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?
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.
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.