Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Cable Shows Heavy US Influence On Swedish Copyright Policy
Debuting on Slashdot, seezer writes with a piece by Rick Falkvinge about a recently release diplomatic cable. From the article: "Among the treasure troves of recently released WikiLeaks cables, we find one whose significance has bypassed Swedish media. In short: every law proposal, every ordinance, and every governmental report hostile to the net, youth, and civil liberties here in Sweden in recent years have been commissioned by the U.S. government and industry interests."
This is from a Pirate Party founder and so might be slightly exaggerated, but there is certainly evidence in the cable that the U.S. exerted quite a bit of influence of Swedish copyright law. The U.S. government appears particularly vexed that the Swedish public doesn't seem to think anything is wrong with copying protected works, and (not unexpectedly) was quite concerned that Pirate Party members might actually be elected.
When Julian Assange was recently accused of sexual assault in Sweden, I maintained that this had "CIA discrediting campaign" written all over it. One of the main responses to this was "But the U.S. government doesn't have any control over Sweden or what they do."
I think people really underestimate the power and sweep of the U.S. government and its wealthy corporate allies. The IMF, the UN, the World Bank, unrest in virtually every oil-producing country that doesn't support U.S. policy, attacks on anyone who criticizes or threatens the U.S. dollar, and in a million other places--you'll find the hand of the U.S. government and its most powerful corporations either calling the shots outright or at least having a significant influence on events.
Just look at the WIPO copyright treaty (the treaty that brought the DMCA and DMCA-like laws to almost every first-world country in the world). Hollywood and the U.S. music/publishing industry pretty much DICTATED that treaty, with the U.S. government then pressuring countries to implement it with a multitude of carrots and sticks.
Some may accuse me of hyperbole here. And, believe me, I wish I were exaggerating. But you never have to dig very far.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
No... prosecution is the judicial branch. It is separated for a reason.
It's pretty annoying that the US think they can and should govern the whole world.
-- Cheers!
The Department of Justice does the prosecuting, which is under the executive branch. They bring their cases before the judicial branch who renders the decisions on the cases.
Yep the U.S. are all for promoting democracy around the world except when people might vote for someone they dont like
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to Godwin's Law approaches 1
United States tries to protects its own interest.
It's not PC but it happens, the US also bends to allow other nations interests to go threw too. It is called Diplomacy. These stints of making a compromise that prevents issues from building up and becoming a major issue.
The reason why it is not made public because the average Joe doesn't understand the concept of a good compromise where at the end both sides are equally unhappy. So they will make these small viewed complaints (Swedish make copyright policy just so we can get the latest American Blue Rays films) While the complexity of international trade is ignored, not realizing this effects shipment of more then just Films, but software, books, and other sources of information. If a company doesn't see your country as a profitable place to sell goods they won't sell to you. And you end up with loosing out on receiving goods and services that make that company unique. This isn't just about a monopoly every company has something that gives it a competitive advantage over someone else. Blocking trade has probably been considered more costly then the Copyright Policy.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I don't know about Sweden, but in the US, prosecution is an executive function.
You don't think it would be the least bit scary if the police were simultaneously responsible for finding suspects, collecting evidence and directly prosecuting you? That is, you believe that it's fine that the people whose job it is to impartially and accurately record the evidence against you are also the same people whose job the next day is to argue as pointedly as possible that you are guilty? That's quite a conflict of interest.
The more power global corporations gain, the more pressure there is to homogenize every country into a "corporation friendly" environment.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Wait until you hear about what the IRS are making foreign banks do to all their customers in order to weed out US citizens living abroad...
It works a bit differently in Sweden. Politicians are not considered competent to meddle in spedific cases and decide who is to be prosecuted and who isn't. The job of the elected politicians is to make policy, while the decision to prosecute is in the domain of prosecutors who are bound by the law as written down and not by the whims of politicians. The reasoning behind this is that it is believed to reduce corruption.
Now, of course politicians - enjoying power as they do - sometimes put pressure on prosecutors and other public servants to do their bidding. Like in this case. But it's illegal, and not how it's supposed to be done.
Note that the quoted explanation mentioning the executive branch interfering with the judicial is a bit fuzzy, and not directly applicable to a corresponding situation in the US, for the reasons stated above.
After reading this, does anyone doubt that the indictment on Julian Assange was motivated by US interests ?
If you don't know about Sweden, then why are you talking about it? The Åklagarmyndigheten is an independent authority, not attached to any ministry or branch of government. Unlike the USA, where the US attorneys are part of the Department of Justice and subject to direct political interference, the Åklagarmyndigheten is not a part of the Ministry of Justice.
Which simply doesn't translate. The US here is asking for something like the DMCA (which is required by treaty), not for "three strikes" legislation.
Wrong. The "injunctive relief" legislation that is being pushed is indeed ISP disconnection. From the PDF that TFA links to:
Injunctive relief in civil cases -- EU Copyright Directive: The law implementing Sweden’s obligations under the EU Copyright Directive entered into force on July 1, 2005 (Law 2005:360 amending the Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works, Law 1960:729). Particularly disappointing has been the lack of a specific injunctive relief remedy against ISPs as required under Article 8.3 of the Copyright Directive (and Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive). Proposed legislation to provide such a remedy is now pending in the Swedish Parliament.(3) If adopted by the Parliament, the amendment would go into one of the major deficiencies that rights holders have faced and which IIPA highlighted in its 2008 submission. (3)(http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2008/2008SPEC301SWEDEN.pdf)
And if you follow the link to the 2008 IIPA paper on the proposed legislation...
civil litigation, without preliminary injunctive relief, is just too slow to act as a deterrent.... Unfortunately, we have also heard that the present draft proposal does not contain a right to injunctive relief in a civil case against ISPs, and that it therefore fails to cure Sweden’s inconsistency with Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive and Article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive. In September 2007, a report was issued by Swedish Chief Judge, Cecilia Renfors (“Renfors Report”), recommending that the upcoming legislation contain provisions requiring ISPs to take action to terminate the contracts of certain users who repeatedly use the Internet to infringe copyright.... While this report and, in particular, the suggestions regarding disconnection of repeat infringers is welcome, it does not go far enough to bring Sweden’s legal and enforcement regime into harmony with international trends even assuming that the proposed legislation is adopted in its present form
So, not only do they want ISP disconnections, they actually want even stronger laws.
The spirit of copyright was to protect the authors for a limited amount of time in return for the works to fall into public domain after a fixed, limited amount of time.
You screwed everyone by effectively removing the public domain part of the copyright idea, so we're screwing you out of the protected part.
Diplomats may do this all day and Americans may even benefit from this. The article, however, is written by a Swede who finally has clear evidence that a foreign power is manipulating his government into acting illegally. From my understanding, the negative public opinion that the diplomat is worried about is the strong belief Swedes have that they should run their own country.
You are right that sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail. But the price of that failure when it becomes general knowledge is that the people of the country become outraged. Push too hard or fail enough times and the people will choose new politicians that are antagonistic to the US's interests.
The US Government is as much victim as perpetrator. Haven't you been listening to the US right's hatred and contempt for government? And their proclivity for blanket statements and oversimplifications? It's expressed so well in this Reagan quote: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Our scientists and researchers do their jobs and come up with answers, and the right ignores them or makes ridiculous accusations of bias and incompetence. We pay for this attitude in many ways, not least being the low morale among bureaucrats. These hypocrites who profess such hatred for government are not shy about abusing and expanding government power when they are in control. The only parts of the government they like unconditionally, and like entirely too much, are the parts to do with security and force.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
There have been recent leaks similar to this showing how the US has had a strong hand in shaping the Canadian DMCA laws.
Those laws have failed to pass, so far.
Aren't you the one who are "slightly exaggerating" PP's "slight exaggeration"?
You wrote:
"Which simply doesn't translate"
While in the original text it says:
"Translated into ordinary language, this says:"
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
remember the executive branch ENFORCES the laws that Congress passes
I was under the impression that the executive branch ignored the laws that Congress passes. That and the constitution.
DMCA-like legislation is not required for treaty (are we talking WIPO here?) compliance. Canda's Dr. Michael Geist has gone to great lengths to explain why.
However, the US likes the DMCA and is hell-bent on ramming it down every other country's throat. And, sadly, the governments of most countries (including Canada's) are willing accomplices in this farce.
They do. But they do prosecute others who ignore the laws that Congress passes.
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
What Sweden does with their copyright laws is none of the US's business, and pressuring other countries to change their laws completely disrespects their sovereignty.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The US position defending copyright is the correct position.
By "defending copyright" do you mean to include "defending repeated extensions to the term of copyright" and "defending the narrowing of fair use, first sale, and other limitations on the scope of copyright" and "defending copyright even when the owner of copyright in a particular work cannot be determined with reasonable research"?
remember the executive branch ENFORCES the laws that Congress passes
I was under the impression that the executive branch ignored the laws that Congress passes. That and the constitution.
It's not just the executive branch that ignores the constitution, the constitution takes a beating from all 3 branches. The executive branch is allowed to ignore laws (not enforce) that is the reason so many dumb laws stay on the books they simply are not enforced as is the right of the executive branch.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
....and so many of those characters involved in attempting to extradite Assange are financially connected to the Bonnier family??? (And the Brits should be focusing on extraditing the Murdoch family, given everything coming out about their knowledge and collusion with all that cellphone spying!)
don't you think we would have conquered China by now?
We would, but Walmart won't let us.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Sweeds you will be issued sweat shorts, 'nutrition' bars, and boxed sets of 'The Kardashians' to help indoctrinate you.
There are many rules, too many to read, but the TV 'news' will help guide you as to which ones are actually being enforced.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
There are no 'international copyright laws.' There are international copyright agreements, and involvement in those often has other strings attached, making them not entirely voluntary.
'Problem 2' is in most cases that the countries pushing copyright agendas are going to threaten trade sanctions or otherwise opt for unfavorable trade policies unless they can get what they want in regards to copyright policy. I think in most viewpoints, trade sanctions are seen as a punishment. So, the reality is that a country like Sweden is going to be punished by the US unless they do the US wants.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
When Julian Assange was recently accused of sexual assault in Sweden, I maintained that this had "CIA discrediting campaign" written all over it. One of the main responses to this was "But the U.S. government doesn't have any control over Sweden or what they do."
There is a similar case going on just now. An Italian politician have, on an open street in Sweden, lifted his 12 year old son by the hair, the son was fleeing from a restaurant where his father had pounded him repeatedly in the face. One of the owners of the restaurant rushed out and was able to go in between, before the father did something worse. There are lots of witnesses to both incidents, the father/politician have not been judged yet, but he faces time inside a Swedish prison. If he was a Swede, his son would have been placed in protective care, until the father had learned how to behave like a "real" parent (the father will likely be judged to undergo behavioural therapy). Both the Italian politician and Italian media is upset because the Italian politician is punished because he "corrected" his sons behaviour.
Italian media (and likely many Italians) is very upset because of the "injustice" that is done to their countryman. There is two reason for this:
1) Cultural differences between Italians and Swedes. In Italy it is socially acceptable to give your offspring, student, et c. physical punishments. In Sweden, physical punishment of any kind is looked upon as barbaric, it deemed as even worse if you do it to a kid, and worse of all, if you do it to your own offspring or someone in your care (like if you are a teacher), compared to if you would hit some random strange kid that annoys you.
2) What happened is not reported correct in Italian media. According to Italian media, if they even report that the son was hit, the father only slapped his son with an open hand and grabbed him by the collar. What all witnesses say is that he pounded him with his fist in the face.
This is almost identical to how the Assange-case have been treated by internet media.
1) Cultural differences. At least in UK and NZ, Assange would face a similar punishment for the rapes as he would in Sweden (I'm not sure about Australia), the laws in those countries don't differ that much from Swedish laws (but the treatment in UK and NZ during prison time is much worse, so, de facto, the punishment would be harder then in Sweden). In many states of USA it wouldn't be considered rape, but in all states it would still be considered a crime, even if the punishment would be rather weak.
2) What Assange did to the girls have been downplayed by many foreign media. Much of the information, spread by internet, is outright lies in favour of Assange.
PS. An interesting detail is that most of the witnesses of the first beating of the son was not ethnic Swedes (it was inside a kebab restaurant), but from countries that is geographically and culturally close to Italy and still most of the witnesses was very chocked by the incident, most Italians would likely not even have noticed what happened.