Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government Your Rights Online

Finland Adopts New Copyright Legislation 323

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the killing-my-eyes-kill-danny dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "Finland has adopted European Union Copyright Directive with new changes to its national legislation, giving Finland one of the most record label friendly pieces of legislation in Europe. The article has a good summary of the new law's changes to the old, rather flexible legislation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Finland Adopts New Copyright Legislation More

Finland Adopts New Copyright Legislation

Comments Filter:

  • Great (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Now if Finland would only produce some records that actually sold you might have a winning combo!

  • Well you know (Score:3, Funny)

    by truckaxle ( 883149 ) * on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:23PM (#13724724) Homepage
    You can never trust those Finlander's .... oh wait .....

    • Re:Well you know (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EvilNTUser ( 573674 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:32PM (#13724791)

      More like you can't trust the EU.

      The EU was sold to us as an economic union. Then we were told we needed a constitution. That the EU would guard our basic rights.

      Well, thanks a lot you bastards. Thanks a lot for the corruption and injustice you've brought with you. Seems like old Finnish legislation was doing a better job until your directives forced it to change. I weep for the future.

      The EU as an economic powerhouse could be a great thing. The EU as a source of bad legislation is a recipe for disaster.

      • Re:Well you know (Score:3, Informative)

        by dada21 ( 163177 ) *
        Economic powerhouse? Doesn't seem that way. Bigger governments encompassing bigger populations tend to hurt their economies in the long run with tariffs, regulations, crony favoritism and inflation.

        I don't expect any successes with the EU, except for the pocket books of those with clout.

        • Re:Well you know (Score:3, Interesting)

          by EvilNTUser ( 573674 )

          "Economic powerhouse? Doesn't seem that way. Bigger governments encompassing bigger populations tend to hurt their economies in the long run with tariffs, regulations, crony favoritism and inflation."

          Then why is the US so successful? I agree that bigger governments often (always?) make a mess of things, but the reason the EU will help growth is that it will open internal borders and standardize business practices/logistics across the union. If it works out...

          Another problem with it is that, as humans,

          • The U.S. is a third world country in the making. They have already killed the unions, people live on borrowed means, etc. Yes, once upon a time we were great - then the "lootocracy" moved in.

            Funny how rather than plan to avoid the next flu pandemic, Bush seems to want to focus on how to control people with the military in opposition to standing law on using the military on U.S. soil: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/05/bush.reax/i ndex.html?section=cnn_topstories [cnn.com]

            Why would he want that? Are the puppetmast
            • I am looking forward to the future, when only the nation state of Northern California will matter to me. We have the water. We have the brains. We can overrule the central California nitwits from (recent immigrants from Dumbfuckistan) by simply voting our progressive politics into action over their objections.

              Are you talking about this [jeffersonstate.com]? Because I have to say, that site is about as intelligent and well balanced as PETA or Fox News.

          • Re:Well you know (Score:5, Insightful)

            by HunterZ ( 20035 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @05:36PM (#13725273) Journal
            Then why is the US so successful? I agree that bigger governments often (always?) make a mess of things, but the reason the EU will help growth is that it will open internal borders and standardize business practices/logistics across the union. If it works out...

            Whether or not the U.S. is "so successful" depends on how you look at it. As a U.S. citizen, I'm starting to wonder how long it will be before things break down if they keep heading in their current direction. For the past century the federal government has been gaining more and more power over the states, wasting more and more resources due to the inherent inefficiencies of governing at that level, and favoring the interests of whoever has the most money to spend on lobbying - with citizens steadily becoming more disillusioned and hopeless all the while as a result.

            Another problem with it is that, as humans, we always seem to standardize on whatever most people are already doing. If 5 people herding reindeer in Lapland have the best accounting methods, then the whole union should switch, not force them to change, damnit.

            Yes, it's called "democracy", and like all other forms of government invented so far it has its drawbacks. Really, though, I think that governments go wrong more often as a result of trying to govern too many people and not from the system they follow (with a few exceptions like small countries that are seized by corrupt dictators).

            I think Europe had a good thing going with small countries (on the same order of size as U.S. states) with governments that strike varying balances between democracy and socialism. Trying to unite them under one governing body (especially an economic one!) is just going to introduce the same problems that the U.S. is experiencing (ignoring the people's interests in favor of the interests of whoever has the most money, bureaucratic waste, gradual leeching of power away from individual countries to a self-serving centralized government, etc.)

            In closing, I should mention that I'm a computer programmer and not a political activist. I'm also American so I'm probably largely ignorant about the EU situation.

            • Re:Well you know (Score:3, Insightful)

              by NickFortune ( 613926 )

              Another problem with it is that, as humans, we always seem to standardize on whatever most people are already doing. If 5 people herding reindeer in Lapland have the best accounting methods, then the whole union should switch, not force them to change, damnit. Yes, it's called "democracy", and like all other forms of government invented so far it has its drawbacks. Really, though, I think that governments go wrong more often as a result of trying to govern too many people and not from the system they fol

              • Re:Well you know (Score:3, Insightful)

                by HunterZ ( 20035 )
                I've noticed a distressing trend to dismiss the abuse of power with the phrase "that's democracy". It's almost as if we have come to think of injustice and corruption of as an itegral part of the holy democratic process, and therefore immune from any criticism.

                I guess I was referring to the simplistic "majority rule" definition of democracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy [wikipedia.org]
                I invoke it with a cynical connotation because we Americans tend to uphold it as some sort of ideal - with the US government as a

          • Re:Well you know (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Sj0 ( 472011 )
            Define successful. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but it would take over $140,000 from each and every US citizen to pay off the debt and liabilities the US government has dug itself into, and US citizens are no better -- the official savings ratio for US citizens officially reached 0% a couple months ago.

            If I wanted to, I could look like I was doing well too, if I took out all the money anyone would hand to me. Eventually though, you've got to pay the piper.

        • Re:Well you know (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @05:22PM (#13725179)
          Are you nuts? Just look across the pond at the USA for an example of a large country that turned into an economic powerhouse. Europe has been hampered for decades by having too many different currencies, tariffs, customs checks at every border, etc. In the US, we don't have any of that crap. I don't have to deal with customs to sell my products made in California to someone in New York, but someone in Paris selling to someone in Rome had to before the EU. This has a huge stifling effect on the economy.

          After the EU formed and converted to the Euro, look how well that new currency has prospered; it's now stronger than the Dollar. Trade barriers always hurt economies; the only reason to have them is to protect your national self-interests (like keeping foreign companies from dumping and putting your domestic companies out of business, keeping stuff produced with ultra-cheap or slave labor from putting your domestic industries out of business, etc.). They make sense when there's a large disparity between trading partners because the more powerful partner wants to keep control of that, but in the case of Europe where most of the member were more or less on the same footing (labor rates, etc.), it didn't help them at all.

          The problem the EU has is certainly not economic, because they're doing better and better there for the moment. Their problem is with the EU government screwing with individual countries' rights and freedoms. Just like we have different states in the USA with different laws (gambling and prostitution are legal in Nevada, but illegal most other places for instance) because the people in those regions like it that way, Europe needs to make sure their different member countries can run themselves the way they like, so the Dutch can keep their marijuana and prostitution, the Germans can keep their Autobahn with no speed limits, and the Swedes can keep www.piratesbay.com.

      • Re:Well you know (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Ironsides ( 739422 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @05:02PM (#13725011) Homepage Journal
        More like you can't trust the EU. The EU was sold to us as an economic union. Then we were told we needed a constitution. That the EU would guard our basic rights. Well, thanks a lot you bastards. Thanks a lot for the corruption and injustice you've brought with you. Seems like old Finnish legislation was doing a better job until your directives forced it to change. I weep for the future. The EU as an economic powerhouse could be a great thing. The EU as a source of bad legislation is a recipe for disaster.

        And Europeans wonder why a lot of people in the US don't trust the idea of a world court or various other powers above the country level. Whatever happened to national sovereignty? Pretty much what every member of the EU has done has ceded a chunk of sovereignty to a government that they at best have inderect control over. If the EU is going to start demanding legislation, sounds like you should start having elections for the representatives.

        • Re:Well you know (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:32PM (#13725688)
          a lot of people in the US don't trust the idea of a world court or various other powers above the country level. Whatever happened to national sovereignty?

          While I agree with many of your points, it's worth noting that the international criminal court was intended for INTERNATIONAL court cases, ie. ones for which there just is no applicable national laws (or conflicting ones; or involving countries that do not recognized applicability etc). It's not meant for overriding national laws involving only national issues. That is, things like war crimes, crimes against humanity. I mean, lots of things dictators do may actually be legal according to laws of countries they lead: not unsurprising when most laws have been (re)written by the tyrants in place. I don't think that applying national laws of the most powerful nations outside their borders (like what USA is doing, and many other bigger nations would love to, too) is much better than trying to come up with an international court that is focused on specific area where there is a vacuum.

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @05:33PM (#13725257)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • More like you can't trust the US.

        The US was sold to us as a democratic union. Then we were told we needed a constitution. That the US would guard our basic rights.

        Well, thanks a lot you bastards. Thanks a lot for the corruption and injustice you've brought with you. Seems like old Native American legislation was doing a better job until your directives forced it to change. I weep for the future.

        The US as an economic powerhouse could be a great thing. The US as a source of bad legislation is a recipe f

  • So.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by maynard ( 3337 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:23PM (#13724729) Journal
    ....You can smoke pot, but don't you dare illegally download music! Hmmm.... --M

    • Re:So.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rovingeyes ( 575063 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:31PM (#13724780)
      Actually smoking pot, I believe, is still illegal in Finland. Nonetheless your point is well taken. With actions and speech being illegal as long as it is related to music is not music to any ear.
    • *Disclaimer* I dislike the Recording industry with a passion*disclaimer*

      But you are saying that choosing what you put into your own body
      is somehow worse than infringing on the rights of an artist to make a profit from their hard work .

      Bloody prohibition

    • Re:So.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Roadstar ( 909257 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @05:20PM (#13725164)
      Actually, according to the new legislation, it is a lesser offense to download an illegal than to rip a copy-protected CD-wannabe (as we all know, those lookalike thingies don't conform to the standards) you have paid for. To top all that, we get the restriction on discussing copy protection circumvention techniques. This is a really sad day for all us Finns, but at least we don't give up without a fight. According to all the IRC discussions I've been following, there seems to be a major uproar building up. In the meantime I have stopped buying records from all record companies that were demanding this law to be adopted. And I am far from alone with my boycott. Not to forget the fact that I used to buy rather many records (many times above the average consumption) on a yearly basis.

      Previously I have more or less despised P2P networks, but now that the government is giving the signal that it's more OK to download an illegal copy than to apply fair use policy into stuff you've paid for, it seems like I'll have to start getting my music from illegal sources. Sure it's an offense in the new legislation too, but at least I'm not getting fined or jailed for that like I could get if I ripped a copy-protected record to my iPod.

      This new legislation clearly shows what you can expect when you have the former Miss Finland as the Minister of Culture (no, I'm not kidding). I hope we can get a decent government in the next election. At least the voting statistics related to this law give us rather good guidelines on who not to vote. Meanwhile, as the government has regulated: Let the warez flow, but don't you dare to circumvent a copy protection, no matter how weak the so-called protection is.

      • Re:So.... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Roadstar ( 909257 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:03PM (#13725498)
        I forgot to mention that the youth organizations of nine different parties, i.e. all the significant parties from left to right were supporting the demonstration on Tuesday and opposing the new legislation. One could easily think that this extremely rare mutual agreement between youth organizations of parties with completely opposing political viewpoints would give the older (read: computer-illiterate) MPs a signal that there is something badly wrong with the new legislation. Did they get the hint? Obviously they didn't. Lobbyers 1 - Common sense & consumer rights 0.

    • Only in Holland (Score:2, Informative)

      by Bootvis ( 913169 )
      you can buy pot and you may carry up to 4 grams. In the rest of the EU it is forbidden.

  • Banning Discussion? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:26PM (#13724739) Journal
    Italics are from the original text
    Worryingly, even "organized discussion" on how to circumvent copy protection mechanisms, will be illegal. (and no, Finland doesn't have similar to American Supreme Court that determines whether laws are against constitution, but when laws are approved, they by default are in harmony with constitution and can't be later overturned on basis that they are un-constitutional)
    While you can't argue unconstitutionality, can't citizens claim that tihs clause violates various human rights accords?

    Or maybe not, England (as a European example) has fairly restrictive free speech laws

    • Re:Banning Discussion? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by drijen ( 919269 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:29PM (#13724767)
      I wonder if they were thinking of online forums and such. Unless they want to buy a piece of the Great Firewall of China, thats a worthless piece of legislation. Even if they did find a way to block forums based in other countries, how will they control IRC/IM?

      This is ridiculous, politicians need to quit palying with the pretty colored fire.

      • Re:Banning Discussion? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by illium ( 916279 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:37PM (#13724832)
        the law is there to punish people after they do it, not to stop them. so who needs controls for that? just punish whoever you feel like, whenever you feel like! just like speeding laws... the chinese way however is very different. they want to control the information coming into the country because the information itself is dangerous to them.
        • Foolish.

          What they desire is the surpression of information that could be used to circumvent copyright. Once the illegality of such information is established, a pretext will exist to implement censorship of incoming data.

          You think this information isn't dangerous to those interests that lobbied for this law?

      • They will not be able to control forums and IRC/IM -- but that's not the point. The point is it will give them yet another crime to charge you with.
    • various human rights accords?

      Not that I agree with Finland's action, what human rights could you use as an argument to being able to bypass DRM's? Doesn't this just come back to if you don't like it don't buy it? When I think Human Right's I think of "The United Nations Agreements on Human Rights". When you have conventions like protection against torture, whining about DRM's just seems so (for lack of a better word) petty.

      • UN Agreement on Human Rights (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:47PM (#13724904) Journal
        I'm glad you brought up the UN Agreement on Human Rights
        Article 19
        Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

        Article 20
        1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
        2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

        And I'm not claiming human rights allow you to bypass DRM, I'm claiming that its dumb as shit and in violation of international agreements to try to restrict speech & freedom of assembly.

        That's what happens when people read the document [hrweb.org] you try to use to refute their point.

        • Careful about telling people to read the whole document. They may flip out about Article 29(3): "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Seriously, there was a lot of discussion about this in a previous story about the UN. WIPO, part of the UN, seems partial to DRM [ifpi.org], so would Article 29 come into effect?
    • Or maybe not, England (as a European example) has fairly restrictive free speech laws

      Hmmm...ever read their tabloids?

      • Or maybe not, England (as a European example) has fairly restrictive free speech laws

        Hmmm...ever read their tabloids?

        Frequently, alas. What's your point?

        It's an honest question, BTW.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Why wouldn't you want to insult the police, it's not like they can do anything to you.

      • I wouldn't say that we have particularly bad free speech issues here in England - I'm not aware of any laws that prevent me from saying things here in the UK that you couldn't where you are (US?). What we do have is very little protection against unreasonable policing. Basically I can say what I like without too much fear, but if I start doing things that fall under some very vague criteria and make the cops suspicious they can stop me, search me, search my house, hold me for 14 days without charge under t

        • ...and a weak-kneed government unable or unwilling to do what's needed.

          Oh, I don't know. They've shown them selves capable of steely resolve in the face of overwhelming pressure not to, say, launch a war of aggression against an oil rich nation. Or in defending the profits of overseas corporation from the best interests of the electorate, for example.

          Corrupt, venal, deluded, increasingly paranoid, cynical, self serving... there are so many adjectives I'd consider before I resorted to "weak".

      • Link [dailyrecord.co.uk]

        While I may not like racist speach, it is still a restriction on what you can say. Last time I checked I could call another person in the US anything I liked without getting arrested.
      • "in England, [they can] hold me for 14 days without charge under terror laws"

        Keep up with the news -- it's 3 months without trial now for people who annoy police officers, and if you don't object to that (nobody can) then it will soon increase.

        Fair trials? They're some historical thing, like catholocism and Archery practise...

  • World Wide Government (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:27PM (#13724750)
    It seems the entire world is now a plutocracy, with all nations' laws up for the highest bidder.

    Are there any legitimate governments (not owned by the MNCs) left at all?

    It seems Finland is as bad or worse than my own (US) government. Very sad.

    • Re:World Wide Government (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Somalia. Money can't by what doesn't exist.
    • There's a scene in a great movie called Network [imdb.com] that you should see. The scene (you'll know it when you see it) is a bit over-the-top, but gets the point across that people have been saying this for over thirty years.
    • "Are there any legitimate governments (not owned by the MNCs) left at all?"

      No - sorry. My investment company has spent a great deal of time and money on this technology and in acquiring and carefully placing these assets for our most valued clients. If you wanted your own you should have done something about it years ago. And don't think that you can steal any of our property by simply picking up the phone and saying, "Mr. Bush?... Mr. George Bush?... Mr. George Walker Bush?..." - for example. It won't work
    • "The term plutocracy indicates a form of government where all the state's decisions are centralized in an affluent wealthy class of citizenry and the degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. ... This can apply to a multitude of government systems as these concepts transcend and often occur concomitantly with them. The word itself is derived from the ancient Greek root pluotos meaning wealth." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy [wikipedia.org]

      As evidenced by a spectrum of perso

  • Abdication of Responsibility (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Infernal Device ( 865066 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:27PM (#13724752)
    It's interesting to note that the government claims it won't pursue those who break the copying law for personal use. Isn't it the duty of Government to pursue those who break it's laws? While the people might seem to have a right to break those laws they feel are unjust, I wasn't aware that this was an ability granted to the Government.
    • Circumventing copy protections, even for personal use, will be illegal. (it states so in the law, even tho the government tried to argue that the right wont be pursued by government, but nothing stops record labels, movie studios, etc to do so)

      Letting a government pass a law that encompasses a certain ability to do something on the basis that they've argued they won't use it is quite worrying.

      There must be more to this.

      • Letting a government pass a law that encompasses a certain ability to do something on the basis that they've argued they won't use it is quite worrying. There must be more to this.

        In my part of the world we use laws like these to persecute individuals we find personally offensive while the rest of the populace gets off with a free pass

        • Many aren't fan of Ayn Rand, but she talks a lot about this in Atlas Shrugged. Of the idea that the "looters" buy up the government and basically make it so everyone is a criminal. That it's practically impossible to not break the law. Then they, the looters, can go and control you. If you disagree with them or their policies, oh look! You're a criminal. Time to prosecute.
    • IANAL but wouldn't copyright infringment be a civil matter?
    • I wasn't aware that this was an ability granted to the Government

      Who knows, may be they passed a law to make it possbile!

    • Selective Enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @05:01PM (#13724999) Homepage
      From the perspective of corrupt authority, it is often rediculously useful to have laws which everyone is breaking, but which aren't "enforced". Set a speed limit that everyone always breaks by 10 MPH, for example, and you'll find that you can pull over absolutely anyone you like, just because you feel like it or you don't like their bumper sticker or whatever. What's that sir? No, I wasn't singling you out, you were breaking the law.

      Expect the "we won't persue copying" claims, in practice, to mean that people will continue pirating, everyone will continue pirating, but only those who politically are the enemies of the record labels will be singled out for it. Want to download the entire Led Zeppelin song catalog, in clear and obvious violation of law? No one will stop you. Want to create an innovative new software program which could change the way music is distributed, but which incidentally could maybe be used to pirate music? Prepare to have the copyright directive, and tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills, come down on your head.

      Ayn Rand's said exactly one lucid thing in her entire disastrous body of work, and it was this:

      Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? ... We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--and then you cash in on guilt.

      • Re:Selective Enforcement (Score:4, Interesting)

        by TwentyLeaguesUnderLa ( 900322 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @09:03PM (#13726567)
        I'd just like to bring up a country where something of the sort is on the verge of being the case - Russia. That's why some Russians are quite frightened by the Yukos case, involving Khodarkovsky. Basically, the story behind it is (apparently) that he tried to get involved in some political things he shouldn't have - so the government slapped him intto jail for Tax evasion. According to the tax code, he was most definitely guilty of that. The thing that worried people is that the laws were unreasonable, pretty commonly ignored (and these infractions ignored by the government), effectively making EVERYONE guilty and thus suspect to prosecution whenever the government felt like it.

  • Holy crap... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jesselnz ( 866138 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:27PM (#13724754)
    This actually makes me glad to be an american... for the first time in a while...

    • Why are you glad? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:32PM (#13724796)
      Why would it make you, as an American (or so you claim), glad that the freedom of the citizens of another nation have been eroded? A true American, one who actually believes in the ideals of freedom and liberty expressed by the Founding Fathers, would be horrified and disgusted by this development.

      • Why would it make you, as an American (or so you claim), glad that the freedom of the citizens of another nation have been eroded? A true American, one who actually believes in the ideals of freedom and liberty expressed by the Founding Fathers, would be horrified and disgusted by this development.

        Dunno how you got that. He essentially said "I'm glad that didn't happen to me," not "I'm glad that happened to you." Pretty substantial difference there.

        It's like if a rock falls on you, while I may certainly

      • Re:Why are you glad? (Score:5, Funny)

        by rovingeyes ( 575063 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:51PM (#13724941)
        I agree with you partner. A true American would prepare to invade that country and spread freedom and liberty!
        • Invade? No. But to express joy at the destruction of freedoms and liberties in another nation? Never would a true American patriot do such a thing.

          Regarding your half-assed attempt at a point, it's quite obvious anyone with a brain, be him or her liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialst, etc., that the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were not and are not about freedom, nor democracy, nor liberty.

      • Sadly, the terms "American" and "Lover of Freedom" are not synonymous anymore. Some would argue that they never were synonymous, but I think that for the most part of the 19th and 20th centuries, true American patriots were on the side of freedom everywhere in the world - at least from a moral support point of view.

        It was only during the cold war that we started to think that the ends justify the means - prop up a dictator to keep communism out. A globalised economy also encourages this type of thinking be

    • Re:Holy crap... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by EvilNTUser ( 573674 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:39PM (#13724847)

      "This actually makes me glad to be an american... for the first time in a while..."

      Do you remember where all this neo-copyright bullshit started? Do you remember what corporations lobbied the EU to pass this legislation?

    • This actually makes me glad to be an american... for the first time in a while...

      Why? Because the current US government's inefficiency somehow makes up for it's destructiveness? The US government is moving in the same direction; It just takes it longer to get there.
  • despite the public critique even in mainstream media, the parties currently in coalition government decided to approve the legislation

    Is it just me or is the tendency of so-called "democratic" governments to make laws that seem to please big companies and p-off just about everybody else seem very "undemocratic"? I wonder if people are forgetting it's their rights they ought to be defending, not defending big companies against citizens wanting to exercise their right to make a copy of a CD or DVD they bo
    • Corporations provide more money in a more directed manner than individual donors. Money pays for shiny ads to say good things about you and/or bad things about your political adversaries. Shiny ads convince people to vote for you.

      Corporations = Money = Ads = Getting (re)elected

      Any surprise they cater to corporations and not invididuals?
      • Corporations = Money = Ads = Getting (re)elected
        See, the logical answer to your question is: but don't we vote? And if all the money in the world didn't change our minds, wouldn't the money then be worthless? The only problem is that no one is going to vote on DRM alone. Unfortunately, the issues are what the media says they are. The media is swayed by that money, and also by the fact that they sort of naturally line right up with the MPAA and RIAA, just by nature of their industry. So, the real probl
        • Taxation without representation.

          In the long run, money *is* worthless. Afterall, it is a created concept used to control the masses.

          At some point, the masses won't have any money to spend, and the greedy corporations will demand handouts from the governments, but the government won't have any tax revenue. Result: global economic collapse. But in the meantime, the corporations are going to attempt to get theirs before it's too late.

  • It's nice to see (Score:3, Interesting)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:28PM (#13724758)
    That the entertainment cartel is getting their money's worth from the Finnish legislature.

  • More information here (Score:5, Informative)

    by timeToy ( 643583 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:28PM (#13724761)
    More information here:
    http://www.effi.org/tekijanoikeus/laki/index.en.ht ml [effi.org]

  • whoops... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by advocate_one ( 662832 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:28PM (#13724762)
    Distributing (even for free) tools (whether physical devices or software) that allow circumventing copy protection mechanisms will be illegal. (this includes DVD rippers, tools that allow copying copy-protected CDs, etc)

    [...]

    Possession of tools that allow circumventing copy protection mechanisms will be illegal. Even for personal use.

    there goes Linux... a wet dream for Microsoft... getting Linux outlawed...

    So, basically -- buy a portable MP3 player and a copy-protected CD. And you can't copy the music from the CD to your MP3 player legally any more, as you'd break law if you circumvent the copy protection mechanism found on CD.

    and there goes the entire point of owning a personal MP3 player... now the users will have to purchase any music specifically for that player, even if they already have it on CD...

    • "So, basically -- buy a portable MP3 player and a copy-protected CD. And you can't copy the music from the CD to your MP3 player legally any more, as you'd break law if you circumvent the copy protection mechanism found on CD."

      I think they'll allow "industry approved" devices to copy the tracks. At that point, it's not copy protection but cartel protection. Why can some companies make stuff that can copy it but others can not?

    • there goes Linux...

      Where the hell do you get that notion? DeCSS is not a part of Linux.

    • Re:whoops... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @06:26PM (#13725642)
      Possession of tools that allow circumventing copy protection mechanisms will be illegal. Even for personal use.

      there goes Linux...

      How so? Windows "allows circumventing copy protection mechanisms" just as much as Linux does, in that neither of them currently attempt to prevent it.

      If the law outlaws Linux, it also outlaws Windows (and BSD, Solaris, etc).

      and there goes the entire point of owning a personal MP3 player

      Here in the UK, it is technically illegal to format-shift content - that is, it is technically illegal for me to rip my legally-purchased CDs to mp3 to play on my iRiver. It doesn't stop anyone, no-one has ever been sued for it and you know what? No-one's ever *going* to be sued for it either. That doesn't make it right, of course, but it does make it something to not bother worrying about (there's already plenty enough of that sort of thing as it is)

      • Re:whoops... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Skippy_kangaroo ( 850507 )
        That doesn't make it right, of course, but it does make it something to not bother worrying about

        Actually, it makes it wrong in a fundamental way. You can check all the Ayn Rand quotes [slashdot.org] elsewhere in this discussion about one problem with it.

        I guess I am different to you. I object strongly to things that are fundamentally wrong as a matter of principle. Not enforcing old laws that have been rendered irrelevant by the passage of time is one thing. But instituting new laws that they claim will not be enforced i

  • Hide those Sharpies! (Score:4, Informative)

    by peaworth ( 578846 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:30PM (#13724775)
    Possession of tools that allow circumventing copy protection mechanisms will be illegal. Even for personal use.

    So if some particular copy protection is totally shitty and is defeated by common items, those common items suddenly become contraband?
    • I guess I could blackmail people who make paperclips by threatening to make really bad locks causing paperclips to be "illegal tools for circumventing my locks". But somehow this is acceptable in the world of software.

  • Dejà wow! So, this legislation looks the same as that being passed around in the United States. Again, the gist is the consumer taking any actions on their own in fair-use context (not sure that exists there, but I'm assuming) could be accused of violating these proposed laws.

    And, again, I see nothing in these proposed laws that are ensuring protection for the artists. All references seem to indicate protection of music labels , something quite different than artists.

    Aside:

    Psychiatrist: So, Mick

  • This law sux. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JollyFinn ( 267972 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:40PM (#13724853)
    I'm not so jolly Finn anymore.
    This made my future voting decision simple.
    Christian democratic party and Nationalists(Perussuomalaiset) where ONLY parties which all voted against the law.

    • Re:This law sux. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bersl2 ( 689221 )
      I wouldn't know for sure, but it sounds like the Nationalist party voted against it for all the wrong reasons (such as it being a directive originating outside of the country).

  • Implications for hardware could be severe... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:44PM (#13724883)
    "Possession of tools that allow circumventing copy protection mechanisms will be illegal. Even for personal use."

    So, I guess this means the new Finnish keyboard will be without a "Shift" key.

    • No... That means MS Windows is now a forbidden OS in Finland... the "shift-key bypass" is a feature in MS Windows...

      Anyone using Windows should now format the drive containing the tool of evil...
      ...and everybody must contact the authorities so the distribution of Windows in Finland can be stopped ASAP...

  • Fatality (Score:5, Funny)

    by lordmoose ( 696738 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:49PM (#13724927) Journal
    Lawyer: Your Honor, this young man was caught downloading illegal music

    Judge: Finnish him!

  • Demonstration meant nothing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by halfnerd ( 553515 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @04:51PM (#13724943) Homepage
    I took part in a demonstration against this law on tuesday 1300 Finnish time. There were over 300 people outside the parliament demonstrating against this, and this amount was assembled on under 5 days (or so we were told by the organiser). Only a handful of the members of parliament came out to listen to us or answer our questions, most of them already aware of our case and supporting it. I saw many people peeking out from the windows, looking scarily at us and then leaving, without coming out. One speaker told us something like "we'll have your mp3s sorted out later". What an idiot! Seems like no-one cared to even read the parts of the new law that we stated were problematic. And to think that we only cared about mp3s. We need more people in the parliament who actually understand what this new technology is about. Most of them would probably have problems grasping it if it was explained as LPs and cassette players. Geesh!

    • But... (Score:3, Funny)

      by Apotsy ( 84148 )
      I thought every country outside the US was an enlightened paradise where everything is wonderful! Only poor stupid Americans have to put up with crap like you describe. I know it's true because every English-speaking non-US resident on the entire internet says so all the time!

  • Lost faith in Finland - We're Screwed (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kassiopeia ( 671060 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @05:12PM (#13725092)

    As a Finn, I have always taken pride in our country - even though we don't have things like the Bill of Rights, we have our fundamental rights, and our copyright legislation isn't at least as horrible as the DMCA. Well, that has now changed. Finland has enjoyed #1 position in international competitiveness ratings and has been considered a vanguard of the spearhead of information age societies, but this piece of legislation has now set us back years, nay, perhaps even decades.

    What wrenches my gut is that despite Finland's top rating when it comes to low corruption, shenaniganry in creating and passing this piece of legislation has been plentiful. The law was prepared in the Ministries of Culture and Education in close rapport with people who work for the very organisations that lobby for stricter controls on what citizens can do with the things they have bought. When sixty-six expert statements were collected on the law, only one was from a consumer-oriented organisation, that being EFFI [effi.org].

    Its passing was surrounded by nothing but smoke and mirrors, with misleading statements based on intentionally erroneus interpretations of the already-muddy law by its supporters. And finally when a demonstration was arranged [solitudo.net] in front of the Parliamentary building on Tuesday, when the bill was discussed for the very last time, a representative of a musicians' organisation was put on the wires stating the demonstrators' cry for free speech was tarnishing the concept for free speech because the demonstrators just want to download songs in its name. This while behind him people were touting DeCSS signs and spreading out short DeCSS programmes on flyers with the text "distributing this flyer will become illegal".

    Not to mention the EEA statute, which makes distributing works not published in the European Economic Area illegal in the EEA, unless they have been acquired for personal use. No more import manga from stores if the publisher overseas decides that the market in Finland is too small.

    Well, now there's a galvanised group of a few hundred people who are just really pissed off. We're already setting up forums for "organised discussion" and thinking up ways to turn ourselves in en masse to swamp the system. The Parliament has made an initial decision to modify the law later on, but until then, we'll have to just suck it up.

    And guess who used her authority to press the bill through no matter what? The Minister of Culture, a former Miss Finland, whose only merit in getting into Parliament was that she was Miss Finland, and whose only merit in getting into the Ministry was that she raked in so many votes. No, I didn't vote for her.

    Finally, what comes to the EU directive garbage, it was just an attempt to deflect blame by the Government. There is only an alleged record of a single EU official stating how tightly the EUCD should be implemented. Finland now has the strictest EUCD implementation in existence. Greece implemented it with most of the stupid parts axed out; a French court has now declared that copy protection (more like "use restriction") has no protection of law. DVD area codes are illegal in Belgium. The only thing the EU directive argument served was the populist and anti-EU True Finns party.

    Oh FFS. I think I'll just move to Canada. Bonjour Monsieur, ca va bien, eh?

  • And there's more (Score:5, Informative)

    by Aggrajag ( 716041 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @05:12PM (#13725094)
    This nice piece of legislation also makes it illegal to import copyrighted material outside of the EC. For example, it is illegal to buy an anime DVD from Japan if the DVD in question isn't already being sold within the EC.

  • The More Things Change (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Prototerm ( 762512 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2005 @05:24PM (#13725198)
    Not so very long ago, in many countries, you had to be a land owner in order to vote. Times may have changed, but government power hasn't. Today, governments aren't run by the people, but by the large multinational corporations. Either way, the vast majority of people wind up with no say in how things are run. Even if they vote (which is rare enough), they have a choice between corporate candidate #1 or corporate candidate #2, with the occasional choice of extremist candidate #3, just to give the media something to panic about during the 6 o'clock news.

    Orwell was right, gang. The government is not under our control, we are under its. Our every step, and every breath, is monitored from birth thru death by our corporate overlords thru credit cards, phone bills, Tivos, and spyware. Free speech is censored by Google, Yahoo, and others. The openness of the Internet is a lie spread by ISP's who advertise huge bandwidths but close down anyone who actually tries to use it. 1984 was filled with dim-witted, ham-fisted amateurs, compared to the real world.

    • it's called breaking unjust laws.

      perhaps you've heard of Rosa Parks?

      Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. -Martin Luther King Jr.

      and please, no childish arguments comparing "digital" issues with civil rights being absurd... if you have more than 1 active working brain cell you can see that yourself.

      laws not in the interest of the public, deserve no respect. - ME.
  • If they'd done this 15 years ago, when Linus Torvalds was in Finland, would Linux even exist?

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close