Slashdot Mirror
Police Raid Home of 9-Year-Old Pirate Bay User, Seize "Winnie the Pooh" Laptop
zacharye writes "Copyright enforcement might be getting out of hand in Scandinavia. As anti-piracy groups and copyright owners continue to work with authorities to curtail piracy in the region, police this week raided the home of a 9-year-old suspect and confiscated her "Winnie the Pooh" laptop. TorrentFreak reports that the girl's home was raided after local anti-piracy group CIAPC determined copyrighted files had been downloaded illegally at her residence. Her father, the Internet service account holder, was contacted by CIAPC, which demanded that he pay a 600 euro fine and sign a non-disclosure agreement to settle the matter. When the man did not comply, authorities raided his home and collected evidence, including his 9-year-old daughter's notebook computer."
A pretty sensationalist summary of what can only be charitably described as an article, which itself is long on innuendo but short on actual, you know, "facts".
All that can really be said is that they raided the guys house and among other things took the childâ(TM)s laptop. There is no evidence in this story that the child was the primary suspect or even a suspect at all.
The most that can really be said is the 600 euro fine (and the non-disclosure agreement) is absurd for what the alleged crime is.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
FUCK YOU.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Its a home invasion, not a raid.. Stop sugar coating police activity.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This is the suspect part. Why would they want the father to sign a non-disclosure agreement? How is fining the man a deterrent to others if they never hear about it?
These are rhetorical questions of course, as its obvious why.
I honestly suspect if our police (who don't have guns) tried to take a 9 year old girls laptop they would comply when she kicked them and told them go away :)
Oh, and I wouldn't have it any other way.. damn proud of it in fact.
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
It's not theft if the original owner still has it.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
If I threaten to reveal a crime you did, and demand money in exchange, that's extortion.
Which is exactly the problem with these 'dual' laws. The police become the arm of an extortion racket, where the reason for paying up is the threat of a police raid.
What CIAPC did WAS EXTORTION, because they could not offer him immunity from a copyright infringement claim or criminal claim against him. Their claim to pay up 600 euros or they go to the police is therefore cleancut extortion. The NDA is confirmation that they know its extortion.
It's the tidbits like this that make me feel warm and fuzzy about copyright and police:
"It would have been easier for all concerned if you had paid the compensation," the police advised
Any other law violation you either get searched/charged or let off the hook.
How about next time you are charged with (actual) theft, someone calls you first and offers to pay 600 euros to avoid the hassle? Why is this a valid option for copyright violation accusations?
Having failed in her quest to put enough money in her piggy bank to buy the latest album from local multi-platinum-selling songstress Chisu, in 2011 she turned to the Internet, first via Google and then The Pirate Bay.
So, by herself, the 9-year old installed a torrent application and navigated to Pirate Bay... Yes, sure she did.
Again, why sensationalize the story by pitting the Storm Troopers against a 9-year old, when common sense says that's not what happened?
Opera has a built-in torrent application and the kid has her own laptop... you think she's been using it as a pillow? At that age I was copying and playing cracked C64 games with little clue of the english language so I'm pretty sure she'd manage google and a few clicks to get started.
Unfortunately, "any other law" doesn't apply here. This is a civil violation, not a criminal one. Its not theft, it's copyright violation. It's extortion to demand money not to turn someone in for a criminal violation, but in civil matters you are free to offer a deal in exchange for not pressing charges. In criminal cases, the D.A. is the one pressing the charges, and in civil cases it's the plaintiff's lawyer, which is why they have the option.
The plaintiffs aren't the problem here. The police aren't the problem either. The plaintiffs are simply taking advantage of the law as written for their own benefit, and the police are just playing along by the rules as required. It's the Bad Law that's to blame. You can't blame companies and greedy people for being greedy, it's what they DO. You can't blame the police for enforcing the law, it's also what they DO. The only one to blame is your legislator, who created the Bad Law, whom you voted in. That means blame yourself, and work to get the laws changed.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Of course you can blame them, the whole idea that it is OK to bend laws so far out of shape that they only serve they psychopathically greedy is a OK, is insane, as insane as those douche who exploit the law. Blame the crap out of the, avoid the products, find the actual individuals involved and make their lives a misery just like they want to do to the rest of us. "NAME AND SHAME".
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I see no reason at all that it is clearly the dad that attempted the download. What makes you think a 9 year old is incapable of installing a torrent application and clicking on a link? If anything, it's usually the kids that help mom and dad with things like that.
Do you have some additional information that actually suggests that the dad did it?
You can't blame companies and greedy people for being greedy, it's what they DO. You can't blame the police for enforcing the law, it's also what they DO. The only one to blame is your legislator, who created the Bad Law, whom you voted in. That means blame yourself, and work to get the laws changed.
If greedy people are allowed to be greedy, am I not allowed to blame them? Why not? Is it prohibited somehow?
If you find yourself taking a Winnie the Pooh laptop from a 9 year old, you've probably gone over a line or two somewhere.
If you think a 9 year old can't manage it, I suggest that it is you who needs to join us here in the real world.
Actually that's exactly how it works. You don't call the police directly like you're reporting robbery though. Your lawyers see a judge and file charges and obtain a warrant. THEN the police get involved and go to the defendant and gather evidence.
I am not a lawyer, and this is a different country we are talking about. But I was under the impression that you have to actually sue the opposing party in civil court _first_. Then warrant may be given to perform discovery of whatever judge allows you to discover
Otherwise where exactly would this evidence go to? Some evidence is sent directly to the judge (and there is no judge).
It would be pretty hilarious if the police can just take the girl's laptop directly to the (civilly) suing party. Do they (CIAPC) have to give the laptop back? How long do they have to preform discovery? Does police perform their own forensic analysis during a civil lawsuit?
Unfortunately, "any other law" doesn't apply here. This is a civil violation, not a criminal one. Its not theft, it's copyright violation. It's extortion to demand money not to turn someone in for a criminal violation, but in civil matters you are free to offer a deal in exchange for not pressing charges. In criminal cases, the D.A. is the one pressing the charges, and in civil cases it's the plaintiff's lawyer, which is why they have the option.
The plaintiffs aren't the problem here. The police aren't the problem either. The plaintiffs are simply taking advantage of the law as written for their own benefit, and the police are just playing along by the rules as required. It's the Bad Law that's to blame. You can't blame companies and greedy people for being greedy, it's what they DO. You can't blame the police for enforcing the law, it's also what they DO. The only one to blame is your legislator, who created the Bad Law, whom you voted in. That means blame yourself, and work to get the laws changed.
Well actually the police are partially to blame here. While a warrant is not required to confiscate computers from somebody's home in Finnish law, search is researved for cases that could produce 6 months in jail and cause "significant damage". The police has decided that downloading 1 cd caused significant damage and could result in 6 months of jail which required quite creative reasoning from them.
Big Media, winning hearts and minds.
The holy grail of the middleman is to set himself up to be the gate keeper of an essential good or service.
Since monopolizing access to air, water, food or sex did not pan out, they went after the next thing -- culture.
And, I must admit, with great success. With the eager participation of most (if not all) "free" national governments, partaking in your own culture is no longer free, and the full force of the state is applied against those who would dare to oppose this "arrangement".
Have no doubt, there is a lot of wealth and power involved and, given their corrupting influence, things will only get worse in time.
Nothing short of a violent and bloody revolution can reverse this trend.
The "article" (I hesitate to call it that) does not even describe the country that the alleged raid took place in, let alone the city. "Scandinavia" is not a country, but a loosely-defined region of countries, primarily Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, and depending on your definition, Finland and Iceland. I think the whole thing is made up.
Slashdot is really going downhill. The motto needs to be changed to "Rumors for Nerds; Stuff" period.
Proverbs 21:19