Communism *can* work, but only on a very small scale, and generally only for a short while.
One could argue that many families operate according to a communistic principle. Those who can bring in resources do, and those resources are distributed according to each family member's needs. For that case, it could work for a longer duration, but of course, I don't know what you mean with "a short while".
Unfortunately, we can't. For you to be able to effectively protect your copyrights, you need to wiretap every communication channel there is, since all of them can be used to commit copyright infringement. There goes privacy and secrecy of correspondence, as well as whistleblower protection. Sorry, but protection of copyrights simply isn't worth the massive infringements of fundamental rights that it would require. Not by a long shot. And that is why peaceful coexistence isn't possible.
He focuses on "personal liberty" because the moment people engage him on basic economics, like how to amortize expensive productions over those who enjoy them, he has no answers.
It is really rather irrelevant, since elimination of piracy would require everyone to give up many fundamental rights like privacy, secrecy of correspondence and reporters' privilege. Keeping those rights would be worth far more than eliminating piracy, regardless of the effects that abolishing copyright might have on the content creators.
If an employer pays you to work on an open source project, but they never distribute that project since it is for in-house use
Well, if that is the case, is it still an open source project? I'd argue that it isn't. Unless distributed outside the company, the source is effectively closed from the rest of the world, and would be no different from any proprietary software package.
Also taking into account the low voter turnout that the States have, it could be that only a minority of Americans supported him
Actually, taking both the low voter turnout, the electoral system and the "winner takes it all" rule into account, one can conclude that one can become the president of the United States by having as little as around 12.5% popular support. How can this be? Well, first, you need to get the electoral votes from slightly more than 50% of the electors. In addition, those states whose electors vote for you must have gotten slightly more than 50% of the popular votes in those states. And finally, the US voter turnout is usually around 50%. 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.125 QED.
Newer operating systems equipped with digital rights management software (DRM) will extract the watermark from audio files prior to playing them on the system. The DRM software will ensure that the user has paid for the song by comparing the watermark to the existing purchased licences on the system.
If the file is not protected in any other way, it is not protected at all. A player that refuses to play watermarked files that have the wrong watermark will just be discarded by users in favor of players that simply ignores the watermark.
If the file is protected in some other way, such as with encryption, then that is what most DRM systems already do today. Nothing new here.
On the contrary Swedish practice is actually allowed by the relevant treaties. First, you cannot distribute a copy that you have not legally purchased. Second, you can distribute only to a very small group. And third, the rights holders are compensated by the levy on recordable media. This third part is what makes it all legal.
If you take ten copies of a 3min song, and concatenate chunks from each in 18sec blocks, then either the watermark will be unparsable, or it will implicate ten different people for small portions instead of one person for the whole song.
It will also damage the mp3 file, if my understanding of the mp3 format is correct. This is because the data is encoded in overlapping blocks to eliminate noise at the block boundaries. Cutting and splicing such a stream might not be as simple as it appears to be.
Sophisticated watermarking techniques protect the watermark IF there is only one, ie all copies have the same watermark. Then you can't compare multiple, differently watermarked copies and so you can't find the watermark. It makes it much harder to mess up when you don't know where it is.
On the other hand, how could watermarks be used to track unauthorized distribution of the content if all watermarks are the same?
I likely wouldn't, even though I work as a software developer. My employer essentially uses the SaaS model, as it provides telecom services to other businesses, and distributes no software that I'm aware of.
Sweden passed its implementation of the European version of the DMCA (The EU Copyright Directive, EUCD) in 2005. That said, it is less egregious than the DMCA.
Circumventing DVD region coding is already illegal in the US
IIRC, circumventing region coding is explicitly legal in the EU, since the EU Copyright Directive only requires anti-circumvention provisions for copy protection systems, not access control systems or combined access control and copy protection systems. In Sweden, the copyright laws implementing this directive, gives explicit permission to sidestep "technical protection measures" (i.e. DRM) in order to play your legally purchased content on the device, operating system and application of your choice. Thus, the anti-circumvention provisions cannot be used to deny users of e.g. Linux legal access to their legally acquired DVDs.
Does it cover any file sharing whatsoever, any sharing specifically on P2P networks, or sharing files specifically identified as infringing copyrighted material?
The proposal entailed forcing ISPs to close the internet connections of subscribers that the copyright cartel claims are infringing their copyrights. All this without involving the police or court system, since "it costs too much money for society to take such a detour".
For scale, the parliament has 349 seats so 13 representatives is 3.7%.
If we take their party into account, I'd say that this is even more significant. After all, you can find few parties that are more business-friendly than Moderaterna, and 13 out of 97 MPs is a pretty significant figure.
It's also a good way to open connections, job oppertunities and so on for when you, inevitably, are not re-elected.
But it is by no means necessary. Former politicians, especially those holding ministry positions, are very much sought after in the private enterprise, regardless of whether they accepted bribes or not. Our former prime minister, Göran Persson, now works as a consultant, taking some $15,000 per one-hour speech.
And besides, our politicians have granted themselves so many benefits (such as full payment for two several years after they are thrown out, as well as very generous pensions for the rest of their lives) that many would never have to work again if they did not want to.
And what difference does it make which country one was born in? That's precisely the beauty of America is that your success doesn't depend on your race, gender, or country of origin.
Unless you want to become the president. Then it matters a lot. Last time I checked, only people born in the USA could become the president of the USA.
Your swedish counterparty (and not only they) obviously want to even to force ISPs to snoop on peoples private communication and report them if they share a information you "own", to ease the process of their punishment.
No, they don't want the ISP to snoop on your communications. What they want is rather for rights holders to be able to sidestep the police and the courts (since it costs so much money to involve them), and contact the ISP of the suspected infringer directly, with a request to disconnect the infringer from the internet or face a lawsuit for "aiding and abetting" the infringement.
They also want to access subscriber information for IP addresses that they suspect are used in copyright infringement, so that (according to IFPI) they can call the suspected infringer and say "Hey, stop that!", although my guess is that "Hey, stop that!" is just a rewording of "Hey, stop that and pay us $10,000, or we'll sue you for all your present belongings and all your future income!".
You're right that most people have computer wouldn't be able to get online without their ISPs Flash-based installation CD and a quick start guide comprised mostly of pictures. They're not going to fins P2P networks very easily, and many don't even know they exist - much less the names.
In Sweden, it would have been hard even for the general populace to never hear of The Pirate Bay, since it has been on the front page on every large newspaper as well as on many TV news reports. In addition, TPB has a link to step by step instructions right there on the front page. How hard can it be?
but the point is that the argument "everyone does it" is a bogus argument in either case.
Actually it isn't. Laws that are ignored by the populace and not enforced by the police should be abolished. And in the case of non-commercial copyright infringement, enforcement would be either too costly to enforce (using conventional methods) or would require imposing total government surveillance of all communications, since any communication channel can be used to commit copyright infringement. This would also require the populace to give up several fundamental rights such as privacy, secrecy of correspondence and reporters' privilege. That price is far too high to pay to enforce the current copyright regime.
They won't go up against the EU, they'll pressure the individual member states instead. After all, that's how they got the last Swedish administration to take down The Pirate Bay, by threatening with trade sanctions and threatening to put Sweden on the "WTO black list" (which according to several sources does not even exist).
Slashdot Mirror
One could argue that many families operate according to a communistic principle. Those who can bring in resources do, and those resources are distributed according to each family member's needs. For that case, it could work for a longer duration, but of course, I don't know what you mean with "a short while".
Unfortunately, we can't. For you to be able to effectively protect your copyrights, you need to wiretap every communication channel there is, since all of them can be used to commit copyright infringement. There goes privacy and secrecy of correspondence, as well as whistleblower protection. Sorry, but protection of copyrights simply isn't worth the massive infringements of fundamental rights that it would require. Not by a long shot. And that is why peaceful coexistence isn't possible.
It is really rather irrelevant, since elimination of piracy would require everyone to give up many fundamental rights like privacy, secrecy of correspondence and reporters' privilege. Keeping those rights would be worth far more than eliminating piracy, regardless of the effects that abolishing copyright might have on the content creators.
And this is what information wants to be free really means.
Well, if that is the case, is it still an open source project? I'd argue that it isn't. Unless distributed outside the company, the source is effectively closed from the rest of the world, and would be no different from any proprietary software package.
Actually, taking both the low voter turnout, the electoral system and the "winner takes it all" rule into account, one can conclude that one can become the president of the United States by having as little as around 12.5% popular support. How can this be? Well, first, you need to get the electoral votes from slightly more than 50% of the electors. In addition, those states whose electors vote for you must have gotten slightly more than 50% of the popular votes in those states. And finally, the US voter turnout is usually around 50%. 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.125 QED.
If the file is not protected in any other way, it is not protected at all. A player that refuses to play watermarked files that have the wrong watermark will just be discarded by users in favor of players that simply ignores the watermark.
If the file is protected in some other way, such as with encryption, then that is what most DRM systems already do today. Nothing new here.
On the contrary Swedish practice is actually allowed by the relevant treaties. First, you cannot distribute a copy that you have not legally purchased. Second, you can distribute only to a very small group. And third, the rights holders are compensated by the levy on recordable media. This third part is what makes it all legal.
It will also damage the mp3 file, if my understanding of the mp3 format is correct. This is because the data is encoded in overlapping blocks to eliminate noise at the block boundaries. Cutting and splicing such a stream might not be as simple as it appears to be.
On the other hand, how could watermarks be used to track unauthorized distribution of the content if all watermarks are the same?
Neither the RIAA nor the IFPI has any jurisdiction anywhere, since they are not parts of the justice system (police and courts).
For registered copyrights, I assume?
I likely wouldn't, even though I work as a software developer. My employer essentially uses the SaaS model, as it provides telecom services to other businesses, and distributes no software that I'm aware of.
Sweden passed its implementation of the European version of the DMCA (The EU Copyright Directive, EUCD) in 2005. That said, it is less egregious than the DMCA.
IIRC, circumventing region coding is explicitly legal in the EU, since the EU Copyright Directive only requires anti-circumvention provisions for copy protection systems, not access control systems or combined access control and copy protection systems. In Sweden, the copyright laws implementing this directive, gives explicit permission to sidestep "technical protection measures" (i.e. DRM) in order to play your legally purchased content on the device, operating system and application of your choice. Thus, the anti-circumvention provisions cannot be used to deny users of e.g. Linux legal access to their legally acquired DVDs.
The proposal entailed forcing ISPs to close the internet connections of subscribers that the copyright cartel claims are infringing their copyrights. All this without involving the police or court system, since "it costs too much money for society to take such a detour".
If we take their party into account, I'd say that this is even more significant. After all, you can find few parties that are more business-friendly than Moderaterna, and 13 out of 97 MPs is a pretty significant figure.
But it is by no means necessary. Former politicians, especially those holding ministry positions, are very much sought after in the private enterprise, regardless of whether they accepted bribes or not. Our former prime minister, Göran Persson, now works as a consultant, taking some $15,000 per one-hour speech.
And besides, our politicians have granted themselves so many benefits (such as full payment for two several years after they are thrown out, as well as very generous pensions for the rest of their lives) that many would never have to work again if they did not want to.
It seems to be doing pretty well. A few well-known Swedish game companies and their games:
More information is available on e.g. Wikipedia.
It still holds. In fact, if you would count piracy into our exports, we might become number one. :)
Unless you want to become the president. Then it matters a lot. Last time I checked, only people born in the USA could become the president of the USA.
No, they don't want the ISP to snoop on your communications. What they want is rather for rights holders to be able to sidestep the police and the courts (since it costs so much money to involve them), and contact the ISP of the suspected infringer directly, with a request to disconnect the infringer from the internet or face a lawsuit for "aiding and abetting" the infringement.
They also want to access subscriber information for IP addresses that they suspect are used in copyright infringement, so that (according to IFPI) they can call the suspected infringer and say "Hey, stop that!", although my guess is that "Hey, stop that!" is just a rewording of "Hey, stop that and pay us $10,000, or we'll sue you for all your present belongings and all your future income!".
In Sweden, it would have been hard even for the general populace to never hear of The Pirate Bay, since it has been on the front page on every large newspaper as well as on many TV news reports. In addition, TPB has a link to step by step instructions right there on the front page. How hard can it be?
Actually it isn't. Laws that are ignored by the populace and not enforced by the police should be abolished. And in the case of non-commercial copyright infringement, enforcement would be either too costly to enforce (using conventional methods) or would require imposing total government surveillance of all communications, since any communication channel can be used to commit copyright infringement. This would also require the populace to give up several fundamental rights such as privacy, secrecy of correspondence and reporters' privilege. That price is far too high to pay to enforce the current copyright regime.
They won't go up against the EU, they'll pressure the individual member states instead. After all, that's how they got the last Swedish administration to take down The Pirate Bay, by threatening with trade sanctions and threatening to put Sweden on the "WTO black list" (which according to several sources does not even exist).