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)
Ridiculous is right... (Score:5, Insightful)
This law would effectively outlaw the Internet, which is based on the premise that it provides an infrastructure for moving data between consenting parties. In its place would be the presumption that moving data is illegal unless proven otherwise.
NOT Solved with a HTTP header? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or download the page and find the permission is missing.
Or as this is Sweden who's going to bother in the rest of the world to add a spurious header (or meta-tag)?
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
Most of it is just a codification of what we already know - you may not copy copyrighted works other than for specific, well-defined purposes (research, private copies and so on). And no, file trading networks are _not_ outlawed in any way, shape or form (the press release from the justice ministry was misleading on that issue).
The thing that can rile people is that you aren't allowed to break copy protection. Well, actually reading the proposal, the picture is not as clear.
First, any content holder _must_ provide a way for disabled to access the media (it could be by sending a different version to those asking for it, for example). Also, breaking protection on documents and the like in the public area is allowed (courts that want some material for a court case, for instance).
But, and here what's interesting: the law only protects protection mechanisms that are _solely_ for hindering copying.
* It does explicitly _not_ protect stuff like region coding on DVD:s (they have that as an example in the text). You are _always_ allowed to break stuff to make use of the media in intended ways, and as DVD:s are meant to be played, region coding has no protection.
* When one mechanism is used for copy protection, and has as a consequence that intended use is hindered, it no longer has protection. Intended use trumps protection in other words. So DeCSS is likely perfectly legal to use.
* The law explicitly does _not_ require device manufacturers (or OS writers) to include support for any copy protection mechanism. Media giants can thus not stop the sale of players that do not include some protection scheme. Nobody can ask for operating systems to include DRM.
Oh, and $4 for blank media? I suggest somebody brush up on their mathematics: the suggestion is about $0.4 - still too much (and gives rise to the question if you haven't actually paid for the right to make a copy of something on the media), but it's nowhere near the outrage implied in the blurb.
So, the law is not good, but it is not the kind of disaster people here seem to think it is either. With some adjustments (not making private copies a permissive right), it is quite livable.
Re:DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DMCA (Score:3, Insightful)
Bob even seams to be able to look at his bought DVD under Linux since it don't seam to make it against the law to crack DVD encryption for viewing, only to crack it for copying. And you will actually be permitted to take backup on your own DVDs but not to distribute them to your friends.
You can also crack the DVD coding region whihout penalty si
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
You're absolutely right. Not only is the particular law broken, but Law in general is undermined, as it the citizenry's respect for it and their government.
If "millions" are breaking some law "each and every day", it's a good indication the law is a bad idea, and probably is a law that attempts to contravene human nature.
Better to repeal it, rather than teach "millions" that they are comfortable being causual criminals "each and every day", don't you think?
Re:DMCA (Score:3, Insightful)
Same thing goes for any other ridiculous, inane law on the books today. If there's cash flow, then the law will never be seriously contested.
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.
Re:You Own the Bits, Not the Music (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't own the bits. You own a license to play the music on the CD, for your own personal use.
If you own the CD, you've already paid for the license to listen to its contents whenever you want, at your leisure.
Since you are legally allowed to make a back-up of said music, downloading an mp3 file someone else made, is the equivalent of skipping that process. You could just as well have a friend come over and rip the cd for you on your pc, the end result is the same. You wind up with a perfectly legal backup copy of a song, for which you've already paid.
As for your last comment, it's quite idiotic, and seems more like a deliberate flaimbate or trolling, so I won't respond to it.
If I OWN something, I can do whatever the fuck I want with it. Period.
If I OWN a system, and forget my password, but can use another system I own to crack it, no law can stipulate that I cannot do that.
Re:You Own the Bits, Not the Music (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You Own the Bits, Not the Music (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess some international treaty has banned owning people, but if you want to kill your own cow you'd certainly be allowed to use your gun (and your bullets) for that...
Re:You Own the Bits, Not the Music (Score:3, Insightful)
Would somebody please inform the RIAA of this? Owning a copyright on a song does not give you the right to shut down peer to peer networks and force the government into imposing taxes on blank media for your personal benefit either.
Re:You Own the Bits, Not the Music (Score:5, Informative)
In the case of an audio CD, you own the bits itself. You can hand your CD to anyone else or sell it without contacting the copyright holder. You are restricted by law against copying it and using it in public performances.
More importantly, with a license the company handing you the media can restrict how you use copyrighted media. A record label can not mandate that you can only play a CD on weekends no more than a book publisher can say you can only read a book once.
One might argue that the government is issuing an implicit license for copyrighted media on behalf of the copyright holders, but even then the contract contains only things you can't do, not things you can.
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
This presumption of guilt and preemptive punishment is absurd.
Re:DMCA (Score:3, Informative)
A funny thing about this law is that the most common reaction when people hear of this bull is: "Well, then I can copy whatever I please, because we have already paid for it when buying the CD/casette, etc.". If you don't use your media for making illegal copies, you loose the money you paid for making up for illegal copying.
But, speaking of these laws gene
Re:DMCA (Score:3, Informative)
It was basially based on the minister of justice presentation which was very bad.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
We still have the problem of blank media levies in Finland. The current levy is 0.25 (euro-)cents per minute for data CD-R(W)'s and 0.19 cents per minute for (computer-writeable) DVD-R(W)'s. Per CD/DVD, the levy is about 20 cents (little more in USD cents).
However, not everybody has to pay the levy: if a company makes a written statement that it won't record copyright-royalty-due material on CD's, the company can then buy levy-free CD's. However, the option is only available to companies, not to private individuals.
Well... at least here in Finland (which is scarily close to Sweden), people do that (import CD's for their own use). The catch is that if you import more than 20 (or so) at a time, you have to pay the levy. People have tried this, and the CD's got stuck in the customs and were released only after the levies were paid.Actually, an acquitance of mine met the bit^H^H^Hlady in charge of the levy department of Teosto (our local RIAA-equivalent). When this acquitance of mine suggested what is said in the quote above to the Teosto boss she just about blew her fuse... according to her, the levies are used to support domestic artists (most of whom suck big time).
The point is that while most people who do copy music copy music composed & performed by foreign artists, the levies do not go to those foreign artists. Basically that means that the system is grossly unfair for anybody but our domestic artists.
Be happy if the fee is levied only on removable media. Here they're thinking of levying that levy on ALL medias to which you can record music, up to and including computer hard disks. I really do hope that the proposed act does not pass in the parliament.
Re:DMCA (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure some people saw Gutenberg's printing press as the Big Devil too. And in some ways, it was.
Yes, copying has become easier. Live with it, and rearrange the industries around it, instead of lobbying to pass illogical laws.
Regards,
--
*Art
Cracking Down (Score:5, Insightful)
Obl Simpsons (Score:5, Funny)
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:Cracking Down (Score:4, Insightful)
People went out of their way to buy it. Supply and demand rules the market. Always has, always will.
Now, trying to stop filesharing and levying a tax on blank CDRoms is a terrible double standard. If the tax is made to give copyright owners their dues, then I should be able to pay that tax on my blanks and copy what I want, because the dues are being collected indirectly anyway. If I want just to copy my OWN material I am still paying the tax so I am accumulating quite a bit of "right" to copy more music.
Then, they make copying music and downloading etc illegal - but by the same system they are admitting that everyone does it. Pretty stupid IMHO.
Murder is a ridiculous comparison. Murder requires premeditation, physical contact, and a clear knowledge of the implications of one's acts. Hardly on a par with listening to a couple of bootlegged MP3s, friend.
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.
Re:Cracking Down (Score:3, Informative)
This is the case of trying to close illegitimate channels of distribution, so it is not quite the same as a complete prohibition. The problem, of course, is that the music industry hasn't done as good a job as it could at creating new low cost distribution mechanism for above ground MP3s. They want dollars for what probably s
Re: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.
Re:Cracking Down (Score:3, Informative)
1. It's explicitly stated as allowed, unless she copies the entire songbook.
2. It's explicitly stated as allowed.
3. It's explicitly stated as allowed.
4. It's explicitly stated as allowed.
A good thing with the proposal is that it actually states that the stuff you mentioned is allowed.
Re:Cracking Down (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cracking Down (Score:3, Insightful)
But, I'd much prefer to read something about proposals as to what "copyright laws done right" should look like. I have hardly seen anything in that direction. Maybe the EFF or other sources on the web have such proposals? Maybe someone can give us a link?
Re:Cracking Down (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, if strict application of your laws would make criminals of 90% of your citizens, it's a bad law.
Note, that asking "But, without a law to prevent X, how would the Y industry survive?" is missing the point. If the majority of people are doing something that would kill an industry, the questions should be, "what does the Y industry do that warrants preventing the people from X?"
Good (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Good for different reasons (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the draconian restrictions on personal freedoms like getting blank cds and researching crypto, that is good for the rest of the world, because it will allow us to continue on while they are slowed down by their laws.
Heck, imagine if they don't have any local researchers to validate their crypto because getting a licence to do so from the government is prohibitive? We'd become the sole source of decen
Re:Good for different reasons (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Hahahaha .. yeah right. The movie studios and record companies are nowhere near bankrupt yet. Look the bottom line is there is no way to stop file sharing. It's here to stay.
The record labels could have cut the head right off of file sharing years ago by putting their catalog online and letting users pay a reasonable fee ($.50 - $1) to download an MP3. In fact, if they would have done it before MP3 caught on they probably could have introduced their own format with reasonable DRM and that format would hav
pr0n (Score:5, Funny)
Re:pr0n (Score:4, Funny)
This isn't going to affect Swedish porn is it?
Dunno, could undoing a bra stap be considered a circumvention technique?
Re:pr0n (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the '70s and '80s, before the World Wide Web had made porn ubiquitous, and before Hustler and Penthouse had made hard core porn at least tolerated by "community standard" across the U.S., a lot of porn was advertised as "Swedish", the implication being that more liberal European attitudes towards it made for harder, more prurient porn.
(Given the tendency to think that cultures we don't know as much about as our own are more exotic, and possibly more erotic -- witness the European fascination with Polynesia, as typified by Paul Gauguin, or Margret Mead's willingness to be deceived in Samoa -- I wouldn't be surprised if porn advertised during the same period in Europe featured "hot American cheerleaders" or some such.)
So "Swedish porn" isn't just another porn comment, but a (somewhat sly) historical allusion to a time when porn was harder to come by, and the hardest was, if not actually Swedish, often labelled as such. I think the original poster may also have been suggesting, that given explosion of porn now available at the click of a mouse, we'd actually not nowadays miss the (putatively) Swedish contribution were it to, ah, um dry up or go soft.
but what if you don't KNOW?? (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you KNOW if what you're downloading is copyrighted or not and whether or not you have permission. For instance, variouis sites [beta-cc.de] have ripped off Slashdot's icons, which I believe are copyrighted by OSDN and/or Rob Malda.
By accessing the above link, you are downloading copryighted material without the permission of the author.
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 'Ne
Re:but what if you don't KNOW?? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, that is what is says. Sadly.
Tes, it will basically make
a criminal of every surfer.
Its a sad day for freedom.
un enforceble (Score:5, Funny)
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 fe
Goverment bows down to special interest (Score:3, Informative)
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...
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."
Wow, talk about a levy (Score:5, Interesting)
Note: IANAROS (I Am Not A Resident Of Sweden)
Re:Wow, talk about a levy (Score:5, Informative)
So figure 1.625 SK (US$ 0.20) for a standard 650 MB CDR, 4.55 (US$ 0.59) for a CDRW of them same size. The 31 SKR ($US 4) is really only appropriate for a 4.7 GB DVD-RW.
And your 4TB database would cost $USD 3816 in added levies, assuming you were using 870 DVD-RWs per backup.
Re:Wow, talk about a levy (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are a business and you are backing up to CD then you deserve to go under.
I didn't read the article (I know, I know...) but I have not heard of people including digital back up tapes in the same boat with CD's, so I don't buy the idea there will be any additional taxes of levy's on that media.
And besides an 8gb backup tape is sooooo 21st century.
The company I work for (far from the cutting edge) uses 40 gb backup tapes.
I seriously don't see this hurting IT. As for other things...
Re:Wow, talk about a levy (Score:3, Interesting)
-Nano.
A European solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
It won't prevent pirating, I think the fact that the law doesn't address *use* is a concession to that point. It seems that they rather seek to prevent pirating from becoming a European industry. I think this is analogous to US laws against gambling, where they still exist.
IANAL, but in Texas, the law against playing poker for money actually makes the *house cut* illegal. I think the lawmakers conceded the point that people were still going to play poker, they just wanted to prevent it from becoming an industry.
Having their cake and eating it (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't pirate anything, AND pay for not pirating anything.
Greedy and ridiculous.
New Business Plan! (Score:4, Funny)
2. Sell in Sweden after 1/1/2004.
3. Profit!!!
Re:New Business Plan! (Score:4, Funny)
Shame on you....
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:Yowza! (Score:3, Funny)
recording their own original music without a label.
Sounds like a GREAT PLAN to me.
Hopefully it will kill off the next ABBA, before they even start.
Re:Yowza! (Score:3, Informative)
Well, this sucks! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well, this sucks! (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, we don't have caps. I have friends who have their 512Kbit ADSL downloding all day, they dl around 5 gigs a day, and have been doing so for months (one would think they'd run out of things to DL, but they seem to manage to find it).
I think that Sweds share a lot of data because of the connection speeds being offered in the country. How does an uncappe [bostream.se]
EUCD is a failure already (Score:5, Insightful)
The EUCD was supposed to be a law in all European Union member countries already by last December. That is after each parliament had two years to pass the law. As far as I know, only two or three EU member nations have modified their laws to comply with the EUCD.
On the other hand, sooner or later the national laws must be passed. I personally wish that at least one EU member would refuse to implement the law so that the issue would be brought back to the EU parliament.
After the fall of Soviet Union, EU became the new safe haven for bureucrates so it's really hard to say how the EUCD situation will develop due to lobbying and politics. What is clear, however, is that most of the national parliaments have not been all that happy with many regulations the EUCD is trying to enforce. I hope that the Swedish parliament will protect its citizens from this legislation that goes way over any reasonable balance.
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.
St
Re:Europe was already... (Score:3, Informative)
Charge a fee or make it illegal but not both! (Score:5, Insightful)
How can a government body justify making honest people pay for "assumed criminal activity." When do they start adding cost to paper because someone might attempt to use it in counterfeiting?
If it's criminalized to use P2P networks, then it is unfair to charge more for media to "compensate" for criminal acts assumed to be occuring without proof and due process. I can see one act or the other, but not both.
Frankly, the act of purchasing CD media and being charged enormous prices because of assumed criminal use, then it should then be LEGAL for me to put anything on it -- legal or otherwise since I have paid for the right, in advance, to do something illegal. In effect, it's double jeopardy -- punished before the fact and then to be punished again, for the same crime if caught.
I have no idea what recourse EU-folk have against this, but I hope it can be stopped.
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.
Fair Use in Swedish Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fair Use in Swedish Law (Score:5, Informative)
The big difference in this new law is that for making this personal copy the thing you are copying from has to be a legal copy. Essentially taking care of a loophole in the law.
Allowing copying for private use is also the reasoing behind the CD-fee, even if that is highly annoying for me that only use it for software (debian boot/install-discs).
For all of those claiming "the internet is now illegal", there is both provisions for temporary copies (as in the ones your browser are making) and a discussion about "good faith" in the paper. They are expecting to be able to go after filesharers and allow ISPs to disconnect users under the "we'll cut your access if you break any laws" sections of the AUP if they detect this stuff.
All in all, I was fearing a worse law after reading the press release, even the law against anti-circumvention tools have provisions to allow DVD-players, even if DVD-copiers might be disallowed. They even make an example of region coding not being an effective technical meassure.
Laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
I predict, on this day, that within 5 years, we will see the crippling or perhaps even the complete elimination of all copyright, patent, and trademark laws. Things will get worse, much worse, before they get better. But mind you, when things get rough, we must remember to continue getting the word out to the uninformed masses while we wait for our revenge to fully take hold, that it may obliterate the copyright bastards of our time.
Re:Laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
But democracy presumes an informed public. What happens when big media becomes conflicted about political issues? What would have become of the American Revolution without anonymous pamphleteering? Now we see states outlawing any attempt to hide the origins of communication. These are troubling issues.
How much will people tolerate? I think there's an ironic trend at work: the better off people are, the more oppression they will tolerate. "I have food on the table, why should I cause any trouble?"
I don't think the issue of copyrights will become an election decider because the media have a vested interest in promoting copyright. It will never become an election issue. People like us may be canaries in the mine shaft that collapses. Yippie.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Laws... (Score:4, Insightful)
(c) (Score:5, Funny)
Man I can't wait to see how many people end up in jail now.
Re:(c) (Score:3, Informative)
Sweden DOES suck (Score:3, Insightful)
For some reason, the media and government are a bunch of wishy-washy whiners, incapable of seeing far beyond the end of their noses. I think the problem is that politics isn't really a road to fame and power there (egalitarian society, dontchano), so the people who end up running for politics are well meaning incompetents.(*) You know where you get by good intentions.
I could very well see them putting this sort of levvy on blank CDs and then be suprised when sales plummet. It's like the government doesn't realize they exist in a global economy.
Not that it is the worst country in the world, but there is a reason I don't live there anymore.
BTW: Can't say that I've ever come accross that much swedish erotica, in much the same way that swedish fish aren't terribly popular there. Gott-o-Blandat, on the other hand, rocks. Salt-o-Blandat even more so.
(*) with some exceptions. Apparently a girl I went to high-school with is the Green Party's spokesperson. Sharp as a tack, that one.
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.
I actually had an e-mail conversation with them (Score:5, Informative)
It won't actually be as dreadful as the DMCA, since it will only be illegal to break a copyright protection system if you're going to make a copy, it won't be illegal to circumvent it to use it as it's meant to be used. I.e. watching a DVD movie on your linux computer using DeCSS to "break" the crypto won't be illegal.
Neither will these redicilous "region codes" be protected, they can still be legally circumvented.
Further, it won't be illegal to break the copyright protection system on these new "CD's", if you're only going to play them in your computer.
If anyone has any questions regarding this, just send them a well written e-mail, since they're very helpful and will answer all of your questions quite fast. (a few hours for mine) -L
Re:I actually had an e-mail conversation with them (Score:3, Insightful)
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
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.
When is it tea time? (Score:5, Informative)
All because of tea.
Now money that is spent on the media used to promote free communication should be taxed? Certain senators want to destroy people's computers? The US attorney general wants to circumvent the right to a fair trial? Blowing up Palistinian families, children and all, with US missles is "defense", but the impoverished occupied Palistinian nation's response is "terrorism"? Launching thousands and thousands of sorties, killing tens of thousands of unwilling soldiers to prevent "mass destruction" by weapons that cannot be found is not ironic? Our economy is a shambles. The rich are laughing. And our commander-in-chief [about.com] wants to appoint this penis [salon.com] to the bench!
Osama bin Laden is free today. US citizens are not. And we would like the rest of the world to follow our lead. God bless Sweden for seeing the way. I'm Swedish. American. And pissed.
Flamebait? It's a
Definition of terrorism (Score:3, Insightful)
Conventional war, whether it is applied to military or civilian targets, means to do just that. Terrorist war is an indirect approach. The idea is that you don't have enough strength to wage conventional war, but you have enough capability to inflict enough damage on the other side to p
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?
Protest unenforceable laws! (Score:3, Informative)
See the Government Site [regeringen.se] for more info.
Here's the coverage (in Swedish) from all the four major newspapers:
Expressen [expressen.se]
DN. [www.dn.se]
SvD [www.svd.se]
Aftonbladet [aftonbladet.se]
Some great quotes from Mr BodstrÃm (Minister for Justice) include:
"We have not done this to satisfy the big record companies"
"The police will not come running into people's homes looking for these things"
He is clearly completely clueless. I bet he has no idea that it's even possible to trace people with their IP address.
This law is unenforceable and will not be enforced. The police can't even keep child porn off the p2p networks here, so really, this is ridiculous.
The real enforcers will be Antipiratbyrån [antipiratbyran.com], the anti piracy bureau, a group of lawyers representing a number of companies. You can see a list of the member companies here [antipiratbyran.com]. Most should be familiar to non-swedes too.
This is the only organisation activiely looking for copyright infringement online. (and their efforts so far has been very sporadic, even they have the sense to mostly go after CD bootleg sellers). In practice this all means that if you are careful not to share anything from the member companies of Antipiratbyrån on your favourite p2p network, you will not get caught.
How do the justify $4/CD? (Score:3, Interesting)
CD Levy (Score:3, Insightful)
The same thing happened in Canada several years ago when a CD levy went on blank CDs--we paid a penalty for the pirating we're not allowed to do. And half the people in my dorm building who hadn't previously used filesharers said, "If we're doing the time, we're entitled to the crime" and started downloading and burning away. I sure did; I was paying a license fee to record my own original music.
I'll say it again: treating your customers like criminals is an unworkable business strategy. And making laws that a majority of your citizens don't think are fair undermines the laws that are fair.
Ken:> http://keneckert.byus.net
Levy (Score:3, Funny)
So I assume blank DVD's have a levy of $28 since they store ~7x the data?
Now a spindle of 100 CDR's will be $420 instead of $20?
Will a spindle of 100 DVD-R's be $3000?
I suppose I will have to begin importing DVDR's instead of Heroin into Sweden now.
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 De
*sigh* People are morons (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, it actually widens some rights, for example, the right to copy digital materials to help disabled people and easing the process for schools to make digital copies of material. But alot of people read the article and got up in arms. *Rabble rabble rabble*. The real proposal from the Justice department (in Swedish):
Press release [regeringen.se]
Part 1 of the proposal [regeringen.se]
Part 2 and appendixes [regeringen.se]
Oh well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Its really interesting, seeing it from my perspective:
1) Write P2P software to distribute copyrighted material
2) Goverment takes action to stop distribution of said materials
3) ???
4) Bitch at government
5) With new ways to circumvent goverment's means to stop copyright infringement, you download more music.
6) Government enacts more laws, now more draconian than before, to stop this
7) ???
8) Bitch at government
Hm, looks to me like the problem started with us.
Sure, the RIAA and the MPAA didn't give a flying fuck about John and Bill making taped copies of the latest White Snake album back in the 80's. Sure, there were some bootleggers selling copies of tapes en mass back then too. But they were few and far between and John and Bill probably only made copies for a few friends. Now, we have people downloading songs that were downloaded from a person who dowloaded from someone else who might actually have owned the CDs. Now, I am not all that sympathetic towards the big industries seeing as the exploit their artists and keep most of the profits for themselves but c'mon people, this is an intelligent crowd, you can see where i'm coming from, right?
The way I see it is like so:
You can GPL your software, you can put your music under public domain, and you can give your literature out for free. Its your choice. But when someone decides to put a copyright on a piece of material, you should obey the law. It's only fair.
A little more info about this proposal... (Score:5, Informative)
- It will still be allowed to make a "few" copies of CD/DVD's for personal use, and also to use VCR's and similar devices.
- You will only be allowed to copy parts of a book (right now, I suppose you can copy entire books), to prevent the large scale copying of those especially on universities.
- A quote from the swedish minister of justice: "We have not done this to meet the demands of the international movie and music companies. Ultimately, it is about preserving earlier views on copyrights, and when the technology evolves, so need the laws to do."
- The penalty for violating them by sending or receiving illegal copies on the internet will normally be fines. If it's about organized violations (read: warez groups, etc), the penalty can be prison for up to two years. The law will mostly be used to give copyright holders a right to demand compensation from the person violating the law.
- The swedish minister of justice hope that these laws will frighten people from using file sharing software. He admitted that the law will not get a high priority by the swedish judicial system, and continued: "It's not like the police will run into peoples' homes to look for these things. It is also obvious that some persons will continue, but that is not a reason to not do anything".
So it seems like this will be another low-priority law that won't be very enforced, which mostly just adds unnecessary complexity and "grey zones" to the judical system.
CD-ROM price wrong in the English article (Score:3, Informative)
I spent some time yesterday reading through the damn suggestion and it's filled with weird stuff. For instance, it will still be legal to create "fair use" copies, for your car CD player, etc. BUT, it's illegal to produce or sell software that hacks the copy protection scheme on CDs and DVDs...BUT I still have the legal right to make personal copies.. So, HOW DO I DO THAT, THEN, My DEAR GOVERNMENT??? If I have a legal right to make copies of a CD for my own use, will the Government aid me in suing the record companies that put out copy protected CDs?
I suppose they won't.
So, Yeah, the initial reaction at work yesterday was "Welcome to the DDR". Fsck.
all that bandwidth and nothing to do (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider the fact that VDSL is just rolling out in Sweden and that it is quite affordable. Imagine 26 mbits/sec for $40 euros a month. In fact, it's a much better deal [theinquirer.net] than almost anywhere else. Especially Greece, where broadband will run you approximately 850 times as much. [theinquirer.net]
Now what can someone legally do with that bandwidth under the new law? You guessed it. They can watch government-okayed programming channels and view government-okayed content. These are the websites that will have gone through some sort of copyright review and approval process.
With these new laws, the powers that be will have successfully turned the European internet into something resembling interactive television. The existing media lords are of course quite happy with the new laws as their sphere of control has been strengthened. And the existing governments are of course quite happy with the new laws as it gives them even more control over their respective populaces.
It's hard to say how the Swedish populace and the rest of Europe will react to these new laws. Most likely nothing significant will happen beyond a few protests. But as someone pointed out, sooner or later the government will put one too many chains of laws and taxes on the people and the people will start to exhibit some very interesting non-linear behaviors. As history has taught us, there is only one way to take liberties back from an oppressive government.
However, for the time being, we do know one thing for sure. Sweden's rank ranking [transparency.org] on the "most corrupt governments list" is going to take a hit. And it's about time -- Sweden is the only country on record for filing criminal charges [theinquirer.net] against a news company for second guessing URL's.
Was to be expected .. (Score:3, Funny)
It is a nation of blondes after all..
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)
Yes, Denmark already implemented that :( (Score:3, Informative)
The article is a bit wrong - as the only EU countries, Denmark and Greece implemented this before the time limit. Even though there was a lot of protests against it and a lot of suggestions to make it less bad (countries have some flexility in the way it implements such EU directives), our (completely clueless) minister for that area pretty much ignored them and they implemented a very confusing law. Even the state financed "consumer advisory council" (dunno if that's the correct term) is so confused about the law that they simply forward questions about it to the ministry that handles that because they don't know how to answer the questions!
Sweden is pirating heaven right now. (Score:5, Insightful)
The laws PROTECT anyone downloading copyrighted material. ISPs are not allowed to snif or analyse your IP trafic. That means, if you set up a warez site at home and do >1 TB/month (yes TERAbyte), they cannot do anything (and the networks support this amount of trafic without being congested). Try that in other countries.
Broadband (10Mbs) connections are very common. No need to download movies to disk anymore, you can watch them on-the-fly =) Last summer, some CTO/CIO at one of the broadband companies sayd (can't remeber which one) "We think it's good thing that people use their broadband connections (read: download movies). Otherwise, we would not get as many subscribers, would we ?"
Also, the swedish police lack in funding and hardly investigate crimes anymore.
Being a first class computer geek and living in Sweden, i'm not worried at all.
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.