Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government News Your Rights Online

Legalize File Sharing, Say Swedish MPs 545

CrystalFalcon writes "In the past week, the file sharing debate has exploded in Sweden, with numerous mainstream politicians finally having understood the issue. Last week, seven Swedish MPs wrote a prominent opinion piece saying that fully legalized file sharing is not just the best solution, it's the only solution. Now their number has increased to 13, and the issue continues to grow. Good summaries at TorrentFreak and P2P Consortium. Original opinion piece in English here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Legalize File Sharing, Say Swedish MPs

Comments Filter:
  • There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling.
  • cuz i may dye my hair blonde and buy me a ticket !!
  • emigrate to Sweden? Man, not only they make the best pr0n, now they will (hopefully) legalize file-sharing...
    • by Hell O'World ( 88678 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:48AM (#21998822)
      Actually you immigrate to a country, emigrating implies going FROM a country. Use it correctly and the women flock around you at parties.
    • Re:How can I... (Score:4, Informative)

      by esper ( 11644 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @11:39AM (#22000472) Homepage
      Debates over the existince and quality of Swedish pr0n aside, http://www.migrationsverket.se/english.jsp [migrationsverket.se] is the central site for Swedish immigration information, although you may wish to contact your local embassy/consulate for more situation-specific information (as I discovered when I called to get the exchange rate to use for calculating the application fee and was told there was a separate site for US applicants that I should have been looking at for those details instead).
  • by hossi19 ( 1199735 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:12AM (#21998342)
    I'm very proud to live in the Sweden now. Proud of the nation of Pirates! So if you mpaa or riaa are planing to invande Sweden, think again! We will fight to the last man. Yarr!
  • Hmm, maybe.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rotide ( 1015173 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:13AM (#21998354)
    While I think NO penalties for ignoring copyright infringement is a bad idea, I also think that suing 12yr olds is even more retarded. The benefits of this idea are that time/money/lives aren't lost and/or ruined by overly greedy corporations. However, I don't think the artists/creators will enjoy this much. But I think we can all agree, those that want to infringe will, regardless of the laws.
    • Re:Hmm, maybe.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by famebait ( 450028 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:27AM (#21998528)
      I think NO penalties for ignoring copyright infringement is a bad idea,

      I'm a bit confused about what you mean here.
      Who is ignoring copyright infringement and should be penalized for it?

      The pirates today are _performing_ infringement.
      The Swedish MPs in question want to change the law so that it is _not_ an infringement.
      In free countries it is not normal to punish civilians for ignoring the petty crimes of their fellow citizens.
      Is it the law enforcers you want to punish, than, if they fail to crack down on file-sharers?
    • Re:Hmm, maybe.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) * on Friday January 11, 2008 @10:08AM (#21999122) Homepage
      You are correct. However, my preferences would be to change the law to:

      a) Force the party suing people to first prove they know the exact person who infringed the copyright - it's kind of like those speed cameras. Since they can't tell who was driving, the fine is $40, no points, and by law they can't be used by insurance companies to raise fees.

      b) The punishment matches the crime - If you share a electronic copy of a CD, the retail price is about $8-10, as determined by the market. That would be the maximum punishment. If this is someone who has never been convicted of sharing copyrighted materials, there would be no punishment for a "first offense".

      c) The fines/fees from any punishment would be used to fund the arts - this allows the RIAA/MPAA to put their money where their mouths are. They keep saying they're protecting the artist (RIAA), or that every time a movie is copied, then a stuntman or gaffer is put out of work. Well, this allows the arts to flourish, and deters people from sharing copyrighted material.

      d) so-called "intellectual property" will be treated as real property, including the levy of "property tax" on the fair market value of the so-called "intellectual property". This would encourage artists and companies to maximize the value of productive property and abandon property that is not productive.

         
      • Re:Hmm, maybe.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @11:50AM (#22000628)
        d) so-called "intellectual property" will be treated as real property, including the levy of "property tax" on the fair market value of the so-called "intellectual property". This would encourage artists and companies to maximize the value of productive property and abandon property that is not productive.

        OMG. This is one of the most insightful ideas concerning copyright since its conception. If anything, this would be a huge leap towards more balance between those that create and those that use that creation, either to consume it or to create something new out of it.

        I wouldn't do a "property tax", I'd rather have IP holders pay an annual fee for their creations to "keep" them. That would immediately eliminate all discussions about whether copyright should be 10 years, 20, 50, 70 or infinitly. The IP holder himself could determine how long his property is valuable to him, and release it into public domain as soon as it becomes "worthless". There is so much IP lying around, because it's "worthless", but cannot be used sensibly by anyone because it is still kept under lock by the one holding the rights to it. It could be reused, recycled, in art as collages or music as remixes, and new art could arise out of old. A new art form could emerge out of it.

        You, sir, single handedly shaped an idea that could revolutionize the way we handle IP. Please write to your congressman (or whatever similar entity exists in your country)!
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Hey, that sounds like an interesting idea. As long as the tax is high enough to deter companies from keeping the property indefinitely.
    • Re:Hmm, maybe.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by asuffield ( 111848 ) <asuffield@suffields.me.uk> on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:47PM (#22002364)

      While I think NO penalties for ignoring copyright infringement is a bad idea


      Kindly explain why you think it is a bad idea for people to share what they have, and that we should stop them from doing this. Note that this is the exact opposite of what most children are taught is the "right" way to behave.

      The internet has finally brought these two fundamentally opposed notions into direct conflict. There can be no compromise between those who want to base society on taking/withholding and those who want to base it on sharing, and that's what we're looking at here.

      Do you share your ball with the other kids on the playground, so that you can all enjoy the game, or do you reserve it for the few who can afford to pay you, which means there aren't enough players for a good game but you'll benefit more from it? It's all the same ethical decision at the bottom of it.
  • by Wooky_linuxer ( 685371 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:13AM (#21998356)
    After all, in a democratic country, if a very large percentage of the population willingly infringes a law, there is a very strong case that the law is wrong, not the people. So I guess in any (truly) democratic country file-sharing and similar attitudes regarding "intellectual property" should be legal.
    • by CrystalFalcon ( 233559 ) * on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:19AM (#21998422) Homepage
      Exactly. If a large enough percentage of the population wants the law to change, they will simply vote in new politicians.

      Most of the time, the existing politicians sense this is about to happen ahead of time, and change the law themselves.

      That's how democracy works. Or at least, how it's supposed to work.
      • by dintech ( 998802 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:33AM (#21998606)
        We have a lot of stupid laws that were brought about by public demand too. For example, all the laws retracting your freedom in order to catch terrorists. Most of the people on the street are actually convinced this kind of thing is a good idea.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          For example, all the laws retracting your freedom in order to catch terrorists. Most of the people on the street are actually convinced this kind of thing is a good idea.

          You're right, but I'd say you have to consider the [manipulation | omission]-of-information factor in cases like this. I'm not about to go on a "conspiracy" tirade, but I'd doubt the average american knows much more about the Patriot Act than what Bill O'Reilly told them to think about it.
        • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @12:08PM (#22000892)
          Really? They are? Did you ask anyone?

          I actually thought the same and started asking people. Not just friends. I went out on the street, posed as a "survey man" and started asking. It helps when you studied statistics, you know the drill. And you know how to word questions without leading people to answers.

          Interesting enough: 63.4% of the people I asked (sample size 1000, taken in a city of about 2 million inhabitants) did not agree with the anti-terror laws that were created (compared to 8.2 percent thinking we need more surveillance, 23.1 percent saying we have adequate laws and 5.3 percent refusing to answer).

          Now tell me again, who wants those laws? Barely a third of the people I asked think they're ok or not going far enough, two thirds are telling me they go too far and they don't want them. What "public demand" do you see?
      • by YA_Python_dev ( 885173 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:36AM (#21998644) Journal

        I agree, but not only because there are so many people pirating, but simply because this is the right thing to do. It's not about pirating or saving a few bucks: one of the primary reasons for the existence of nations is to contribute to the diffusion and development of culture (I live in Italy and here we have this clearly written in one of the first articles of our constitution; the proposed European constitution says pretty much the same thing).

        Copyright was established as a state-created monopoly, for a limited time, to encourage the creation and diffusion of artistic works. Not to guarantee an endless stream of money to the MAFIAA lawyers. It's pretty clear that the creation and diffusion of art, music, movies, books, etc. is doing pretty well today (probably better than any other period in human history!) despite, and sometimes thanks to, the huge diffusion of filesharing and piracy.

        So there's no need to outlaw it. It's that simple: copyright isn't a law of nature, it was accepted as a compromise to achieve an end and can be changed if necessary.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by muuh-gnu ( 894733 )
          > it was accepted as a compromise

          1. I dont know it was _ever_ really accepted by the wide public its enforced upon. There never was any kind of a democratic process that yielded and then adopted copyright. It was mandated by kings and emperors hundreds of years ago when most of the people probably didnt even know the word "democracy". Even the often cited Berne convention took place somewhen in the 19th century which you probably wouldnt call all that "democratic" by todays standards. And even if it were
    • by Imsdal ( 930595 )
      In most democratic countries, there are speeding laws. In most of those countries, loads of people are speeding at least some of the time. From this it doesn't follow that the law on speeding should change. Maybe the law should indeed change, but the reason for that is not that loads of people break that particular law. Almost everyone agrees on this. Somehow, that argument is completely lost when it applies to copyright.
      • by zyklone ( 8959 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:47AM (#21998792) Homepage
        Yes, people speed.
        That doesn't mean they don't support the laws against speeding. They usually accept that there has to be a law against it, they just choose to violate it and accept the penalty.

        With filesharing people do not agree they are committing a crime.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by fmobus ( 831767 )

          With filesharing people do not agree they are committing a crime.

          and in most instances, so think people who speed. I, for one, don't agree that 60km/h is the proper speed limit for a specific deserted, uninhabited, perfect conditions, three-lane each way avenue in my hometown. The only reason for it to be 60km/h is that it is maintained by the municipality (as opposed to state or union roads). And yeah, they love radar'ing people there.

        • by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @11:11AM (#22000052) Homepage Journal
          When I speed I don't think I'm doing something wrong. I'm not very aggressive, I just speed with the flow of traffic...probably going slower would be more likely to cause an accident. I'm confident in my moral superiority, that clearly the road was built for higher speeds than the limit indicates, and the law is silly, or limit too low for realistic expectations of society.

          People who fileshare will probably agree there is a law against it (you can't argue with fact), but are also probably certain that the law doesn't make any societal sense, and that they are morally fine.

          Exactly the same in my view.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by codegen ( 103601 )

          So why is it posted 55?

          Most of the time, it is because the speed limit is based on sub-optimal conditions. It is a no-brainer to most drivers that in ice or snow that you should go less than the posted limit (and it is an offense in most jursidictions for driving faster than conditions allow). However, other conditions are not as obvious to most drivers such as rain (which can reduce stopping distance depending on the tire). That is when the cops will care if you are doing more than 55.

    • After all, in a democratic country, if a very large percentage of the population willingly infringes a law, there is a very strong case that the law is wrong, not the people.

      Truth by majority? Is that how we define truth these days? The fact that the majority infringes a law only says that people ignore the law. It doesn't influence it's validity.

      People drive too fast all the time. I mean, who hasn't had a ticket for speeding? However, that doesn't mean that they aren't doing the right thing. They are putting people in jeopardy this way. I can't count the times that I have been nearly hit by a car that was driving WAY too fast and too reckless.

  • by pieterh ( 196118 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:18AM (#21998406) Homepage
    It would be really interesting to know what percentage of computer users share files...? In my informal surveys, the figure is really high, 80-90%, and the people who do not share files don't do it simply because they don't care, or don't know how.

    I have never, once, found someone who actually states that they have a moral principle against it.

    The whole "piracy is theft" campaign seems as empty as the "don't smoke pot" campaign. People will do it, and just find ways of not getting caught.
    • I've met many, most, but not all, are directly involved in producing software or content, and therefore have a lot of empathy for anyone who wishes their work not to be taken without fair payment, if payment is desired.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ChetOS.net ( 936869 )
      I have a moral principle against it.

      There you go.
    • by mmcuh ( 1088773 )
      This [wsj.com] article on Wall Street Journal seems to say that 43% in a survey are planning to download music during the year. It doesn't say whether the question specified downloading copyrighted material illegally, and I don't know how many of those that responded negatively are not computer users.
    • by Imsdal ( 930595 )
      I have moral problems with it. I still do it, just like loads of people are speeding despite knowing that it's illegal and knowing perfectly well why it's illegal.

      I think I can safely add this to every comment in this thread: the fact that most people do activity x is not really a good argument for legalizing said activity. The reason is that there may be externalities, i.e. third parties suffering from said activity. In most cities in the Middle Ages, garbage was "handled" by thoring it out the window. E

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MrNemesis ( 587188 )
      I think the mistake you make is in using "share files" - people I've known have always shared books, LP's, mix tapes, CD's, the works - computers have merely made it easier and cheaper for them. To most of them there's no difference between borrowing an album and making a copy of it because, from their perspective, there is no difference - they're getting to experience something they probably wouldn't have bought anyway for zero appreciable cost. They haven't seen it as "wrong" or as "theft" since their dad
  • Not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Armakuni ( 1091299 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:18AM (#21998410) Homepage
    It seems that any actual societal progress comes from Europe these days, while the US is sinking deeper into a Republican/corporate mire. This is just another example.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pv2b ( 231846 )
      Hey, you have plenty of smart forward-thinking people over there in the US too. The fact that a dozen or so of our MP:s (in the party who have traditionally been one of the most staunch defenders of the copyright status quo) have finally gathered together enough courage to break from the herd on this issue doesn't mean anything will necessarily happen any time soon. They're still a minority.

      The most depressing part is that, as far as I've seen, this has been a completely mono-partisan move by dissident memb
    • Thats to do with the people they keep voting in to govern them, if they could sort that out it would be a great start.
  • by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:23AM (#21998480) Journal
    Weapons of mass distribution are found in sweden, US pledges to liberate the citizens.

    Anyone else think that some one at the media forgot to pay swedish politicians? Don't worry, it will soon be corrected when the politicians all of sudden find they aren't invited to any media social events.

  • by whisper_jeff ( 680366 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:23AM (#21998486)
    "Politicians who play for the antipiracy team should be aware that they have allied themselves with a special interest that is never satisfied and that will always demand that we take additional steps toward the ultimate control state."

    It boggles my mind that there aren't more politicians who have figured out this gem of wisdom. Restricting the rights and freedoms OF YOUR VOTERS for the benefit of a corporation or trade organization, who will never be happy and will continue to push for more and more restrictions and limitations, is a sure way to decrease your chances of being re-elected...
    • "decrease your chances of being re-elected..."?

      No you have that backwards. The RIAA have deep pockets. They can buy politicians by the barrel full. Politicians will continue to flock to the RIAA banner as long as they pay. The political system runs on money not votes. Get that straight and it will all make more sense.

      In this case the RIAA apparently failed to make a timely donation to the politicians in question. That will be rectified soon.
  • by El Yanqui ( 1111145 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:25AM (#21998510) Homepage
    Please re-seed. I'm stuck at 67%.
  • by ddrichardson ( 869910 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:30AM (#21998556)

    FTA:

    Decriminalizing all non-commercial file sharing and forcing the market to adapt is not just the best solution. It's the only solution, unless we want an ever more extensive control of what citizens do on the Internet.

    That's not the same as the synopsis:

    Last week, seven Swedish MPs wrote a prominent opinion piece saying that fully legalized file sharing is not just the best solution, it's the only solution.

    Now, I RTFA and it reads to me that he feels that the media/IP industries will never be satisfied with what the state does and that he doesn't feel it's the states place to police the Internet. Both of these are admirable and sensible statements, in line with what many people actually think.

    But I really don't think he is advocating Sweden as some sort of torrent haven as some posters seem to be suggesting.

    • by CrystalFalcon ( 233559 ) * on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:36AM (#21998652) Homepage
      Yes, he means that all noncommercial (i.e. not-for-profit) file sharing should be fully legalized, i.e. that nobody must be allowed to monitor and police the Internet for copyright infringements.

      As I have met the man in question, I am well aware of his points and arguments.
    • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @10:14AM (#21999198) Homepage
      In Sweden the term "commercial" has not been corrupted to mean "swapping copyrighted material". It really refers to legalizing all private not-for-proft copying. For scale, the parliament has 349 seats so 13 representatives is 3.7%. Still, this is mainstream politicans in the second largest party and a far cry bigger than the pirate party's 0.6% in the last election. If put to a vote, more would probably offer their support. If I was the RIAA/MPAA, I'd really worry right about now.
  • Wouldn't the Berne Convention make it hard for Sweden to implement this?

    I guess they could always withdraw from the Convention, but almost certainly not without international political consequences.

    • by pv2b ( 231846 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:40AM (#21998702)
      Nope.

      The Berne convention leaves a lot open to interpretation.

      Berne, Article 9, paragraph 2: It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.


      Rick Falkvinge (the leader of the Swedish Pirate Party) has written a great analysis of this on his blog -- unfortunately it's in Swedish :-/

      Rick Falkvinge: Sverige kan legalisera fildelning imorgon [falkvinge.com]

      There are a lot of nice quotes from various treaties that show just how much flexibility a signatory to a treaty is -- some of them in English.
  • Not an identical argument, but good and relevant nonetheless is Lessig's TED Talk on creativity versus law http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/187 [ted.com]
  • by lys1123 ( 461567 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:46AM (#21998782) Homepage
    As much as I would love to see this go through, the numbers make this look like a fringe movement to me. There are 349 members of the Riksdag (Swedish Parliament) and the article says only 13 MPs have come out in favor of this. Even though this originated from a member of the leading party, it is still a long ways from becoming more than rhetoric.

    I'll definitely be keeping my eyes open for updates on this, though.
  • by rob1980 ( 941751 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @10:03AM (#21999038)
    bork bork bork!
  • More Laws... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Synchis ( 191050 ) on Friday January 11, 2008 @01:04PM (#22001582) Homepage Journal
    In taking a queue from a great movie (Modified for context):

    Q: Is there a problem with our laws?
    A: Our laws are perfect.
    Q: Then why do people disobey them?
    A: Because our laws will only lead to one possible outcome.
    Q: What outcome?
    A: Revolution.

    And that leaves us with today: It's a revolution, starting slowly, one country at a time.

    People wont adhere to the laws that confine us. When people view what they do as perfectly natural, perfectly legal, it becomes harder and harder to keep them from doing it. Information *wants* to be free. And all the laws, all the digital locks, all the copyrights in the world will not stop it.

    So why not let it be free?

    Revolution my friends, mark my words.

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Working...