Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Your Rights Online

Norway Considers New Copyright Laws 294

Posted by Zonk from the i-want-my-mp3s dept.
bizpile writes "The Norwegian government is considering a change to copyright laws that would make it illegal to rip a CD to MP3s when copy protection is in place on the CD. However, you would still be allowed to copy from one CD to another regardless of copy protection. Gisle Hannemyr, of the University of Oslo's Department of Informatics, responded by saying "We are going to be a nation of lawbreakers if this law is passed in its current form." The new proposal would allow fines and a maximum penalty of three years in prison for violating copyrights and engaging in computer piracy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Norway Considers New Copyright Laws More

Norway Considers New Copyright Laws

Comments Filter:

  • You know what they say (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:01PM (#11646275)
    If mp3s are outlawed, only outlaws will have mp3s.

    From reading Slashdot, I thought Europe was a utopia with perfect and just laws.

  • CD to CD to MP3 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by donnyspi ( 701349 ) <.junk5. .at. .donnyspi.com.> on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:02PM (#11646287) Homepage
    Sooo... copy from protected to unprotected CD... then rip to MP3 :-)

    • Re:CD to CD to MP3 (Score:3, Informative)

      by shigelojoe ( 590080 )
      Actually, the article says that you can't transfer music from CDs to MP3 *players*. So, not only can you still rip the CD to MP3 and play it on your computer, you could also rip the CD to AAC or Ogg Vorbis and put on a "portable music player" which isn't limited to only MP3. Technicalities, yes, but not violating the word of the law -- assuming, of course, that the author of the article correctly characterized the content of the legislation, which almost never happens, regardless of the country.

      • Re:CD to CD to MP3 (Score:3, Informative)

        by AltaMannen ( 568693 )
        The law would require any backup to be made to the same medium, so a CD can only be copied to a CD and not be transfered to a harddrive or flash ram. In the CD to MP3 example they seem to imply that normal music CDs are copy protected, and that converting CD tracks to MP3s require some sort of code-breaking ("cracking") to occur.

        Does anyone know if the law targets all CDs as seem implied or only CDs that have some form of DRM?
        • So, are people with only one CD drive screwed out of being allowed to burn CD's? From the sound of it, you are only allowed to do direct cd-to-cd transfers. Holding an ISO image on disk while you exchange the source CD for the target CD would be illegal.
      • Interesting. Sounds like they are trying to outlaw one kind of technology and specifically pu that languqage into the law. They can't just say you can't transfer music to another medium for play in a different player - that would violate the ability to actually copy to another CD. OTOH, what If I copy the CD to another CD and then play the copy in a CD player that will play music CDs and CDs with mp3s on them. Is that illegal? If it's not, what If I convert the music to MP3s, write them to a CD and pla
    • Well if the law is literal, you can do something _VERY_ simple:

      1) Rip the CD to WAV.
      2) Make your own CD with WAV data.
      3) Delete WAV data.
      4) Rip the "own CD with WAV data" to MP3.

      5) copyright laws 0wn3d ;-)

  • What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by seneces ( 839286 ) <`aspecialj' `at' `gmail.com'> on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:03PM (#11646297)
    It may stop a few people from ripping music, but most will do it anyway. It won't stop piracy. They should spend the time they would be enforcing pointless laws like that thinking up better ways to fix real problems (drugs, etc), not trying to stop people from putting music on their mp3 players or computers.

    • Re:What is the point? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by l3v1 ( 787564 )
      Yup, and just a quick one: how would MP3 player manufacturers and resellers feel about such a move ? I hope they would feel reaaaly bad and make something about it.

    • Re:What is the point? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:57PM (#11646996) Homepage
      It may stop a few people from ripping music, but most will do it anyway. It won't stop piracy.


      Well, IANN (not Norwegian) but will it even stop ripping?

      If I rip files and I never participate in file sharing, how the hell would they know? I rip my music for use on my own machines or on my MP3 player.

      Would they outlaw the simple posession of MP3s under the argument that someone must have ripped it so you're guilty? What about albums that have been re-released so the version you had didn't have DRM, but the newer version does? Will that become a legal gray area for this?

      It just seems really odd to outlaw the act of ripping unless they can substantially prove that it was for an infringing use.

      • If I rip files and I never participate in file sharing, how the hell would they know? I rip my music for use on my own machines or on my MP3 player.

        Well, if you have an MP3 player, then you most likely have MP3's as well, so there's a reasonable suspicion that you're breaking the law, so your house can be raided.

        Also, a network of snitches worked well for the former communist block. Have everyone spy on their neighbours for any suspicious activity. Have libraries report people who borrow a lot of CD's

    • It may stop a few people from doing drugs, but most will do it anyway. It won't stop drug abuse. They should spend the time they would be enforcing pointless laws like that thinking up better ways to fix real problems (murder, etc), not trying to stop people from getting high.

  • ogg (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:04PM (#11646318)
    that would make it illegal to rip a CD to MP3s

    So ripping CD to ogg is OK? :)
    • In a way yes, if only 10% of your customers were ripping and sharing music it wouldn't be as big a problem, but 80% or 90%. Also what is the deal with ripping being mixed in with "sharing", how in the world can ripping be illegal, I am the only one using the music, so what if I want to play it on my PC instead of through my home theater? This is the kind of freedom erosion that could be fought against if it was target specifically.

      • Re:ogg (Score:2)

        by nkh ( 750837 )
        I hope it's not the first step towards: if you want to listen to music on your PC, you'll have to buy ANOTHER copy before (or a "intellectual-property transfer license" ;)

        Well, of course we know we're doomed and stuff but you just have not to buy copy-protected CDs to begin with. No need to bypass anything.
      • But if ogg is allowed after making it illegal to rip to mp3, everyone will just eventually migrate to ogg, and then the whole mess will start all over again.

  • What if you have an iPod in Norway? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:08PM (#11646357)
    You buy your iPod. -- Legal

    You buy a CD -- Legal

    You want to listen to "Your" music you bought on the iPod you bought and now you are breaking the law?

    Crikey, this is getting ridiculous...

    Sheeesh, at least all of the WMV files I have don't have copy.....
    Oh wait...

    • Re:What if you have an iPod in Norway? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You buy a car that can go 100mph -- Legal.
      You buy a kit to make the car go 200mph -- Legal.
      You drive the car at 200mph and you're breaking the law?

      You buy a dull sword -- Legal.
      You buy a sword sharpener -- Legal.
      You sharpen the sword to the point where its a concealed weapon and you're breaking the law?

      You buy a VCR -- Legal.
      You buy a blank videotape -- Legal.
      You use said VCR and videotape to record a movie you rented from Blockbuster and you're breaking the law?

      You see, your logic doesn't hold. Of cour

      • Re:What if you have an iPod in Norway? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You drive the car at 200mph and you're breaking the law?

        legal on your own property.


        You sharpen the sword to the point where its a concealed weapon and you're breaking the law?

        legal on you own property. except for peasants in a fuedal society.


        You use said VCR and videotape to record a movie you rented from Blockbuster and you're breaking the law?

        SHOULD be legal on your own property. Thats our point.
        Even granting you ridiculous leeway in the use of analogies, your arguments suck.
      • I don't think it was meant the way you're taking it. It's not "I combine legal thing A and legal thing B and get illegal thing C, that doesn't make sense." The argument is actually, "It will be illegal for me to play my legally purchased music on my legally purchased iPod, that is ridiculous."
    • If this law passed, then this would mean that if you buy a CD from the store, you'd be able to use it only in CD players but not on your computer or portable mp3 player,

      but if you buy music from the iTunes Music Store or a similar service you can use it in either location, since burning to CD is outright one of the advertised features.

      In such a circumstance I can't imagine why anyone who owns a computer would ever buy CDs at all, except that the iTunes Music Store doesn't exist in Norway right now. If thi
    • Or, more to the point:

      You buy your computer. -- Legal

      You buy your CD -- Legal

      You want to listen to "Your" music you bought on the computer you bought and now you are breaking the law.

      I have all my cd's burned to .mp3/.ogg on my computer and route my speakers, headphones, etc from my soundcard so that I can use my computer as a glorified jukebox. Good thing I don't live in Norway.

  • Dangerous criminals (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Asgorath ( 806125 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:09PM (#11646362) Homepage
    Good it's about time they put these dangerous criminals behind bars! Obviously these people are the real problem in society, not those who commit crimes such as robbery, murder, assault, rape, etc. Really? By changing the storage format of something you can be send to jail? I knew the world had gone mad, but it's always nice to see a bit of conformation every now and then.

  • Penalties (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DarkEdgeX ( 212110 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:09PM (#11646363) Journal
    The new proposal would allow fines and a maximum penalty of three years in prison for violating copyrights and engaging in computer piracy.

    Bringing up the subject of a recent Slashdot article-- what's the penalty for actual theft in the traditional "go in, take it and walk out without paying for it" sense in Norway? Would the penalty for copyright infringement be worse or better by comparison?

  • Freedom of use (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Romancer ( 19668 ) <`moc.roodshtaed' `ta' `recnamor'> on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:09PM (#11646365) Journal
    This is why fair use is a good thing.

    Here in america we're supposedly protected, and our rights are slowly being torn down. In Norway it looks like they're just being negated.

    I'm all for people getting paid for their work, but to tell me that I can't use something I paid for in a way that I want, that's getting into big Govt. Where they dictate what you say and do because of their own interests instead of the peoples interests.

    If we don't stand up to this kind of crap all over the world there will no longer be a "free" nation where people can live without oppression.

    And BTW, I break no encryption or copy protection when I rip a cd to mp3 with my stereo and laptop, one plays the cd and one records the mic input directly into mp3 format. They can never stop this with any copy protection method. EVER.
    • They can never stop this with any copy protection method. EVER.

      True, but you lose quality in the digital->analog->digital conversion.

    • Re:Freedom of use (Score:3, Informative)

      by ScrewMaster ( 602015 )
      Not necessarily true. The RIAA was experimenting with analog watermarking a few years ago. If that were ever implemented on a wide scale, it would mean that the A/D converter in your sound card would refuse to output data if it detected any watermarking in the output signal of your CD player. I don't know how far they got (or if it is actually practical, it may have just been a political tool) but don't assume anything, anymore. We live in the age of cheap DSP and corrupt lawmakers. Anything is possible w

  • What's the penalty for falsely claiming ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Quiberon ( 633716 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:09PM (#11646370) Journal
    So, I claim that you copied my CD to an MP3, and the Norwegian government puts you in jail.

    Why shouldn't you play the music on your jogging belt ? That's fair use !

    What if it turns out I had given you permission, but I just wanted you to be put in jail ?

    How about OGG ?

    How about uncompressed stuff ? USB sticks are getting bigger by the day.

    How about an encrypted MP3 ?

    What if it turns out I don't hold the copyright. Are you still in jail ?

  • A good piece of investigative journalism would be to go and fathom out what kind of process would lead a legislature to introduce such an ill-informed piece of law...

    And what happens when they start to crack down on people? They gonna jail everyone? Will the police arrest people with earphones and check if they have a MP3 player?

    • Elected officials are not known for being too bright - after all, they DO represent the people.

      Elected officials have always made bad laws, and it has been very noticeable in recent years since technological changes have occurred so quickly, and most elected officials are too old to have caught on with what is happening. Even most of those who have adapted to technology have only done so in a superficial way.

      But beyond this, elected officials generally reflect the views of society at large, including h

    • The law is in a large part proposed due to a EU directive (Norway isn't even a member the EU, but in the EC). Especially the parts about copy protection are there because the government has to follow this directive.

      I believe Norway is the last country in the EC to do this.
      • Judging from what is said here, Norway have gone much further than the directive requires though.
      • The law is in a large part proposed due to a EU directive (Norway isn't even a member the EU, but in the EC).

        <pedantic mode="euro-acronyms">
        Assuming that you are not referring to the European Commission (the EU's civil service), the EC (European Community) is the previous name for the EU (European Union), which came about when they dropped the "Economic" from European Economic Community (EEC). Norway, which is not a member of the EU, and was not a member of the EEC or EC, is a member of the EEA, th

    • "They have conjugal visits there don't they?"

      Not that I know of. No, minimum security prison is no picnic. I have a client in there right now. He says the trick is, kick someone's ass the first day, or become someone's bitch. Then everything will be alright.

  • Law makers? Or stand up comics? (Score:4, Funny)

    by SlayerofGods ( 682938 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:10PM (#11646385)
    "For example, a CD's (security code) could be cracked to play a recording on a car stereo, since a CD-player would be seen as an appropriate medium," the news release said. "But the security code could not be cracked to copy the recording onto an MP-3 player, since such a device would not be seen as an appropriate for a CD."
    Ahh that's classic.
    Who knew an mp3 player wasn't appropriate for playing music.

  • Better explanation, (From the article) (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gyorg_Lavode ( 520114 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:11PM (#11646391)
    The amendment, which requires parliament's approval, would make it illegal to crack security codes on DVD and CDs or to provide software or hardware for doing so, a news release said. It would still be legal for a person to make a copy of their own CD or DVD for private use, even if that means cracking the code, as long as it was being copied onto the same digital medium and not onto another one.

    "For example, a CD's (security code) could be cracked to play a recording on a car stereo, since a CD-player would be seen as an appropriate medium," the news release said. "But the security code could not be cracked to copy the recording onto an MP-3 player, since such a device would not be seen as an appropriate for a CD."


    • as long as it was being copied onto the same digital medium and not onto another one.

      Memory chips used for RAM are a "different digital medium".
      So even playing a DVD normally, would be illegal since the decoded stream at some point has to pass through RAM for the program to use it.

      It's another case of "make all normal uses illegal, but promise to enforce the law selectively". Yah...right.

  • Well, it's good that the Norweigan government is finally following America's lead and deciding to support the for-profit penal system. The only remaining question is whether they'll mollycoddle the music offenders, or bunk 'em all together with manly men named Sven and Rolf. Woof!

  • Norway is bound to do this (Score:5, Informative)

    by Husgaard ( 858362 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:12PM (#11646405)
    This is sad but true: Although not an EU member, Norway is bound to implement the InfoSoc directive [eu.int] in their laws.

    And if you wonder what the InfoSoc directive is: It is basically EUs copy of the DMCA, only a bit worse.

    • the InfoSoc directive

      Why did that make me think of IngSoc? *shudder*

    • What's even more sad.. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )
      ...is that these kinds of directives are impossible to fight. Look at the date for the InfoSoc directive. 2001. Yes, four years ago. Yet we have no choice but to implement it, except for a highly theoretical veto right (from not being in the EU, only EUs lap dog).

      What can public pressure do? Implemented by 2005. Uproar by 2006. New proposal to EU in 2008. New directive in 2010. New law in 2015. Try keeping the public's attention for ten years while playing the ladder game with the corporations. They'll sli

  • On copyright restrictions and copyright laws (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JessLeah ( 625838 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:12PM (#11646413)
    Really, it's interesting that such anti-consumer laws can get passed in the first place. I consider this phenomenon to be due to an interesting historical accident (of sorts).

    Copyright laws weren't intended to affect consumers at all. They were written back in the days when "copying" a work meant pressing an unlicensed copy of a record, or printing an unlicensed copy of a book. Consumers didn't own record presses or printing presses, and thus weren't affected at all. The only people affected by these laws for many many many years were companies.

    It makes sense to have heavy fines for corporations who attempt to make money off of other corporations' copyrighted work. The $150,000 per copy (or whatever) maximum fines for copyright violation make more sense in that context (though arguably are still ridiculously high).

    However, in the Internet age, virtually anyone can make a perfect copy of virtually any data. Thus, we see those same $150,000 per copy (or whatever) maximum fines being used to threaten Joe Teenager from copying an MP3 from his friend. In this context, the amount is patently absurd.

    Companies may or may not realize how absurd and out-of-context their exploitation of these laws are, but they are going to ride them as long as they're allowed to (n.b.: This may well be "forever"). Thus, the laws originally intended to keep shady companies from getting rich off of each others' hard work are now being used primarily to keep the consumers in line. I don't expect this trend to stop any time soon.

    As I keep saying: Y'know all those sci-fi novels that predicted a future run by giant megacorps who ruthlessly control their consumers, but the consumers are largely too sheeplike to care? Well, that future is now.

    • Re:On copyright restrictions and copyright laws (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Really, it's interesting that such anti-consumer laws can get passed in the first place.

      It hasn't been passed, infact it's unlikely to ever get passed - besides the obvious problem of being stupid, it is seen as a direct threat to the whole norwegian justice system which is based primarily on legislation. Any unenforceable law, the police have already signaled that they opposed it and would not be able to enforce it in any meaningful way, like this weakens the whole system.

      Unlike what the parent poster
  • It seems silly that they are tying the law to such a specific format, unless the submitter committted the big no-no of using MP3 as a generic for digital music. I will be enjoying my norwegian CDs encoded to vorbis.

  • Buy from customer-oriented artists (Score:3)

    by SunFan ( 845761 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:21PM (#11646530)

    We cannot forget that artists and labels can remove restrictions for music just as companies use Open Source licenses to remove restrictions for software. If "fair use" is vague in copyright law, what's stopping artists and labels from adding it back into the licensing contract? A good customer is a satisfied customer, right?

    • ...If "fair use" is vague in copyright law, what's stopping artists and labels from adding it back into the licensing contract?...
      Probably the fact the they would never get a contract in the first place if they insisted on such a clause.
    • What we need is for one of the guys (Michael Robertson?) who got so wealthy off the dot com bubble to set up legitimate content for the AARP crowd. This could be easily done by setting up a large trust for a major university's symphony program. In exchange, all performances would be recorded, ripped to mp3, licensed under the creative commons, and made available on p2p networks. If they could then get the 65+ crowd used to the idea of sharing, all of this other nonsense would go away quickly.
  • Is the motivation to reform copyright based on a real desire to be more fair or is it because the music industry is not as big there?

    Not that it matters...good idea any which way.

  • Anyone got any LPs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:30PM (#11646634)
    That thing I think is so absurd about this is the fact they have forgotten the most important reason for being able to transform media, obsolescence. What happens when the CD format is gone and there are no more CD-players? This happens to all forms of media over time. Does the content just cease to be used? Even it they industry argues they can resell it in the new form, who is to say they will still exist to do so? It seems to be that this is a bit of a perversion.

    On a side note, no country has to do anything. If the European Union suddenly decided that they wanted to be communist, it does not mean that a country under treaty has to obey. They can politely refuse and deal with the consequences. Given how much these laws are hated, I do not see huge consequences. Anyone saying otherwise is simply using the excuse, "I was ordered to do it!" and we all know what that led to.

    • Re:Anyone got any LPs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:52PM (#11646932) Homepage
      That thing I think is so absurd about this is the fact they have forgotten the most important reason for being able to transform media, obsolescence.

      No, I think they have it very much in mind.

      What happens when the CD format is gone and there are no more CD-players?

      Then obviously you'll have to pay the recording industry for the privilege of continuing to listen to the music you previously bought.

      And, of course, that's the entire point. You have to remember who these laws are being passed for the benefit of. This isn't about money, or about preventing piracy. It's about allowing the current form of the recording industry to dictate the terms under which people are and are not allowed to listen to music. Mp3 ripping represents the capacity for consumers to remove all limitations on how they use the music they have purchased; therefore it has to go.

      Even it they industry argues they can resell it in the new form, who is to say they will still exist to do so?

      I wouldn't worry about that. If further threats to the continued existence of the recording industry in its current form appear, then they'll just have those outlawed too.
  • If this means that in Norway it will be illegal to hum the opening bars of piano concertos, attempt to play Beethoven with a guitar group, or conversely get the Oslo Philharmonic (if there is one) to play any kind of orchestration of any kind of rock and roll whatsoever....and that guy who used to fart tunes (Le Petomane- slashdot inability to reproduce accents oblige) would be sent down for three years...well, that's where the logic seems to lead and it sounds just fine to me. It's obviously OK to reproduc
  • Copyright reversed is rightcopy. Does that mean I have the right to copy?

    (gimme a break it's 4:30 on Friday)

  • Nothing will change for me if this law gets passed. I'll just ignore it, and I predict that other people will too.

    Slightly off-topic, this has probably been said a lot but I'll say it again. The music industry needs to rethink their marketing strategies. I'll use myself as an example here. I don't listen to radio at all, I don't watch much TV (and when I do, it's not the channels that run ads for artists). When I buy music I don't just pick something from the "top 20" list. I download MP3s and put them in

    • I'm amazed at how similar your buying pattern is (well, was) to mine. I don't actually download the MP3s anymore, though I was a long-time member of Pressplay before it became Napster (their transition required a Microsoft tax [Win2K or newer] which I refused to pay). I bought a ton of music during that period of time, and still have the 400 or so 3x5 cards where I wrote all of the songs I had listened to. At the peak of this, I was buying close to your consumption of 1 album a week.

      Today, I buy almost

  • illegal to rip a CD to MP3s when copy protection is in place on the CD.

    If I'm at a music store and a CD that interests me has copy protection, I don't buy it. I go home and download it off of p2ps instead.

    I don't listen to CDs: I listen to my rips on the computer or the iPod! If a label tells me they don't want me to listen to their stuff on my iPod, I curse them and get the content to the device of my choice without giving them money.

    So, fuck the RIAA for trying to tell me which hardware I can or canno
    • You go soldier... thats the spirit. Is this the most constructive way of sticking it to the man? Its nothing compared to *really* protesting and informing the public and thereby actually causing the music industry lost sales because you have turned the maistream off copyprotected cd's. But hey, you enjoy your silent victory all on your own at home.
      • actually causing the music industry lost sales because you have turned the maistream off copyprotected cd's.

        I'm flaterred that you think I have to power to sway public opinion. Me VS a hundred year old multibillion dollar industry with countless professionals on retainer... it's an interresting thought.

        Alas, I do not. I do, however, tell those I know about it. Post the occasional message on /., that kind of stuff that is actually within my reach.
        • You could sit outside a music shop with a sign... convincing just one is the hardest bit. Once thats done your message will spread.
          • You could sit outside a music shop with a sign... convincing just one is the hardest bit. Once thats done your message will spread.

            Do that, tell me how it went.
            • Excuse me, I'm not the one stealing the music remember...
              • Excuse me, I'm not the one stealing the music remember...

                Ah, THAT'S what you were getting at. Ah, well, in that case, let me sum up my feelings thusly (again): fuck the RIAA.

                They are the ones attempting to prevent me from legally transfering the music from the CD to my iPod, so I get the music on the iPod without getting the disc. If they don't like it, they just need to stop trying to stop me from using legitimatly bought music fairly. In the meantime, fuck 'em, and their lackeys (that would be you).
                • Yeah the thing is, your arguement is flawed because in your first post you talked about pirating music. Now you are complaining that they are trying to prevent you from using the music you legitimately own.

  • What if you don't notice? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Xtifr ( 1323 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @04:56PM (#11646981) Homepage
    I use Linux, thus, I wouldn't even notice any "copy-protection" schemes based on having Windows autostart files on the disc. I use cdparanoia to rip, and its anti-jitter, anti-scratch, error-correction features will probably blow past the remaining "copy-protection" schemes based on adding deliberate errors to the disc. Are they going to provide me with tools to detect the presence of "copy protection" that I otherwise wouldn't even be able to notice? Or are they simply planning to outlaw Linux?

    This legislation seems insane and miguided (at least from the /. summary, which I realize isn't a reliable guide to what's actually been proposed). I hope that European Free Software and Consumers' Rights groups are all over this one.

  • of governmental and commercial organization over private citizens is to pass laws that make _everyone_ a criminal upon close inspection.

    "So, you aren't very fond of our actions, huh? Well let's just check you desktop computer... shouldn't be a problem for you, right? Your'e just a law abiding citizen...

    "Oh, wait a minute. Look what I just found! Seems like your going down, buddy. You sure are sorry you messed with us now, huh, punk?!"

  • Did I get this right - they complain how stealing is illegal?

    How about "borrowing" a CD-ROM from a music shop, ripping it and then putting it back on the shelf? Is that stealing?
    But no matter what I say I'm sure some smart ass will post some quasi counter-arguments...

    Before one of top arguments were "bloated" prices of CD-ROMs.
    Then after songs became available for 99c a pop (no need to buy a whole set of 12 songs), we've learned how "content wants to be free" and similar crap.
    The new Napster service gives

    • Re:Stop bitching (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MKalus ( 72765 )

      I'm trying very hard but can't feel any sympathy for those who complain about this new law.


      Simply put: When I buy a CD and I want to listen to it on my iPod, I can't anymore. At least not legally.

      That's the crux.

      It doesn't change the legal status of downloads, all it does is prevent people who already paid for the music to use it legally in one of their own playback devices.

      It's the industries attempt trying to nickle and dime to death.

  • Illegal mp3 ripping? Are they nuts? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AC5398 ( 651967 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @05:11PM (#11647164)
    *** "The Norwegian government has shown a broad vision that is unique in Europe," said the group's secretary general Per Morten Hoff. He praised the law for recognizing the industry's right to protect copyrighted material. ***

    Vision that is unique? LOL! With the currently changing markets for music formats - no one wants a portable cd player any more, everyone wants a portable mp3/wmv player - Norway's vision is ensuring either their population breaks the law, or sales of music cd's will plummet.

    Their right to protect copyrighted material is going to be guaranteed by the time they're finished -- no one is going to be interested in the material at all by the time all those criminal convictions of illegal mp3 rippings take place.

    Buy a music cd? Hell no, who needs the trouble that causes.

    Talk about biting the hand that feeds you ...
  • The polls indicate that this Norwegian government is out by the end of the year anyway.

    With the Conservatives now at 18.7 percent and the Kr.F at 8.0 percent, the alliance would not even have a parliamentary advantage against the red-green alliance with the assistance of the populist Progress Party, currently the second most popular party with 19 percent support.

    Full Article [aftenposten.no]

    Background [wikipedia.org]

  • The current (well, for me, since I'm in the US) issue of Computer Music has an interview with Roni Size, who mentions that he just threw out a ton of his CDs after ripping them to his hard drive. According to the linked article above, Norway is considering this law to bring the country into line with the rest of the EU. Does this mean Roni Size is a criminal for daring to rip his own legally-purchased CDs?

  • You have lost your way. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alexo ( 9335 ) on Friday February 11, 2005 @07:22PM (#11648368) Journal

    People seem to forget that the main reason to have copyright & patent laws is to benefit society as a whole by enriching the public domain.

    The reasoning goes something like this: if every invention and creation is free for grabs, nobody would invest in the creative process, so let's give the inventors/creators an incentive in the form of a *limited* monopoly on implementing and distributing their invention/creation.

    Keep in mind that the protection is not an end in itself but only a means to the real end. Therefore, we must be careful not to let it outweigh the public benefit.

    Does the society, really *need* protection duration of creator life + 70 years? Would the creative process stop if we limit it so something reasonable, like 10 years?

    Does the society, really *need* broad patents that claim everything under the sun, or patenting of ideas (as opposed to implementations) or mathematical formulas? Remember what Newton said about standing on the shoulders of giants and consider what good does it do to the public if a person or organization can hold all R&D in a certain field hostage until it no longer relevant?

    The creators and inventors should be able to make a decent living from the application of their talents, we should guarantee them nothing more.

    When a brilliant physician stops healing, the flow of money stops - even if the patients whose life they may have saved continue living and enjoying their health!

    When a brilliant teacher stops teaching, the flow of money stops - even if his students continue to rip the rewards of their excellent education.

    Currently, the legislators are preocupied with enriching the "intellectual property" owners at the expense of fair use. This is a sham. Intellectual "property" is nothing more than a racket. When there is a conflict between the wants of the society and the wants of the IP holders, the public interest should always take precedence.

    Think about it.

    Do something about it.

    Convince 10 other people to do something about it.

    Convince them to repeat the process.

    Start an avalanche. Nothing less will cure the system.
  • ... students go to prison for years for stealing a few thousand dollars of warez. ... riaa convicted of price fixing, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from consumers, and they get a slap on the wrist.

    shouldnt the equivalent punishment for the riaa CEOs be something like multiple life terms in prison?

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close