie in the cinema? Really can't get much worse, even if we stop having movies all together, but that would not happen either. We'd probably see much better movies that would be used with other business operations in synergy to generate profit and actually make the word advance in an actually competitive way.
Now please stop being an ass and think before you write something.
DRM solely exists to provide corporations more control over the products they sell. It in no way is beneficial to the informed user.
FTFY
No, you broke it.
It doesn't matter whether someone is informed or not - DRM is not beneficial to *any* end user.
It's true that only informed people would vote against it, but to claim that it's beneficial to someone who doesn't know about it is absurd.
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
Isn't that what Declaratory Judgements are for? Or are those just for civil issues?
If you read the comments to the article, you'll note a link to Henrik's home page, http://enfrustreretforbruger.dk/ (which is in danish).
If you click "Sådan støtter du op om digitale kopier" (how to support digital copies), you'll see a page telling you to click the paypal link on the right hand side (of his home page) to donate any amount "for the running of enfrustreretforbruger.dk".
That would be an obvious way to support him. There may be laws against collecting money under a false pretence (A Time To Kill says there are such laws in the US, fwiw ^_^), so you may want to add a note to the paypal transfer saying "Hi. Here's some money for whatever purpose you like. You might want to spend them on lawyers etc." (although I suspect that if you give him money without saying that he can spend them for whatever he likes, you're the only one who can sue him for having taking your money under a false pretence. IANAL, TINLA, ask a ninja, etc.)
The support page at http://enfrustreretforbruger.dk/home/?p=882 also lists putting banners on your web page, reading his twitter feed, writing to the Danish ministry of culture ("minicult"? :D), and joining a project that Ekstra Bladet (a Danish tabloid news paper) is running where you can submit your own digital copying stories.
You can also send him an email and ask how you might help. Click on the "kontakt" (contact) link in the upper-right corner.
(I'm not going to post his email address here on slashdot since he'd get, well, slashdotted with mail. If you really want to get in touch with him, you can take the time to click a few links. Also, he posts his street address and phone number there, but encourages people to comment on his blog articles where relevant.)
I hope this helps, and that Google Translate can get you the rest of the way.
I agree with your statement but get the quote right.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals"
republic is the opposite of monarchy, and describes the nature of the head of state.
democracy is one of a variety of forms of government, and bears no relation to the nature of the head of state
so, to recap. government != state. You may be confused because you (apparently) live in the USA, where that line is blurred.
FGD 135
Here's the argument for DRM I've heard Ed Felten present. You might remember Ed Felten from a story where the music industry encouraged people to research their new watermarking schemes, which he did, and then they threatened him to not publish his findings because they didn't like them.
Anyways, here goes: Suppose I can make a movie for $22. Alice and Bob are each willing to pay (up to) $10 for a copy. Carol is willing to pay $5. Dave is not willing to pay any amount of money for it. Nobody else wants to watch it.
What should I charge per copy? If I charge $5, I make $15, a net loss. If I charge $10, I make $20, again a net loss. If I charge anything above $10, I make $0, and charging prices less than $10, except exactly $5, is dumb because I can up the price to match an amount a person is willing to make and thus make more money.
This assumes that at any price, Carol can buy and resell to Alice and Bob. But if that's no longer true, I can sell at $10 to Alice and Bob, and sell a $5 copy to Carol. That way, I make $25, a net profit of $3. Of course, if I charge $9.50/$9.50/$4.50 I make $1.50 and my customers each "profit" (in the sense of buying something cheaper than the largest price they were willing to buy at) $0.50, so I make society at large more prosperous.
Note that this only works when I can prevent Carol from reselling. I can do this with DRM that works. Of course, I can also do this with an invisible pink unicorn which is just as likely to exist, but that's not really the point. The point is that there is a rational argument for DRM.
My personal opinion is that people don't know what they really want (because they don't know when they get DRM, what it is, what it does, or what that means for them), that you-the-seller need DRM that works against everybody, that this DRM doesn't exist, and that DRM that does work against a large part of the population is not what people want (because it prevents them from doing what they really want---even just the legal subset), that ultimately the damage caused by DRM outweighs the gains, and that DRM that works effectively prevents DRM'ed copyrighted works from ever entering the public domain (i.e. it prevents We The People from exercising our natural and legal rights to enjoy those works).
In summary: Here's an argument. It's not the full story, and I think the counterarguments win, but here it is.
He also turned in a Danish TV station, "TV2", for an article part of "TV2 Beep", which states that
You put a DVD in the machine, My Movies downloads cover art and information from the net, and rips the movie to your hard disk.
You can put your hundreds of DVDs in your attic [etc.]
(My translation from Danish to English, Henrik quotes the article on http://enfrustreretforbruger.dk/home/?p=812)
He claims that TV2 is indirectly encouraging illegal activity, and has reported them to the Anti-Piracy Group (Antipiratgruppen). As he says, not because he dislikes TV2, but to create a debate about these issues.
He has also reported DR (a tax-funded TV/Radio/media-house-thing) for "So Ein Ding"* (A Tech show, I assume), and PC World (a magazine) for indirectly encourage illegal activity (also, not because he dislikes them, but to start a debate).
(*German for "Such a thing", a reference to a line from an old Danish christmas TV show, "So ein Ding muss ich auch haben"--"I must also have such a thing")
or that you shouldn't eat your keyboard
If anyone fails to realise that you shouldn't eat your keyboards, I'll give you a hundred to one that person has never cleaned one.
Especially not one of mine :(
U mad? You sound mad....
Your argument doesn't really make any sense...but you sure sound angry. I remember what it was like to be a teenager who really likes to download music too - so I guess I understand.
You say that "...many sane people don't even want to completely abolish copyright". My original argument was that you'd be able to convince a lot of people that copyright is good.
So your panties are all in a wad because...we pretty much, sorta, agree?
You also talk about how 'things will just change, man!' but you don't really explain how. This new business model you speak of...you didn't really explain. The Nine Inch Nails example doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion. They are a band that got famous with the help of millions of dollars worth of advertising and who are already rich. The fact that they gave away a CD doesn't mean that, if ALL of their music was free, they'd still exist and produce music of the same quality. It just means that, they are so rich, they can do whatever they want.
Can you name *one* band who got rich and/or famous without charging anyone for anything?
I think the answer is 'No'.
The honest truth here is that NOTHING STOPS *YOU* from giving away YOUR work. If you really believe in this concept of free - *YOU* can make a movie and give it away. You can make a CD and give it away. You can write software and give it away.
Anyone can.
So why don't you?
If you are going to honestly try to argue that either approach is equally good (or better) then why do the people who produce stuff continue to copyright it?
It's really easy to say, 'I should be able to download that - cause I like stuff and I want stuff, but I don't want to pay for it, and the business model will just change, and I'll get everything I want for free'. It's much, much harder to say, 'I spent three years of my life working on this. Now - here you go, have it for free. I'll just eat water for dinner'.
The reasonable alternative is to find a way to force consumers to pay for your work. And while that's certainly possible, it doesn't really change anything. You end up back into the model of people paying for things they want to enjoy.
With software that means either built in ads (like Google) or server-side dependencies (like TotalFark or MMORPGs that require you to be online). All that's done is....made it hard or impossible to 'copy' the game, since the game lives on a server.
I don't know how the law is worded in Denmark, but in Switzerland you're explicitly allowed to break DRM if it stands in your way to exercices "fair-use" copies according to the copyright law.
The Denmark law wording could be explicit (as in Switzerland) or not clear enough (so you can't exclude that DRM breaking has to occur in order to exercice "fair-use"), so the whole test case might make sense, in order to create jurisprudence that DRM can legally be broken in order to create legal copies.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
We don't live in a true democracy -- a true democracy would be an absolute nightmare. {...} Pure democracy = mob rule, plain and simple.
Switzerland practice direct democracy, and apart from some idiocies now and then (such as last week-end's ban on minaret) is doing pretty well.
It hasn't busted into civil war or whatever other evil you're afraid of.
The people even periodically vote *tax increases*.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Democracy is a system ensuring that the people are governed no better than they deserve. And if you think you deserve better, the only way is to educate and/or empassion your fellow human being.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
there were burning monks and prague students, there was the little man bulldozing a whole fucking town and some other guy smacking two skyscrapers and all it takes for a dane is to confess for a petty crime. outrage!! that's twice as badass as is drawing a caricature.
That probably only tells you that in Scandinavia the prospect of dying from hunger is so remote that it doesn't even occur to Scandinavians that you need a right for that.
Plus Denmark being in the scary 'socialist'/communist commune of scandinavia if we bankrupted a person for the rest of his life, the rest of us tax payers would just have to support him for the rest of his life. Making the procedure rather pointless.
Who says food and shelter arent's seen as basic rights in Scandinavia? They are.
And sex? Sorry; that matter you'll have to take into your own hands.
Ah, but you see in scandinavia food is already seen as a basic human right. So we have just added health in there as well.
On another note why is sex in the first tier? Surely that is not a basic need?
I wasn't speeding, I am allowed to speed to pass somebody and that somebody was on the horizon. How can I pass them if I don't drive faster than they do officer? ;-)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Gandhi didn't make a bit while of salt to put on his lunch while nobody was watching. Rosa Parks didn't sit at the front of the black section of the bus by accident, completely unaware that she'd be asked to move when the white section filled up. John Gilmore didn't turn up at the airport with no ID because he'd forgotten to bring it.
If you have reason to believe your life may be in danger, by all means break a bad law in secret. But really, most of us have no excuse for such cowardice. Real civil disobedience is breaking a bad law and facing the consequences with your eyes open. Good on you, Henrik Anderson.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
The Scopes trial started pretty much this way too
That probably only tells you that in Scandinavia the prospect of dying from hunger is so remote that it doesn't even occur to Scandinavians that you need a right for that.
I remember this story about a visiting dignitary from Kenya. They talked about Norway in WW2 and how terrible it was during war due to starvation. He was surprised that there had been a starvation in Norway and they went on about how they had to eat bread baked with phloem because they couldn't get corn. The Kenyan then said "that's not a starvation, that's not having your favorite food."
Probably an urban legend though.
A related note: in a true free market, there would be no DRM.
In an idealised free market, there are an infinite number of producers. So if one company is producing something with DRM, there are a hundred other companies producing something identical without DRM. Their products are cheaper, since they don't have to spend anything to implement DRM - and more importantly, they're more convenient for consumers - so the company with the DRM-laden product would sell zero copies and go out of business.
Medical but not food as a basic right is amusing;
Yes, it is silly. Food needs to be taken care of first. I agree so strongly that I will push for the US to move towards a plan for helping people get food before we finish getting health care. I was thinking, since it would be impractical for the government so deliver the food personally, that those in need could just get vouchers for the food, and get those in regular stores. Personally, I would start the program with coupons that would be exchanged for the good in question, in common sizes in the stores, and just have one item per coupon. The sheets of coupons would look suspiciously like postal stamps, so we could just call it Marc's Food Stamp program. But not until the government provides basic support for food would I consider any medical care.
Learn to love Alaska
Not if Switzerland implements the EU Copyright Directive.
As stated by others, we are not members of EU
Under InfoSoc Directive, this possibility would not be available since circumvention of copy protection is illegal
The law making circumvention illegal could be worded in a way which contain exception for "fair-use".
Case in point : The Swiss law,
in French and high German (sorry no english translation).
Art 39a, paragraphs 1 and 3 make it illegal to circumvent copy protection and make mean for said circumvention illegal - as in InfoSoc Directive.
*BUT* paragraph 4 states that this interdiction doesn't apply to people circumventing protection to make lawful usage of the media.
(So in Switzerland, it is Ok to break BlueRay's AACS and BD+ protection when trying to play a BlueRay movie on Linux, because these protections stay in the way to legally use the movie)
In the case of the EU, there's still some controversies, because InfoSoc tries to define a strict list of such exceptions.
Nonetheless, this guys' usage follow the exception 2.b (private copies) and 3.o (pre-existing law - such as "fair-use" exceptions of copyright law) of article 5 of InfoSoc.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Why would you want to prevent Carol from reselling a movie but not from reselling a refrigerator?
Why would you want to prevent Carol from reselling a movie but not from reselling a refrigerator?
Well, as a seller, I always want to price discriminate (that is, sell the same thing at different prices to different people), because it always benefits me, no matter what I'm selling.
It sometimes also benefits society, as I outlined above: society gets the benefit of me making the film (which is a benefit, as it costs $22 to make and society is willing to pay $25 for it). I chose the numbers so that this was the case; I could have chosen the numbers differently.
Now, to your question: why do we see DRM on movies and not refrigerators? Well, because it's possible to put DRM on computer systems*, but not really on physical objects. If I could make sure the refrigerator only ran on power outlets in your home, I might be tempted to sell you a refrigerator you couldn't resell, such that I can price discriminate. But I can't (at least I don't know how).
* Whether it actually works is a different question.
DRM solely exists to provide corporations more control over the products they sell. It in no way is beneficial to the average user.
A law doesn't have to be beneficial to the majority to be approved by it. You merely need to convince them that it is. And when you control the media, it's extremely easy to do so.
In some ways, yes, it probably would be worse. I'd rather be ruled by the malicious than the ignorant.
It seems to me that "rule by malicious" was a feature of representative democracies sometime mid-20th century; these days, it looks much more like "rule by malicious and ignorant" to me.
In truth, I think, the answer is to scale democracy down to the level where it works - confederations of small states, and so on.
I'm not happy with DRM, but it bears to be said that a true democracy is two wolves and one lamb deciding what to have for dinner.
Do you seriously think any other form of government - say, representative democracy, or "A Republic That Is Not A Democracy", as some of our misguided American friends love to call it - would help the sheep if they're outnumbered 2 to 1?
Weimar Republic was a representative democracy too, by the way. And the funny thing is that NSDAP didn't have the majority of people's votes, but they could convince the majority of parliament factions to pass the laws that they wanted (NSDAP had 43% in the not-quite-fair elections immediately preceding the vote on the Enabling Act; but 83% in the Reichstag voted for it, and it pretty much openly handed power over to the Nazis).
In many ways, it was an epic fail unmatched by any state practicing direct democracy - people love to remember about Athens and Socrates, but it definitely pales compared to the abuse of democracy in Weimar Republic.
He wants a trial, so that the legality of the DRM-breaking law can be tested in court.
The difference between US system of law and most european countries is: we have a predetermined law and not a "law by court ruling".
Of course the law in denmark is legal ... technical speaking. A judge can not "overrule" the law, except it is unconstitutional and then usually a special jury decides that.
What a judge can / could do is to define if the law (that specific paragraph) is to be used in that particular case. At least that is in layman terms how law works in germany. As soon as a law is signed and active no judge can say: well I ignore it because bla bla bla ... as it is active it is always valid.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
... and you give me my phone call?
Agent Smith: Mr. Anderson... you disappoint me.
Henrik: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap. I know my rights. I want my phone call.
Even if everyone involved in the production of DVDs (including everyone involved in movie and music production) in the U.S. toed the company line and voted for DRM, they'd be vastly outnumbered by everyone else. Add in everyone employed by a company that produces software and they'd still be a spit in the ocean.
It's easy to forget given the way hollywood wags the dog, but there are a lot more janitors, cashiers, mechanics, etc. in the U.S. than there are people working for the RIAA, MPAA, and all their affiliates.
(Agent Smith voice)Mister Anderson.........
Democracies, will fine in principle, shitty-but-better-than-anything-else-we've-tried to coin a phrase, aren't quite the panacea. Witness the debacle here in Switzerland recently, where a bunch of racist, neo-nationalist, anti-Muslim fucktards promoted a law to ban the planning approval for minarets. Most people don't know a minaret from a martini, but this glorious representative participatory democracy just required the national government to pass a law breaching the country's obligations to international humanitarian law. Democracy in (selective) action. Of course, the national referenda instructing the government to decriminalise cannabis haven't actually been implemented despite repeated attempts by the populace. If we lived in a true democracy, do you think we would even recognise it?
His name is Henrik Andersen, not Anderson. This is his website (in Danish): httt://www.enfrustreretforbruger.dk
-- Make America hate again!
...famous case here is that of Teun van der Keuken, who turned himself in in the Netherlands for eating chocolate of which he knew and could proof it was produced by ('modern') slaves in Africa. The prosecutor refused to prosecute, and he had to invoke a special law to sue the prosecutor to force him to sue. In the end even that was turned down, however. The judge did express his sympathy with the cause (abandon the sale of slavery supported chocolate in Dutch super markets). He decided to start his own chocolate company to make things better - which does sell slave-free chocolate -, and it is getting results now... Perhaps the Dane should consider starting his own big movie studio and sell things while actually encouraging copying :)
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
So - is there anything in the law stating that the allowed copy is presumed a "DIGITAL" one ?
If I made an analogue copy - would I be able to conform to both clauses ?
I would obviously be using the DRM in order to play back the media - but I would NOT be circumventing it.
Ugh, the average users would never vote for having to pay money for a product either. That's completely irrelevant.
I thought if a law is not enforced, then something ... can't later enforce it.
Secondly, there is usually a principle that damages must occur - well for negligence at least.
Got to have a few more implications.
Do you honestly believe that the average user has done that?
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Sorry but if doing A is legal, but to do A you need to break law B - doesn't that make you liable for breaking B?
Thus for example, burning books is legal, but to do that you'd need to start a public outdoor bonfire which is not legal. You'd be fined for the bonfire and since burning books is legal it's just pushed to one side? (no ones cares if you don't break the law, but only the laws that you break people care about)
But Mr Anderson, how can you make a phonecall...when you can't speak?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
"As part of war reparations specified in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles following Germany's surrender after World War I, Aspirin (along with Heroin) lost its status as a registered trademark in France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, where it became a generic name and can be spelled in lower case.[18][19][20] Today, "aspirin" is a generic word in Australia, France, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States.[21] Aspirin, with a capital "A", remains a registered trademark of Bayer in Germany, Canada, Mexico, and in over 80 other countries, where the trademark is owned by Bayer, using a uniform chemical formula for all markets, but adapting the packaging and physical aspects for each.[22][23][24] Since the word "aspirin" has become generic in many countries, Bayer has embarked on an aggressive trademark protection campaign in the United States and owns more than 1,000 U.S. trademarks on various pharmaceutical drugs.[25]" from wikipedia
The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
Temporary == Limited times
Therefore why not use the same reasoning that the US supremes used to justify extended copyright times: it's limited time because it isn't expressly infinite. So any copy you make isn't expressly infinite in duration too, therefore temporary.
I would have turned myself in for 1 instance, not 100.
Yes. Anyone with a mutual fund.
I find being offended by me offensive.
Except that a true democracy would limit the ability of a relatively small but noisy group to affect policy. There aren't really all that many of those right-wing Christian fundamentalists, but they're noisy, fairly well-organized, and determined. In a representative democracy with a two-party system, they can exert a lot more power than their numbers would indicate. In a direct democracy, any proposal to establish their religion would be voted down overwhelmingly, since everybody who wasn't part of that group would vote "no".
It's likely that the US would be an explicitly Christian country, but I don't think it would be any narrower than that.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Unless said people owned a stake (really or otherwise) in that company. An average user probably wouldn't turn up to vote. ;)
Have you tried speaking with said average users? The ones I have talked about the matter with have all been on the side of DRM/stringent copyright because "otherwise everyone will pirate and there will be no more music/movies/software". Some might even invoke the "Amiga theory", which is that Commodore died because of rampant piracy (even though it died because the Amiga was no match for consoles in the gaming front and no match for PCs on the software front).
No, in a true democracy people will get precisely what they want, which is why we are all suffering and will continue to suffer in the future due to all the nice things our predecessors wanted.
His name is Henrik Andersen, not Henrik Anderson - both the summary and article are wrong. Anderson is the Swedish spelling and as such is not common in Denmark.
Because it's inconceivable that a group could trick people to do something that may not be in their best interests?
Try looking up republic some time and read the FULL definition. Also, try to lose that attitude, it's very pissy.
Here's a start for you
From Wikipedia...
In the United States, Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to only having direct democracy[6], and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans".