>It is also worthwhile to point out that ALL creative works are >under copyright unless their copyright term has expired (hah) >or they have been explicitly placed in the public domain.
That would depend on country then. In Sweden for example there is no way to get rid of your copyright on a work (puting it in the public domain or anything similar).
>Copyright infringement relates to the distribution of copyrighted >works to which you don't have the permission.
It also "relates" to the creation of copies, at least in Sweden but most likely in most countries.
>There is nothing illegal about making personal copies for personal use
Some countries has exceptions that makes private copying legal, some does not or are much more restrictive. In Sweden you are allowed to make a few copies of a work for private use. The original has to be legal though (not been made in an infringing way or made available in an infringing way). You are not allowed to make copies for private use of computer software and entire books.
>(note that a copy obtained through private copying is not >considered a source obtained through legal channels).
Yes it is. Also note that the definition is not obtained through private copying but rather the original you make a copy from should not have been made in violation of the copyright law (strictly in violation of 2 of the copyright law but that is more or less the same) nor should it have been available to the public in violation of the copyright law. Private copying is an exception to the exclusive rights listed in 2 and such copies are considered to have been made in a legal way and thus you can me a new private copy from them. However, what makes most downloading from the internet illegal is that those copies doesn't fullfill the requirement to have been made available to the public in a legal way.
>In addition, the sphere of people that you can distribute to is very narrow
Actually it is not that narrow, it is basically your familly and friends. This includes for example class mates at scholl, although since the change 2005 not collegues at work. There is a limit in the NUMBER of copies you can make of a work though and it is "a few" (which really is a few, like 2 or 3 at most typically).
>It's still an amount that's supposed to be related to the activity.
Yes, and as evidence a bunch of invoices are presented accumulating to the ammount. I have not read the details but it seems the sum of them ammounts to the listed sum of 1,2 million SEK. Of course, one has to show that they were all related to the claimed illegal activity and not something else.
"a) solidariskt värdeförverkande från dels Svartholm Warg, dels Neij, dels Kolmisoppi Sunde och dels Lundström av 1 200 000 kr såsom utbyte av brott."
Note that it is not really divided by 4, it is a collective demand so one can go after whoever has the money.
As you note, in addition, their equipment would be confiscated, the actual equipment is listed in the filed case by the way (or rather, a record of all the quipment is reffered to). It is basically the equipment siezed during the raid, not anything else they might have then or now.
>This notion of "gain" is just a smokescreen. You could make up any >number you like and claim that as the "gain" here.
I am not sure what the exact terminology would be in English in a court case. The one used in Swedish is "utbyte". This is terminology defined in law and what it applies to. Of course, one can always argue exactly what should be included. In this case, the prosecutor argue, based on invoices related to adds and so on, that this is the sum they got as a result of the activity which he claims is illegal. If this is true or not, one can always argue about and will be left to the court to decide.
It is a criminal case. The term for the injured party in a crminal case in Swedish is "målsägande". When looked up in dictionaries it seems it is usually translated as "plaintiff" among others. I guess that is why that terminology is seen. What is the correct legal term for the one that has beeen "injured" in a crminal case in USA? That should be the proper word used I guess.
By the way, in this case they are:
IFPI, Antipiratbyrån and Monique Wadsted (a lawyer working on behalf of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc, MGM Pictures Inc, Colombia Pictures Industries Inc, 20th Century Fox Films Co, Mars Media Beteiligungs GmbH & Co Filmproduktions, Blizzard Entertainment Inc, Sierra Entertainment Inc, Activision Publishing Inc).
>...that the damages being sought are less than the RIAA demanded from that woman who downloaded a few songs.
This is a criminal case. It doesn't include any damages payable to the plaintiff. The $200,000 mentioned is not really a fine but rather the ammount of money the prosecutor claim is their gain on the activity which they would then have to pay in addition to any actual fine or prison sentence they might get.
>So let me get this straight. If you copy a CD the MAFIAA wants $1.5mil but >if you, in the eyes of their courts, are a major distributor you only get >a $200,000 fine. I seriously doubt that they will be able to prove any sort >of copyright infringement.
Apart from this being two different countries, it is worth noticing that the $200,000 mentioned is NOT really a fine. The only fines one can get in a criminal case are based on ones income and there is a maximum of about $25,000. For more severe crimes one can get prision instead (but you can't get both).
The $200,000 are the sum the prosecutor claims they gained on their activity. In addition to the actual fine/prison/other one get, one can also have to pay a sum equal to the gain.
The normal type of fine in a criminal case is the "day fine", that is you are sentenced to anything between 30 and 150 (and in some cases up to 200)). The actual ammount you then pay depends on how much money you earn per day although there is a lower limit of 30 SEK and a maximum of 1000 SEK. Such day fine is considered as less severe than prison which means you get it for less severe crime. Another basici principle is that you can normally not get more than one type of sentence meaning you won't get both fine and prison (or something else). Some very small crimes has a fixed ammount of money as a fine but those are all specifically listed and set by the law itself.
>Let's say a ten million SEK fine and five years prison
You can't get that high a fine in Sweden. There is a maximum at arround 200000 SEK (the fine is further based on your income so it can be as little as 10000 SEK even at maximum ammount if you have no income). Further, you can't get both a fine and prission. You get one or the other.
>Pretty soon, you should expect to hear people talking >about how file sharing is illegal, or should be illegal, >or how they are glad that a law is being passed to make >file sharing legal even though it already is.
Which ironically was pretty much what was going on before the law was changed back in 2005, people claiming that file sharing should be made illegal and how the new law was needed and so on. Oh well, I guess one have that problem in many other areas of society though were media and general public tend to use broad or wrong terminology to discuss something that technically should be called different.
>If Swedish citizens can freely copy and distribute >intellectual property created by other people in the >world without paying for it,
This, however is not at all what was proposed. What was proposed was that non commercial copying (not distribution by the way) should be allowed (in Sweden). Do also note that we do pay a leavy on media allready to compensate for such legal copying for private use. There is by the way allready such an exception that does allow private copying. What they want to do is to go back to the law at hand before 2005 that included private copies even from "originals" that was not created or made available legally. THAT is what the article and discussion is about.
Just like in other countries, some file sharing can be illegal while other is legal. So SOME file sharing can be illegal.
>It sounds to me like the entire article confuses the terms >"file sharing" with "copyright infringement" which sounds >like a form of doublespeak to me.
No, not really. First, you should not read it as an isolated article not connected to anything. it is an article in a newspaper that is part of an ongoing discussion/process/whataver one call it, abour copyright and infringement currently going on that also in the last few days has involved a court case involving someone making film and music available through DC (I think it was DC). So, for most people, especially those involved, it is quite clear that one mean the file sharing that is not legal. One just skip to specify each and every specific example of file sharing that one want to include or exclude. If you further read the article (at least the Swedish version) and their follow up, it is quite clear that what they want to do is to make any file sharing done for non commercial use to be legal (regardless of any possible copyright holdes wish).
You should also know the surrounding context of Swedish current and past copyright law which differ some from US copyright law for example. Do note that Sweden allready has an excpetion to the exclusive right to copy of a copyright holder that makes any copy made for private use (which includes for your self, your family and close friends) are legal. This includes downloading copies from the net from whatever place as long as the copy you made was for such private use was legal. What happaned 2 years ago, was that one added a requirement that the "original" one made a copy of (from the uploader) had to be created in a legal way and/or be made available to the public in a legal way (all from a copyright perspective). This made much such downloading illegal. Stil, private hubs, people having their own file server from family and friends and such are still legal since they a covered by the "copying for private use). What they want to do is in much to go back to how it was before the change 2005. I am a bit uncertain if they stil want to keep the "uploading" illega as it was before or not though.
This is the context and surrounding discussion you should be aware of and apply when reading.
>It sounds to me like the entire article confuses the terms "file sharing" >with "copyright infringement" which sounds like a form of doublespeak to me.
Exchanging the first for the second would not "help" though since they don't want to make copyright infringement legal. They want to make certain specific cases of infringement legal of which most are file sharing (although there are also many other file sharings that are not covered by what they discuss. So no, they are not confusing them at all but rather does not specify with three extra sentences what type of file sharing they mean since it is quite obvious for most people.
This varies quite a bit between countries. Not all countries has the same wide "derivative work" concept as USA. If we take Sweden as an example, anyone for example translating a work or doing similar modifications will in fact get copyright to that specific representation of the work however, he will still be restricted in it in the same way as he is in the original work. So he still have to get for example permission to distribute or copy it as he would of the original (note that Sweden allow copying for private use without permission and thus he can make such copies for himself family and friends). The original creator does however not get any copyright to the translated work. If the modified work (even if based on another one) can be considered to be a new work, there is no longer any restrictions based on copyright on the work.
I have no idea how the law in Paraguay works but if we assume he had lived in Sweden, he would have the copyright to that specific modified version of the work. He would however still be limited in the copying, distribution and such of this new modified work in the same way as the original. Since there is also the moral rights involved that for example includes the right to be named as the creator of a work he would most likely also have to state that original creator and so on. Just changing formatting is definitely not enough for it to be considered as a new work and thus those limitations apply.
For those that can read Swedish or have some English version of Swedish copyright law, this is covered in 4 of it.
>The UK and probably most EU countries do not have that,
Yes they do. Protection for computer programs are coverwed in the EU directive 91/250/EEC, which basically gives a lawful user (not necessarilly owner) of a computer program the right to do, for example compies needed for normal use which includes what you list such as installing and running the program. This is covered in article 5 of the treaty. I can't tell exactly how each member state have implemented the treaty but many have done it more or les exactly as the treaty says. For example Sweden which I am most familiar with has the same text granting such rights (or rather excludes them as being exclusive to the copyright holder) to the user without any authorication, permission or licese needed.
So yes, you are in most countries (if not all) of Europe allowed to install and run computer programs you have lawfully aquired.
A document that anylises the implementation of the directive (as far as it was in 2000) but also provides some insight into how to interpret the directive:
Note for example (in regard for the contract part): "In the view of the Commission, what was intended by Article 5 (1) and recital 18 was that it should not be possible to prevent by contract a "lawful acquirer" of a program doing any of the restricted acts that were required for the use of the program in accordance with its intended purpose or for correcting errors."
>You can still backup and share your music files >within your own network and even remotely.
You mean not use the extra features it has compared to "normal" hard discs? What would be the point then to spend the money on such features when you will not use it and can just buy yourself a normal hard disk to use on your network? One of the points buying this one is for those extra features.
>I would presume that rather than removing cookies upon 'logout', >they keep a note of the fact you're logged out, and continue to >track that cookie, knowing that the last logged in user was you.
Well, not nesecarilly "you", could be someone else on the same computer.
Slashdot Mirror
>But face the facts, TPB _IS_ facilitating copyright infringement.
Which is not necessarilly illegal.
>It is also worthwhile to point out that ALL creative works are
>under copyright unless their copyright term has expired (hah)
>or they have been explicitly placed in the public domain.
That would depend on country then. In Sweden for example there is no way to get rid of your copyright on a work (puting it in the public domain or anything similar).
>This is different from theft, where mere possession of stolen property is illegal (IANAL though).
Depends. It is illegal if you know it is stolen or have reasons to believe it is stolen. Otherwise the possesion is not illegal.
>Copyright infringement relates to the distribution of copyrighted
>works to which you don't have the permission.
It also "relates" to the creation of copies, at least in Sweden but most likely in most countries.
>There is nothing illegal about making personal copies for personal use
Some countries has exceptions that makes private copying legal, some does not or are much more restrictive. In Sweden you are allowed to make a few copies of a work for private use. The original has to be legal though (not been made in an infringing way or made available in an infringing way). You are not allowed to make copies for private use of computer software and entire books.
>(note that a copy obtained through private copying is not
>considered a source obtained through legal channels).
Yes it is. Also note that the definition is not obtained through private copying but rather the original you make a copy from should not have been made in violation of the copyright law (strictly in violation of 2 of the copyright law but that is more or less the same) nor should it have been available to the public in violation of the copyright law. Private copying is an exception to the exclusive rights listed in 2 and such copies are considered to have been made in a legal way and thus you can me a new private copy from them. However, what makes most downloading from the internet illegal is that those copies doesn't fullfill the requirement to have been made available to the public in a legal way.
>In addition, the sphere of people that you can distribute to is very narrow
Actually it is not that narrow, it is basically your familly and friends. This includes for example class mates at scholl, although since the change 2005 not collegues at work. There is a limit in the NUMBER of copies you can make of a work though and it is "a few" (which really is a few, like 2 or 3 at most typically).
>It's still an amount that's supposed to be related to the activity.
Yes, and as evidence a bunch of invoices are presented accumulating to the ammount. I have not read the details but it seems the sum of them ammounts to the listed sum of 1,2 million SEK. Of course, one has to show that they were all related to the claimed illegal activity and not something else.
>That's not how I read it
From the case filed to the court (in Swedish):
"a) solidariskt värdeförverkande från dels Svartholm Warg, dels Neij, dels
Kolmisoppi Sunde och dels Lundström av 1 200 000 kr såsom utbyte av brott."
Note that it is not really divided by 4, it is a collective demand so one can go after whoever has the money.
As you note, in addition, their equipment would be confiscated, the actual equipment is listed in the filed case by the way (or rather, a record of all the quipment is reffered to). It is basically the equipment siezed during the raid, not anything else they might have then or now.
>This notion of "gain" is just a smokescreen. You could make up any
>number you like and claim that as the "gain" here.
I am not sure what the exact terminology would be in English in a court case. The one used in Swedish is "utbyte". This is terminology defined in law and what it applies to. Of course, one can always argue exactly what should be included. In this case, the prosecutor argue, based on invoices related to adds and so on, that this is the sum they got as a result of the activity which he claims is illegal. If this is true or not, one can always argue about and will be left to the court to decide.
It is a criminal case. The term for the injured party in a crminal case in Swedish is "målsägande". When looked up in dictionaries it seems it is usually translated as "plaintiff" among others. I guess that is why that terminology is seen. What is the correct legal term for the one that has beeen "injured" in a crminal case in USA? That should be the proper word used I guess.
By the way, in this case they are:
IFPI, Antipiratbyrån and Monique Wadsted (a lawyer working on behalf of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc, MGM Pictures Inc, Colombia Pictures Industries Inc, 20th Century Fox Films Co, Mars Media Beteiligungs GmbH & Co Filmproduktions, Blizzard Entertainment Inc, Sierra Entertainment Inc, Activision Publishing Inc).
>...that the damages being sought are less than the RIAA demanded from that woman who downloaded a few songs.
This is a criminal case. It doesn't include any damages payable to the plaintiff. The $200,000 mentioned is not really a fine but rather the ammount of money the prosecutor claim is their gain on the activity which they would then have to pay in addition to any actual fine or prison sentence they might get.
>So let me get this straight. If you copy a CD the MAFIAA wants $1.5mil but
>if you, in the eyes of their courts, are a major distributor you only get
>a $200,000 fine. I seriously doubt that they will be able to prove any sort
>of copyright infringement.
Apart from this being two different countries, it is worth noticing that the $200,000 mentioned is NOT really a fine. The only fines one can get in a criminal case are based on ones income and there is a maximum of about $25,000. For more severe crimes one can get prision instead (but you can't get both).
The $200,000 are the sum the prosecutor claims they gained on their activity. In addition to the actual fine/prison/other one get, one can also have to pay a sum equal to the gain.
The normal type of fine in a criminal case is the "day fine", that is you are sentenced to anything between 30 and 150 (and in some cases up to 200)). The actual ammount you then pay depends on how much money you earn per day although there is a lower limit of 30 SEK and a maximum of 1000 SEK. Such day fine is considered as less severe than prison which means you get it for less severe crime. Another basici principle is that you can normally not get more than one type of sentence meaning you won't get both fine and prison (or something else). Some very small crimes has a fixed ammount of money as a fine but those are all specifically listed and set by the law itself.
>Let's say a ten million SEK fine and five years prison
You can't get that high a fine in Sweden. There is a maximum at arround 200000 SEK (the fine is further based on your income so it can be as little as 10000 SEK even at maximum ammount if you have no income). Further, you can't get both a fine and prission. You get one or the other.
>Pretty soon, you should expect to hear people talking
>about how file sharing is illegal, or should be illegal,
>or how they are glad that a law is being passed to make
>file sharing legal even though it already is.
Which ironically was pretty much what was going on before the law was changed back in 2005, people claiming that file sharing should be made illegal and how the new law was needed and so on. Oh well, I guess one have that problem in many other areas of society though were media and general public tend to use broad or wrong terminology to discuss something that technically should be called different.
>If Swedish citizens can freely copy and distribute
>intellectual property created by other people in the
>world without paying for it,
This, however is not at all what was proposed. What was proposed was that non commercial copying (not distribution by the way) should be allowed (in Sweden). Do also note that we do pay a leavy on media allready to compensate for such legal copying for private use. There is by the way allready such an exception that does allow private copying. What they want to do is to go back to the law at hand before 2005 that included private copies even from "originals" that was not created or made available legally. THAT is what the article and discussion is about.
>Wait... is file sharing illegal in Sweden?
Just like in other countries, some file sharing can be illegal while other is legal. So SOME file sharing can be illegal.
>It sounds to me like the entire article confuses the terms
>"file sharing" with "copyright infringement" which sounds
>like a form of doublespeak to me.
No, not really. First, you should not read it as an isolated article not connected to anything. it is an article in a newspaper that is part of an ongoing discussion/process/whataver one call it, abour copyright and infringement currently going on that also in the last few days has involved a court case involving someone making film and music available through DC (I think it was DC). So, for most people, especially those involved, it is quite clear that one mean the file sharing that is not legal. One just skip to specify each and every specific example of file sharing that one want to include or exclude. If you further read the article (at least the Swedish version) and their follow up, it is quite clear that what they want to do is to make any file sharing done for non commercial use to be legal (regardless of any possible copyright holdes wish).
You should also know the surrounding context of Swedish current and past copyright law which differ some from US copyright law for example. Do note that Sweden allready has an excpetion to the exclusive right to copy of a copyright holder that makes any copy made for private use (which includes for your self, your family and close friends) are legal. This includes downloading copies from the net from whatever place as long as the copy you made was for such private use was legal. What happaned 2 years ago, was that one added a requirement that the "original" one made a copy of (from the uploader) had to be created in a legal way and/or be made available to the public in a legal way (all from a copyright perspective). This made much such downloading illegal. Stil, private hubs, people having their own file server from family and friends and such are still legal since they a covered by the "copying for private use). What they want to do is in much to go back to how it was before the change 2005. I am a bit uncertain if they stil want to keep the "uploading" illega as it was before or not though.
This is the context and surrounding discussion you should be aware of and apply when reading.
>It sounds to me like the entire article confuses the terms "file sharing"
>with "copyright infringement" which sounds like a form of doublespeak to me.
Exchanging the first for the second would not "help" though since they don't want to make copyright infringement legal. They want to make certain specific cases of infringement legal of which most are file sharing (although there are also many other file sharings that are not covered by what they discuss. So no, they are not confusing them at all but rather does not specify with three extra sentences what type of file sharing they mean since it is quite obvious for most people.
>Anyone here who can read the original and clarify? Or
>anyone who has insight into the authors' intent?
You should read it as "They want to make it legal". One can note that the actual headline in Swedish is completely different from the English one.
Just a correction:
>... of Swedish copyright law, this is covered in 4 of it.
That should be paragraph 4, seems the paragraph sigh was swallowed.
This varies quite a bit between countries. Not all countries has the same wide "derivative work" concept as USA. If we take Sweden as an example, anyone for example translating a work or doing similar modifications will in fact get copyright to that specific representation of the work however, he will still be restricted in it in the same way as he is in the original work. So he still have to get for example permission to distribute or copy it as he would of the original (note that Sweden allow copying for private use without permission and thus he can make such copies for himself family and friends). The original creator does however not get any copyright to the translated work. If the modified work (even if based on another one) can be considered to be a new work, there is no longer any restrictions based on copyright on the work.
I have no idea how the law in Paraguay works but if we assume he had lived in Sweden, he would have the copyright to that specific modified version of the work. He would however still be limited in the copying, distribution and such of this new modified work in the same way as the original. Since there is also the moral rights involved that for example includes the right to be named as the creator of a work he would most likely also have to state that original creator and so on. Just changing formatting is definitely not enough for it to be considered as a new work and thus those limitations apply.
For those that can read Swedish or have some English version of Swedish copyright law, this is covered in 4 of it.
>Most non time-crucial movies (read: movies not yet released
>in the UK) are region free on Blu-Ray as well.
Yes, now they are, when they are "fighting" versus HD DVD. But who knows about the future and when there is only Blu-ray?
>It's more widely understood by studios that region coding is
>not as good for sales, they only use it for regional control now.
So how come most DVD still have region coding?
>The UK and probably most EU countries do not have that,
Yes they do. Protection for computer programs are coverwed in the EU directive 91/250/EEC, which basically gives a lawful user (not necessarilly owner) of a computer program the right to do, for example compies needed for normal use which includes what you list such as installing and running the program. This is covered in article 5 of the treaty. I can't tell exactly how each member state have implemented the treaty but many have done it more or les exactly as the treaty says. For example Sweden which I am most familiar with has the same text granting such rights (or rather excludes them as being exclusive to the copyright holder) to the user without any authorication, permission or licese needed.
So yes, you are in most countries (if not all) of Europe allowed to install and run computer programs you have lawfully aquired.
Treaty:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&numdoc=31991L0250&model=guichett&lg=en
A document that anylises the implementation of the directive (as far as it was in 2000) but also provides some insight into how to interpret the directive:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2000:0199:FIN:EN:PDF
Note for example (in regard for the contract part):
"In the view of the Commission, what was intended by Article 5 (1) and recital 18 was that it
should not be possible to prevent by contract a "lawful acquirer" of a program doing any of
the restricted acts that were required for the use of the program in accordance with its
intended purpose or for correcting errors."
>You can still backup and share your music files
>within your own network and even remotely.
You mean not use the extra features it has compared to "normal" hard discs? What would be the point then to spend the money on such features when you will not use it and can just buy yourself a normal hard disk to use on your network? One of the points buying this one is for those extra features.
>Microsoft knows it is not worth stealing....
That is why so many instead copy it....
>Add to that, if they ever do go out of business they will
>permanently auto-activate any and all Windows license.
What does it help "activating" a license/contract? What they need to do is activate the individual copies of Windows.
>I would presume that rather than removing cookies upon 'logout',
>they keep a note of the fact you're logged out, and continue to
>track that cookie, knowing that the last logged in user was you.
Well, not nesecarilly "you", could be someone else on the same computer.