Slashdot Mirror
Teen Freed for Linking to MP3s
7 year old free from charges in swedish mp3-case
The district court of Skövde announces today that the 17-year old who had using links to mp3-files on his homepage, is now acquited. Justification being that the 17-year old had only been directing to, not distributing the actual files. The classification was "crime against the copyright law through digital mp3-technics".
Even though he is now acquited, the court thinks he is guilty of complicity to crime against the copyright law. But since he was never prosecuted for that crime, he is released.
This is the first time in Europe a mp3-case has been brought to court. Its the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) who prosecuted the 17-year ord. The organisation has charged him with fines, but crimes against the copyright law can result in up to two years in prison. IFPI has not yet responded if it will appeal against the judgement.
While I don't know the text of the Berne Convention by heart, I'd say it's only marginally relevant (legally speaking, it's not a law, by the way). The Berne Convention sets some minimum standards for copyright, but its primary purpose is to let foreign authors enjoy the same rights as the nationals of the country where copyright is claimed.
Before the Berne Convention was established in the late 19th century, a Swedish publisher could obtain a book by a British author, possibly translate it, and distribute as many copies he liked within Sweden, without the British author getting a say (or even receiving a penny in compensation)! Even today, copyright legislation is essentially national, with various conventions extending the rights given by national laws also to foreigners.
I don't think the Berne Convention says much about encouraging infringement or similar "side issues". The function of the Berne Convention (or perhaps some other convention) in this particular case was essentially to allow the recording industry to bring charges to the Swedish teenager on behalf of foreign musicians. The rest was up to the Swedish court to decide in accordance with the Swedish Copyright Act and other relevant statutes.
There is another potential twist related to the Berne Convention though: I don't know from what country the actual MP3 files were (and maybe still are) served. In this layman's opinion, charging somebody with assisting infringement by linking to those files will require their distribution to be illegal in the first place. What if they reside on a server in a country which isn't party to the relevant conventions, or where even domestic copyright law is insufficient? Can you be charged with helping someone abroad to commit an act that would be illegal if committed in your own country, but not where it's actually committed?
Note that making a single copy for your own personal use normally isn't illegal in Sweden, so I don't think you'll get anywhere by claiming the teenager was assisting those who downloaded the music to commit "petty theft of intellectual property" or something. The issue here is whether he in effect operated as the advertising agency of an actual pirate (something the court appearantly didn't address, due to sloppy homework on the part of the prosecutor).
That's the problem with mandatory minimum sentencing laws. In most cases, the judge is indeed powerless, since legally he is not allowed to give less than a certain sentence. The only other alternative he has is to overturn the conviction, which would be somewhat akin to lying. The person is guilty, but doesn't deserve the sentence, but the judge's sentencing leeway has been done away with by stupid laws, so he's in a no-win situation.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
That surely does NOT make sense. Since most people have a free will (and there are laws governing the actions of those who don't) we can, in our very self-conscious, lawful way choose not to download copyrighted material (or kill, steal, whatever..) just because we are presented with the opportunity.
I don't buy this.
First things first; this comment is an example of what is usually an admirable principle; that control and prohibition should be kept as close in the causal chain as possible to the "bad act". This keeps the sphere of prohibition as small as possible, which is good.
But there comes a point at which it's just not possible to use the "other people have free will" argument, and when you have to suspect bad faith. Human beings aren't super-rational calculators running algorithms designed by Donald Knuth. They're funny, kludgey systems which react to stimuli in partly autonomous but partly predictable ways. And they're about as manipulable as the slashdot Karma system (no offense). People who behave in ways which influence the behaviour of others are part of the causal chain which leads to someone's rights being violated.
Should I be allowed to put up a site of credit card numbers? Hey, the people who download them have free will, don't blame me for what they do with them! How about if, for a fee, I introduce you to a guy who knows a hit man? How about if I publish the names and addresses of abortionists on the Net, with a red cross over the ones that have been killed? If you lent me your car and I left it out in a bad neighbourhood with the keys in the ignition, would you consider it to be partly my fault when it got stolen?
In a lot of these cases, I'm intending that crimes happen, and helping them to happen. I'm part of (an accessory to) the crime. I can claim that it's not my intention that these bad things happen (if I've got a good story, I might even get away with it). Some examples aren't crimes at all. But there's certainly a case to answer -- it's not the same as owning an automatically spidered search engine (and most search engines do attempt to keep themselves warez-free).
David Hume has a good few words to say about this, if I could only remember them.
jsm
Although it's good that he got out, there's stiull the issue of linking and the nebulous "assisting copyright crimes".
For example, say I, at school, decided to use a cd burner to record a song? Since it's their eq, would that be "assisting copyright crime"? What if I give someone a MP3->.wav converter? Or for that matter a CD ripper? Have I "assisted copyright crime"? The entire charge is both nebulous and overreaching. If I send an MP3 to someone under the assumption (which may well have been stated on his page, although I honestly don't know) that they already own the CD, and they happen not to, does that qualify?
Sorry about mixed-upness, it's not even 1000...
17 year old freed in Swedish MP3 case
The court in Skövde said that the 17 year old who had links from his homepage to MP3 files is acquitted. The reason is that the 17 year old didn't spread the files, but simply linked to them.
Today the verdict was delivered in the highly publicised case against a 17 year old who linked to MP3 files. The charge was crime against copyright laws using MP3 digital media.
Although he is now free, the court said he was guitly as an accessory to copyright infringements. But because he was not charged, he can go free.
First legal case in Europé
The case deals with the music industry's worries about pirate copying of music and the case is unique - the first time that an MP3 case case been taken up in Europe.
It was the recording insutry's IFPI, International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, who prosecuted the 17 year old. The organisation has pressed for a fine, but copyright violations can carry a sentence of up to two years in prison. The IFPI has not said that it will not appeal the decision.
The court followed the line given by lawyer Per-Olof Almers. He argued that the case was not a crime. The 17 year old only showed interest in other's MP3 files.
(Very quick translation indeed)
A little planning goes a long way...
Bork Bork Bork!
Mp3's is the only thing that can save music from itself at this point. Having worked in the music buisness ( Before my transforamtion into an uber-geek ) I can assure you every major record company is scared out of their pant's. The biggest worry they have is not really copyright issues. It's the fact that music act's don't really need record companies anymore. With MP3's, you can create your own CD, promote and sell it on the web. Look to Public Enemy for an example,
"When I look down I miss all the good stuff, When I look up I trip over things..."-Ani DiFranco
Likewise encoding huge chunks of your CD collection onto one CD using MP3 compression would also be covered under fair use as long as you don't give the CD away, sell it or otherwise distribute the files on it. You can use it for your own use so you don't have to stop and change CD's every 72 minutes.
You're getting into some hazy areas with linking. IANAL, but I'll take a stab at it. Linking is just telling someone where to find something else. If you say I can be prosecuted for copyright violations for linking, you'd damn well be ready to go down that road.
1) If I call you on the telephone and tell you where to find MP3 files, can I be prosecuted for copyright violations?
2) If I say on a radio show where to find MP3 files, can I be prosecuted for copyright violations?
3) If the MP3's are legit, obviously I can't be prosecuted for copyright violations.
4) Can you prove I knew the MP3's weren't legit? Should you have to?
5) If I link to a site that has displays one image that violates copyright laws, can I be prosecuted for copyright violations?
6) Do I have to ask permission before I do this?
You'd better be willing to answer "yes" to most of these questions if you want to go down that road. Apparently the RIAA is willing to answer yes to most of these questions. Are we?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This case vaguely reminds me of another case I heard about a couple years ago. I'm a littly sketchy on the details, gut the gist of it was:
An undercover cop walks into a party. Asks a teenager if he had any drugs for sale. The kid says "No, but that guy over there might." The cop proceeds to buy a large amount of, if I recall correctly, cocaine from the person the kid pointed out.
The kid is prosecuted for his "active participation" in this drug deal, and since the amount purchased crossed over some legal limit in that state, he received a mandatory life sentence with no possibility for parole.
So this is not just an Internet issue. In both cases a fairly innocent teenager was prosecuted for nothing more than passing along information.
It seems to me that the prosecution of someone who merely points out where something is available is simply one more way our society has devised of removing responsibility from where it truly belongs: with the person actually committing a crime.
What's next? Do I get a speeding ticket for telling someone "If you push that pedal on the right further down, your car will go faster."