Sweden To Outlaw File Sharing, Crypto Breaking? 578
Martin Kallisti writes "The Swedish Department of Justice has today proposed a bill to be put into effect, if it passes Parliament, on the 1st of January, 2004. It is in accordance to EU directives, but will also criminalize the downloading of material from the Internet without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. Furthermore, it will become illegal to break cryptos, circumvent copy protection (mod chips et al), copy books, and as I understand it, use software that is designed to help with any of these tasks, and many other things." An anonymous reader points to an English-language article about this Swedish EUCD proposal, which also mentions a hefty $4 levy on blank digital media such as CD-ROMs.
DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cracking Down (Score:5, Interesting)
people continue to murder despite murder being illegal. your argument about file sharing is as naive as it is unquantified.
Re:but what if you don't KNOW?? (Score:3, Interesting)
No kidding.
I haven't read the article, but if I take this statement literally then that would technically mean you could not legally use the Internet at all. You would have to snail-mail every web site to get permission beforehand. I mean, every web page on the 'Net is copyrighted by someone.
That would be ridiculous so I have to wonder if that's really what this proposal says.
This can't be true (Score:5, Interesting)
But this is Sweden! As with all non-US nations, it's a socialist paradise of digital liberty. Is Holland going to criminalize marijuana next? Either this is April 1st in the Mayan Calendar or this must be a transcription error...
Wow, talk about a levy (Score:5, Interesting)
Note: IANAROS (I Am Not A Resident Of Sweden)
Yowza! (Score:4, Interesting)
What a great idea! Imagine, indie bands having to pay $4 per blank CD for the privilege of recording their own original music without a label. The competition might eat into corporate-music profits, after all, so it must be piracy and the majors should be reimbursed somehow! [We all know that the reason for the RIAA's declining sales couldn't possibly have anything to do with their elimination of the single format or statements comparing Eminem to Sinatra.]
I also like the opportunity to inderectly pay the operating expenses of a large software company, whose products I utterly refuse to purchase or use, for the privilege of creating and maintaining bootable CDs for my Linux installation.
Way to go, Sweden!
Re:Cracking Down (Score:5, Interesting)
It may not prevent all filesharing or CD burning, but it certainly could take a heavy toll. Marijuana usage is farily common in the US becaues it's easy to get. However, about 1/4 of the prison population are in for drug offenses. I don't doubt that people will continue to fileshare, but not without a great deal of punishment dealt out. And Sweden has shown (with regards to drugs) that it is able to enforce behavior laws more strictly than the US. I would hate to think of Sweden's prison population swelling with college students who can't pay the fines for downloading kazaa.
Well, this sucks! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
Fair Use in Swedish Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:DMCA (Score:1, Interesting)
and filesharing is flowing throw the network.
i dont think this law will have any support. its strange thou that i dindnt find out about this now from slashdot cus i never heard any of it earlier.
Does Copyrighted include free? (Score:3, Interesting)
=googol=
IP Law in two easy lessons
Theft by value: I take something that is yours.
Theft by reference: you think of something; I think of the same thing.
This is true, due to US lobbying in EU (Score:4, Interesting)
Some EU politicians are fighting it, but the governing body does, after all, mostly consist of older men with friends in the big industries, and little understanding of or sympathy for new technology or how the world is changing because of it.
This is as it always has been, just more so %-)
The problem is to get the lawmakers in Sweden and everywhere else to see what is happening, and how definitions of "fair use" necessarily MUST change in an information-based global society.
Local and world regional laws might serve as a temporary hinder, but the genie is out of the bottle, and starting to wake up. Short of turning the into a society modeled after the Orwellian 1984 (or Gillianian Brazil), there's no way to stop information from being free. It may take time, and in the mean time the big corporations and reactionary old politicians can do a lot of damage.
It will be temporary, though. Technology is getting way to advanced to micro-manage and regulate in detail, and lawmakers will sooner or later go back to making general laws like "It's illegal to steal no matter how you steal", which can be interpreted by judges and juries on a case-by-case basis, according to the common will of the people.
Regards,
--
*Art
"The computer is your friend. Trust the computer."
Short on law, Sweden, and EU (Score:3, Interesting)
Generally speaking, Sweden (or the rest of Europe, for that matter) is not at all as literal about their constitution as is the US. Occasionally, this is not so bad because common sense prevails over unexpected outcomes of ancient formulations. In this case and many others, however, politicians can infringe of freedoms of speach easier than in the US.
A second observation is that Sweden is a small country that always emphasizes international cooperation. In the EU this means that they are usually among the first to implement new EU laws. In the past, they have implemented crazy internet laws (such as making it illegal to write the name of any person on your web page without a written permission) before anyone else. Then the bigger countries thought it through they realized that it was too crazy even for Europe and sent it back Brussel to have it changed.
Tor
So? (Score:1, Interesting)
So does this means it's OK to have and use a dvd ripper as long as it's downloaded from somewhere outside the EU?
Sweden's proposal makes it also illegal to download copyrighted material from P2P networks
So what's the difference with the US?
Insane I tell you (Score:5, Interesting)
Reading the /. blurb (and not the full article), doesn't that mean no one in Sweeden can then download my (freely available), yet copyrighted dissertation without asking my permission first? That's nuts.
First off, it's tied to the web, and unless I specify, anyone can download the PDF we deliver to the ETD project. I don't care who dowloads this crap.
Secondly, I don't want emails asking for my permission to download this, or anything else I work on, yet copyright.
Ugh, this RIAA/DRM/patent nonsense really makes me loathe working with computers now.
Re:Cracking Down (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't this criminalize the Web? (Score:3, Interesting)
Since copyright (US at least) attaches on creation, as opposed to registration, everything on the web (including this post) is copyrighted. When you go to a web site and download the page (e.g. index,html) there is an assumption of IMPLICIT copyright permission. The theory is, if the copyright holder put the web page up to be viewed, and the only way you can view it is by downloading a copy, the copyright holder must have implicitly granted you permission to copy the page to your computer.
If Sweden is going to require EXPLICIT permission before downloading, youâ(TM)d have to get an email giving you permission to download from every site you visit.
And, no Iâ(TM)d didnâ(TM)t actually read the article. What type of self-respecting Slashdot poster would do that?
Re:Well, this sucks! (Score:2, Interesting)
How do the justify $4/CD? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wow, talk about a levy (Score:3, Interesting)
-Nano.
Non deliberative laws (Score:3, Interesting)
Each member country of the EU is passing laws based on directives of the EU. This is impeding full debate on the issue of copyrights and patents. A partial debate about principles takes place in the EU, and a partial debate about implementation takes place at the country level. The result is that you end up with convoluted, fractured laws.
States in the US have the same problem. They are often forced to pass compromised legislation as the result of incomplete directives coming from Washington. State education policies end up with all sorts of diversions as the result of acts passed by Congress.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
The Denmark Equation (Score:4, Interesting)
So, the Swedish government levies incredibly high taxes on hard liquor and beer >3% alcohol content. OR something like that. My memory isn't perfect, I just returned from Goteborge two weeks ago. So, moving along with the story - You can only buy alcohol at Systembolaget, the state owned, state operated liquor store. They have bankers' hours. To their credit, the selection is amazing and the employees are incredibly knowledgeable about the product.
To buy alcohol cheaply, Swedes from Gothenburg and the surrounding area take the ferry to Denmark. And do they. The day I rode the ferry was two days before the Derby - The big soccer match between two Gothenburg city teams. The ferry probably had 200-300 people on it. They were using airline carry-on bags, shopping carts, little wheeled dollies - all LOADED with liquor for the 20 minute trip back to Sweden.
So Swedish merchants will be forced to sell CDR's for $4/ea. This means what, exactly? The little shops that stack FORKLIFT PALLETS full of wine, liquor and beer at the curbside in little towns on the Danish side will just add blank CDR's for $1/ea to the pile.
I really dislike the implication by the government that ALL CONSUMERS are purchasing CDR's to further CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.
This is really about the recording industry being slow to evolve and adapt to a changing marketplace. Kudos to iTunes & Steve Jobs. When the customer is given a fair and realistic alternative to buying a CD for $20 with two good songs on it or pirating it off Kazaa, they'll probably take it - As evidenced in iTunes runaway success.
These laws are being created by men and women who call tech support three times a week with Outlook Express questions.
Re:The Denmark Equation (Score:3, Interesting)
For the record, I'm Danish.
To buy alcohol cheaply, Swedes from Gothenburg and the surrounding area take the ferry to Denmark. And do they. The day I rode the ferry was two days before the Derby - The big soccer match between two Gothenburg city teams. The ferry probably had 200-300 people on it. They were using airline carry-on bags, shopping carts, little wheeled dollies - all LOADED with liquor for the 20 minute trip back to Sweden.Actually, we have recently built a bridge accross Oeresund [oeresundsbron.com] connecting Denmark and Sweden to make this much more easier for both our countries. They get cheap liquor here, and we get a low mortgage and cheap dental services over there (live there, work here - neat stuff). I remember some of the CGI animated commercials on TV, by DSB (the Danish State Railways), showing Swedes doing horizontal bungee jumping (slinging?) accross Oeresund grabbing full loads of beer from the store shelves in a split second before slinging back home - this was to demonstrate how easy it had become for the Swedes to get cheap beer here when travelling by train. :-)
So Swedish merchants will be forced to sell CDR's for $4/ea. This means what, exactly? The little shops that stack FORKLIFT PALLETS full of wine, liquor and beer at the curbside in little towns on the Danish side will just add blank CDR's for $1/ea to the pile.We've been paing around 0.7 USD in taxes on every CD-R and CD-RW for a couple of years now. I believe most people here buy them in Germany now instead. Incidentally, this is where we buy our beer also if we want them really cheap, that is. But don't tell the Swedes I said that.
This is really about the recording industry being slow to evolve and adapt to a changing marketplace. Kudos to iTunes & Steve Jobs. When the customer is given a fair and realistic alternative to buying a CD for $20 with two good songs on it or pirating it off Kazaa, they'll probably take it - As evidenced in iTunes runaway success.Hear hear!
zRe:Cracking Down (Score:3, Interesting)
But the question is about rights.
The relation between the producer (seller) and consumer (buyer) of goods is largely a matter of contract. Since intellectual goods are abstract, the courts have been correct in realizing that selling the goods has to be thought of in terms of rights.
The transaction of buying and selling a CD involves a certain number of rights. Selling a CD in the store does not include the right to make unlimited reproductions of the CD.
When you have a different technology for distributing music, then there will naturally be different prices and a different set of rights involved in the purchase.
Let's say you have a technology that allows a music company to sell a single listen to a song or to view a DVD. These technologies would have a different price and a different set of rights than buying a CD for a permanent collection. You are clearly buying one license for a single view. Breaking the encryption on the music is clearly a violation of the rights. It is not a matter of fair use.
The truth of the matter is that as different technologies evolve, there needs to be an evolution in the contract between buyer and seller.
There has been dramatic changes in technology, and so there needs to be adjustments in the contract. however, both sides of the purchase need to benefit from the changes. The changes in technology did not come from the music industry, they came from the tech sector. The consumer should be benefitting from these changes. Instead we see record companies engaging in price fixing, and the record industry is working feverishly to prevent people from benefitting from the technology.
The changes in technologies require a change in the definition of the contract between buyer and seller (ie
It is absurd to say that there is a static natural law involving copyright and music. The technology demands a certain amount of reclarification in contracts. The draconian changes that the music industry want are one sided, but are a start. They now need to be accompanied either by dramatic drops in in price, or other benefit to the consumer.
Fee on paper? Close! (Score:3, Interesting)
group of publishers.
And for every photocopier, fax machine and scanner
sold, a fee goes to the VG Wort. It is supposed to
pay a compensation for fair use and breaches of
copyright.
The most ridiculous part is, that the fees on
machines vary with their speed. So if you buy a
scanner in Germany, it often is slower than the
ones sold in the US.
In many cases, downloading english drivers will
speed up your machine.
Sad but true.
Free speech in Scandinavia (Score:4, Interesting)
Fortunately, as others have pointed out, free speech is a human right, and issues such as this may ultimately have to be resolved by the Human Rights Tribunal. Interestingly enough, the amount of Danish cases that are being referred to that particular institution is skyrocketing these years, which is good in a sense - people are aware that their rights are being violated. I just think it is infinitely sad that Scandinavian countries that have prevoiusly been shining examples of well-tuned democracies choose to shaft basic human rights For a Few Dollars More.
This guy gets it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Face: Why destroy copyright?
Machinator: Because it is a legal solution to a social problem. And as always, it creates more problems than it solves.
Face: Like, individual copyright?
Machinator: All copyright. We should still have social expectations of crediting people. And creators *will* profit, I think considerably better than now. Plus, the quality of art will improve, because it won't reward the same sorts of commercial behaviors.
Face: I'm not sure how creators will profit better than now in, say, literature. Or books. I don't know. Music: I think I agree, at this point.
Machinator: Because people will pay authors to write.
Face: [Laughs.] Fair enough.
Machinator: And publishers will not capture the main part of their revenue.
Face: Which is?
Machinator: Publishers take (I think) well over 95% of the revenue that would go to the author.
Face: I'm just curious, though; if company A pays an author to write a book, and company B copies the book and reprints it sans royalty, how does this one work?
Machinator: If you're thinking corporations, they need to go too. [Smiles.]
Face: But they won't.
Machinator: Think people. People will pay authors to write because they appreciate their work, and because they want to read more.
Face: Consider the SoulSeek model. Less than 1% of the user base pays Nir.
Machinator: So? Nir is profiting handsomely, I think.
Face: True.
So say that group A agrees to publish a random author.
Machinator: You're talking about printed matter?
Face: Yes. Or electronic.
Machinator: Then they can print it...and they must credit it (or be considered very rude). And if they promote it successfully, they make lots of money selling books for awhile. Then maybe another publisher picks it up, and makes money too. And meantime, the author gets famous, and people pay him to write more.
Face: Why do they pay him?
Machinator: Because they want him to write.
Face: Fair enough. Any proof for said model in human history?
Machinator: Yes. The Italian Renaissance.
Face: Good one.
Machinator: There was *no* copyright. It was one of the most artistically amazing eras, including literature.
Artists create to be appreciated, anyhow. Not to make money. If you just want to create product, maybe this model doesn't work as well for you. So? Boohoo, no Britney Spears; I'm crying in my coffee.
Face: Yeah. But you have to convince people of that. And they *like* Britney.
Machinator: Did I convince you?
Face: I'm not your typical audience, by far.
Machinator: Yes, you are. I only try to convince intelligent people. I don't *care* what the mainstream thinks. Truly. They will be led to whatever, because they don't think, period.
Face: Literally. They don't think, but they shell out money, and detest change.
Machinator: So, they can detest it. Change happens.
on second taught (Score:4, Interesting)
Worse, _officially_ unenforceable! (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, the swedish minister of justice said something to the effect of: "This is not a law we will try to enforce."
Great! Why don't we just make some new laws for a few special interests, lets make 'em so broad that they criminalize a large part of the population... and then we pick and choose where to enforce it.
I don't feel very good about beeing swedish today.
We just got our own DMCA+.
Not as bad as it may look. (Score:5, Interesting)
1. It will become illegal to download material that have been made available in an illegal manner.
It's simply the law about recieving stolen goods applied to electronic media.
If it's illegal to make copyrighted material available for download, it's only logical that it's also illegal (albeit to a lesser extent) to download it.
The right to make private copies are made clearer and allows anyone to make backups or move material to another media for private use.
Including recording of TV, radio or other streaming media for private use.
2. The law makes it illegal to create and distribute tools for breaking copy protection and likewise to use such tools.
It does _not_ outlaw generic crypto tools, just tools used to bypass copy protection.
This will not make it illegal to backup your DVD, but you can't rip it, recode it and store it in another format.
It will make it illegal to decode encrypted DVDs using anything else than the tools blessed by the copyright holder.
But that's a commercial decision taken by the DVD distributors.
3. The levy on recordable media has been there for ages, it has been extended to cover new forms of media.
It's intented to cover the _legal_ copying, like recording streaming media.
If the law passes... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have always used the p2p progs to download music and then buying it if i like it, deleting it if i don't like it. I've watched movies at home to see if they're worth paying the $10 they charge at the cinemas (and yes, it's still worth going to the cinema after watching it at home since it a whole different thing on the big screen). P2p progs are also a great way of finding a new movie/series to buy on dvd when browsing a persons share, this other night i saw Kindred: The Embraced on some guys share and just had to order it.
Anyways, i've prepared a little example of how much the industry would lose per year just because i stopped buying the stuff they claim to lose money from cause of pirates.
Note, these are not exact prices since pricing differs alot from store to store, specially on the VHS
Cd's, 18 - $414
DvD movies and series 15 - $650
VHS movies 30 - $360
Makes for a total of $1424 per year spent only on entertainment at home.
I'd like to see the catastrophic downfall in revenues to the companies involved if more people would do just like me.
Re:Sweden edges closer to Communism (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, it is.
"All it means is people will do whatever they can get away with. People speed all the time. Traffic generally flows (at least in my area) around 10 mph above the posted speed limit. Does this mean the law is a bad idea?"
As is, yes, it does. There's a speed for any given road called the 85th percent speed (or something similar). No matter what the speed limit is, 85% of the people will be uncomfortable driving at a different speed (it's defined as the speed 85% of the people drive at on a given road). It's a known fact that deviating speed away from this has the proven effect of increasing the rate of accidents. Hence, the law (a too-low speed limit for a given road) is bad.
Further, because this occurs constantly, on roads I could easily do 90 on in my Ram pickup, safely, people tend to assume that the speed limits are arbirtary - and they're quite justified in doing so, as they are - and for all intents and purposes, ignore them. Which means when a speed limit really DOES need to be changed for some reason (oncoming nasty turn, ice, or something), it is ignored, causing accidents.
In other words, making a law that people will probably ignore generally applicable makes matters worse. It's human nature, and laws can't change that.
"Should we get repeal the speed limit laws, just because nobody follows them?"
Yes. Or, at the least, alter them so that people no longer violate them. Different licences for different speeds, perhaps, with slow licences forced to stay in the right lane on highways.
Of course not - maybe increase the speed limit (i.e. rework the law to be practical), but not eliminate it altogether.
Which is, for all intents and purposes (to go back to the actual point), eliminating it. There's no way to stop millions of people from violating this law. That means it is a bad law, and should be eliminated (or in this case, never passed in the first place). All this kind of thing serves to do is make a country totalatarian.