Slashdot Mirror


Swedish ISP Vows to Protect Users From a Piracy Witch Hunt (torrentfreak.com)

Ernesto Van der Sar, reporting for TorrentFreak: Swedish Internet service provider Bahnhof says it will do everything in its power to prevent copyright holders from threatening its subscribers. The provider is responding to a recent case in which a competing ISP was ordered to expose alleged BitTorrent pirates, reportedly without any thorough evidence. At the birth ground of The Pirate Bay, media outfit Crystalis Entertainment received permission from the court to identify several BitTorrent users, based on their IP-addresses. The case, which could be the first of many, was filed against the local ISP TeliaSonera who handed over the requested information without putting up much of a fight. This prompted the competing Internet provider Bahnhof to issue a warning. The company notes that the copyright holder in question doesnâ(TM)t have a very strong case, and it criticizes Telia for caving in too easily.

45 comments

  1. (shakes head) by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously,

    While I applaud this ISP for waking up and smelling the sewer, this is what happens when unfettered power is given to any group of people with an interest and a will to enforce it against others.

    You can think about it this way:

    The copyright holders and their shell organizations were initially granted a boon from society in exchange for continuing to produce new works. This boon gave them legitimate grounds to assert that society owed them something. This initial boon was not enough for them though, and through various methods, they have incrementally demanded, and obtained more and more from society, and society so far has accepted the increased demands.

    We are now to the point where the demands are absurd.

    The copyright holders and their satelites act like you are trying to put them into a sweatshop if you suggest that they have overstepped what they are actually owed by society, while simultaneously taking unilateral and extrajudicial action against society to obtain what it wants.

    I propose that the next time they demand copyright reform, we give it to them, but actually reform it so that this abusive relationship is properly reset and expectations are forced back into the realm of reality.

    Writing a book does not make you entitled to a heredetary estate. The purpose of copyright is to keep your lights on, your bills paid, and food on your table so that you can continue to write. Nothing more. It is not a free ride for either you or your children. It is not providence for limitless profits by a corporate body either, and any corporation profiting from copyright is going against the foundational concept of copyright as an allowance between authors and the rest of society. (EG, to extract a profit from the situation resulting from properly maintained copyright allowances, the corporations would have to be taking food off the author's table, and making him unable to pay his bills, because that is all the more copyright protections should be providing to authors.)

    The actions of this ISP are laudible, but it is too little, too late on that front.

    What needs to happen is for the copyright cartels to get busted into the stoneage for vigilanteism, racketeering, and barratry, followed by REAL copyright reform.

    1. Re:(shakes head) by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      We are now to the point where the demands are absurd.

      Since the days of Gutenberg.. Every new technology restarts the cycle, keeps the game alive.

      What needs to happen is for the copyright cartels to get busted into the stoneage for vigilanteism, racketeering, and barratry, followed by REAL copyright reform.

      The process for that is extremely clear and simple. It starts with us, and our votes.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:(shakes head) by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The process for that is extremely clear and simple. It starts with us, and our votes.

      It's not that clear and is far from simple, because in most countries the political system is now included lobbying, which used to be called bribery and used to be illegal.

      You cannot fight corporations anymore because they have more money than you and it's legal for them to outright "buy out" politicians.

    3. Re:(shakes head) by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      So what? Stop reelecting corrupt politicians. The voters choose who gets on the ballot. They really should quit their bellyaching. They make the system what it is. There is no one else to blame, but apparently that won't stop anybody from doing it anyway.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:(shakes head) by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We need to make lobbying illegal again before we can go any further. Otherwise other corrupt politicians will take the place of the ones we kick out.

    5. Re:(shakes head) by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. That's bullshit. It's only a problem because you continue to reelect them. Stop voting for politicians that are under the influence. Quit trying to pass blame.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:(shakes head) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously,

      While I applaud this ISP for waking up and smelling the sewer

      Hardly waking up just now, they have been battling with copyright trolls for over a decade.

      Here is a slashdot post about them from 2005:
      Anti-Piracy Bureau of Sweden Planted Evidence

    7. Re:(shakes head) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not do both? Let's not re-elect them, and let's make a law saying your a fucking criminal if you take a bribe.

    8. Re:(shakes head) by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You don't need no damn law for something that is trivially dealt with by the vote.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:(shakes head) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's already laws against congress taking a bribe to do something in the law.
      Doesn't stop it now does it? Just makes it more under the table.

      Example
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

    10. Re:(shakes head) by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1

      When there is less power in general, the damage of corruption cannot go as far. That is, if the government itself is restricted in size and scope, it's much more difficult to abuse. Thus, a smaller (cheaper) and weaker government might be a good idea.

      --
      "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
    11. Re:(shakes head) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the lie that keeps the lobbyists in power.

      The decision on who gets the office is not up to the lobbyists. The only reason they have any power is because the voting public is too apathetic to actually watch what their elected officials do and instead mainly vots on a combination of name recognition, sound bites, and party affiliation.

    12. Re:(shakes head) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The voters choose who gets on the ballot.

      Not in the USA. Here it's the parties, and there are only two.

    13. Re:(shakes head) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Evidently it's not so trivial, otherwise it would have been done.

    14. Re:(shakes head) by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      It just means the law needs to be revised.

    15. Re:(shakes head) by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Purely by choice, nothing else.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    16. Re:(shakes head) by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Obviously you are not in the USA.. or you have never seen a ballot.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    17. Re:(shakes head) by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Who cares about the law? It would only be selectively enforced, and why would you vote for a politician that takes bribes anyway?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    18. Re:(shakes head) by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The government, no matter how "big" it gets, has but one problem, lack of oversight by the voters. You have seen a giant mass of starlings turn on a dime, there is no reason people can't do that with mere thought. Every two years we can vote out the entire House with only a desire. But the brain appears to be made of molasses, so, here we are.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    19. Re:(shakes head) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... legal for them to outright "buy out" politicians ...

      No, just No. In many countries, companies cannot buy politicians in any measure, shape or form. (Okay, News Corp/Century Fox is the only exception). Companies can however, buy public opinion. They release a flashy PSA assuring employees and voters that corporate needs are the same as their needs. Joseph Goebbels would be proud and the local politicians are scared. It's reaching the point that government can not legislate against corporate interests. (See US Congress.) Remember all those countries who signed onto the TPP treaty? Don't expect a lot of debate and deliberation from them.

    20. Re:(shakes head) by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

      We don't get to vote on just one policy. People aren't going to vote for Vlad the Impaler just because he promises to bust the copyright cartel.

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
    21. Re:(shakes head) by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      *sigh* The hoops people jump through to pass blame. It's amazing to watch. The worst part is that it is such normal behavior.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  2. Re:Moving Pictures! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't Harry Potter. Pictures don't move. They are a series of stills played in sequence. The "movement" is an illusion.

  3. more importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which witch is which?

  4. Classic Bahnhof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why we're using Bahnhof for our 1gbit line at my company (to support these kind of stances, not to do piracy of course).

    It's interesting and probably relevant to that the CEO of Bahnhof is a former journalist, and the son of an artist.

  5. The problem is not copyrights by bretts · · Score: 2

    The copyright holders and their shell organizations were initially granted a boon from society in exchange for continuing to produce new works. This boon gave them legitimate grounds to assert that society owed them something.

    All they're asking for is that their works not be stolen. In many cases, this is legitimate. I have trouble caring about it in the case of mass media, who are not concerned with long-term interests so much as selling trivial products on the basis of novelty. It would be a positive thing for society if Hollywood, television and pop music were to fade away by being unprofitable. These industries were never a good thing to begin with, and now they are parasitic in a different way from what you mention: they help people stay addicted to distraction and reality denial.

    1. Re:The problem is not copyrights by mlts · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the past, it was legitimate. Don't copy media, sell it as theirs (as counterfeiting is truly theft.) However, as time has gone on, the bar for IP infringement has gone so low, that with the TTIP, some guy dressing up as Spiderman for a local comic convention can be hit with a six digit fine or prison term. Couple this with the Draconian technological enforcement (more than four people in front of an XBox, movie shuts off), and the spirit of the law has been destroyed. In the past, it was a copyright monopoly for "x" time, then it becomes public domain, for all to use.

      The problem is that with extreme punishments (hundreds of millions of dollars for a few MP3 files), people start to have less respect for laws in general, and this not just affects IP law, but law and order as a gestalt.

      In the early 2000s, had the RIAA not used heavy handed tactics, but went with tactics that MADD has used to sway public opinion, making the concept of copying MP3s for someone as odious as hitting the road after seven longnecks, things likely would be a lot different.

    2. Re:The problem is not copyrights by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Encrypt and share. Undermine copyright, make it irrelevant.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:The problem is not copyrights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure advocate breaking the law and if caught complain loudly about how unfair it is that you have to pay for original books, music, art, games, and films. The creators of the original content are free to dictate the type of licensing terms of their own works. The public audience is free to accept or reject the terms. However, today the entitlement crowd believes if the content is distributed in an electronic format and accessible on the Internet the content should be free and anyone who disagrees is just an unrepentant capitalist with his boot on the necks of the oppressed.

    4. Re:The problem is not copyrights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you wonder the music and film industry has gone to shit, and only paying for big names, or stuff that is 100% cookie cutter template garbage. Before piracy, we had many good bands. After piracy... look at what is on mainstream record labels.

      So, enjoy your free tunes. The good bands can't succeed, while the record labels make the bands from now on. We now pay for piracy in the fact that each movie is the same, plot-wise, and bands are the same.

    5. Re:The problem is not copyrights by chilvence · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You say 'entitlement crowd' as if it were some sort of heinous crime to expect the internet to work the way it was designed to. It is the ultimate information distribution platform, you can write something today and have billions of people reading it tomorrow if it is worth reading. But before the internet blew everything out of the water, you had the public library - an institution specifically created to enable anyone to be able to access written material and more for no cost, i.e. giving people entitlement to literature, music and film. For some reason, society thought that was a noble goal, to facilitate universal access to knowledge! Funny thought, right?

      But no, we would rather hamstring the biggest revolution humanity has come up with since the wheel, for the sake of keeping the bastard parasite publishing industries in business, businesses that only exist because of the difficulty involved making actual physical media gave them a choke point to sit on and dictate who gets to be famous. Anyone who dissents should be publicly flogged as an example to the rest of the paying punters. After all, Tom Cruise's pay check has to come from _somewhere_, right?...... Right?

      I'm not in the least bit concerned. The next generation will take care of it, ask them if they give a fuck about what happens to people who can't get a record deal or a book deal - ask them in the comments section of their blogs that have hundreds and thousands of subscribers. If piracy means the collapse of Hollywood and the cult of celebrity... then fuck me, we need more piracy. We need it now.

    6. Re:The problem is not copyrights by houghi · · Score: 1

      Several years ago I saw a letter from the countries (Belgium) legal system to the countries MPAA that said basically: If you have somebody that is making money from copies, we will help you. If you go after people who share, we will not be happy you are wasting our time.

      The providers did not cooperate as they said to the MAFIAA: we will NOT give you the data from user X, because that is agains the law to share without a court order.

      So what happens now is not much. The pirates that get caught are those that are selling. The ones that share a LOT might get a letter from their provider to stop if what they are doing is against the AUP. So you either continue or change provider.

      If the MAFIAA would go after you and you did not make any money from it and the judge accepts the case, it would be a "don' do that, you naughty boy" punishment, not a Brazillian EURO deal.

      IANAL

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  6. Strength in Sweden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have heard it said that when the U.S tells Sweden to jump, Sweden says 'How high?'.

    1. Re:Strength in Sweden? by GumphMaster · · Score: 2

      Not, "How high?" but rather, "How long should I stay up Sir!"

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  7. Protect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My ISP did that 5 years ago, still happy with them.

  8. Confuses punishments and limits of the law by bretts · · Score: 1

    However, as time has gone on, the bar for IP infringement has gone so low, that with the TTIP, some guy dressing up as Spiderman for a local comic convention can be hit with a six digit fine or prison term. Couple this with the Draconian technological enforcement (more than four people in front of an XBox, movie shuts off), and the spirit of the law has been destroyed. In the past, it was a copyright monopoly for "x" time, then it becomes public domain, for all to use.

    It seems to me that what you are saying here is that the punishments are too extreme. There I agree. I think the original idea was that people who infringed on copyright or trademark (as in the Spiderman event) could be sued, and that took care of the problem. Now the police state is being used to protect these properties, and yet Hollywood is having bumper years despite shipping absolute mental goo (Batman vs. Superman) and its claims of being wounded by piracy. You know the old saying: "the entertainment industry cries as it hits you."

    1. Re:Confuses punishments and limits of the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The laws are probably too extreme.

      What about criminal penalties of triple damages, lawyer costs (within reason), and no more than a month in jail for infringement of less than $10k based on retail prices? Well, just an idea. Don't know what would be best.

      I hope the Spider-Man comment was a joke. I assume if no money is exchanging hands, then no infringement is occurring. But doesn't New York have issues with people dressed up as Elmos as a form of income or something?

  9. Reeks of rationalization/justification by bretts · · Score: 1

    However, today the entitlement crowd believes if the content is distributed in an electronic format and accessible on the Internet the content should be free and anyone who disagrees is just an unrepentant capitalist with his boot on the necks of the oppressed.

    I don't find it convincing either. But one of the biggest culprits here is that much of this stuff is hard to locate and, given the level of technology we have, there is no reason it should not all be on-demand online for a reasonable price (e.g. not $10/movie).

  10. Re: Moving Pictures! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try and be a smartass in front of a judge. And then in front of the dozen inmates who will rape and skin you and use your bones as toothpicks.

  11. Like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ich versteh' immer nur Bahnhof.

    1. Re: Like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that Nazischeisse for "gesundheit"?

  12. Or use a VPN by Spacelord · · Score: 2

    Or you can pay like $3 a month for a good VPN service and be done with it.

    Additional bonus is that it offers extra privacy and the ability to bypass silly regional restrictions on some websites.

  13. Re: Moving Pictures! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oooo! You Swedes are so kinky! Tell me more!