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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Your Rights Online

Swedish Court Clears Teen for Linking to MP3s 66

Posted by Hemos from the link-not-illegal dept.
mml writes "Earlier this year a 17 year old in Skövde, Sweden was charged with various offences relating to linking pirated MP3s. Yesterday (Monday 27. December 1999), the court in Göta, Sweden, decided that "it is legal to have links to pirated music on a homepage in Sweden if the links are to a server in a country where it isn't illegal to pirate music." (Metro 28. December 1999, p. 16) The article also says that the 17 year old was cleared mostly on the basis that the prosecution had not convinced the court that most of the links went to the US. Slashdot ran the original story and a followup in September. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Swedish Court Clears Teen for Linking to MP3s More

Swedish Court Clears Teen for Linking to MP3s

Comments Filter:
  • Could someone please post a translation?
  • Now we just need to find such a country to host
    all our MP3s until we can get IP laws overturned
    in our respective countries.
  • Another reason was that the prosecution had only charged him with copyright infringment, not with the other possiblel crime--to assist someone else in copyright infringment. Because he was never prosecuted for that the court did not consider wether he broke that law.

    Erik

    Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
  • I really don't think that people should get into trouble for linking to illegal material. The people that should get in trouble are the people that are making it available in the first place. They are the ones that are breaking all the laws. Go after them. Leave the little guy that's pointing at the doorway alone. This is like busting someone for telling someone where you can order a mod chip for your Playstation.

    -----
  • Could someone run this through the "Swedish Chef translator"? Maybe this should be a babelfish option!

    Eric
  • Well, between an asinine US ruling regarding illegal URI linking that has all the clout to become precedential, and a Swedish ruling that linking to MP3s *isn't* illegal, I see the beginnings of a lucrative market in "offshore" webhosting... :P

  • Another reason was that the prosecution had only charged him with copyright infringment, not with the other possiblel crime--to assist someone else in copyright infringment. Because he was never prosecuted for that the court did not consider wether he broke that law.


    No, this was only true in the first trial. In the appeal, this second "crime" was included in the charges, but the Court of Appeal freed the teen on all charges. Unanimosly.

    (Read the Dagens Nyheter article for more information.)

  • I wish we could see more decent rulings like this in the US.
  • oh comeon! The people who are linking to the material are helping propogating it and in a sense not only condoning the action but promoting it. They are encouraging illegal activity. Don't give me this IP bullshit, because we all know, only 1 in 1000 mp3/juarez kiddies even knows what IP stands for. People who sincerely believe that IP is immoral/wrong would really protest it within the confines of the law, not by resorting to an adolescent like behavior. It probably shouldn't be illegal to link to illegal material, but for all I care, it is completely wrong. Thus I could care less if they fined the kid a large sum of money. I really feel like going off into a long, long, long rant, however I also know I need to get a bunch of shit done, so I'm going to save the rant for another time.
  • A quick browsing of the article gave nothing about wether it mattered where the acual files were located. What the court *did* say was that lilnking is not a copyright violation, BUT you will probably have to pay a fee to the artist. Just like (in swedish law that is) you have to pay for playing a song on the radio or at a party where you charge people for entrance.

    Now this is an intresting distinction. The kid didn't violate the record companies rights, but perhaps the artist's. Lets see what the RC:s has to say about that!

    Personally I find this fair. Linking to music should be considered equal to broadcasting it. Nobody asks where a radio station gets their CD's, but they are expected to cough up some amount for playing the music. Not every station does, but the major ones finds it worth the cash to stay friens with the musicians.

    On a side note. One major swedish TV-channel refused to pay those bills a coupla years ago. (They broadcasted from the UK and claimed that swedish law did not apply) IIRC they gave up in face of the badwill.

  • grrr, pressing return submitted the last one =/

    at any rate, it is an absurd thought that any
    government should be able to prosecute someone
    on the basis that they are "linking" to something
    illegal.

    who even knows what is illegal these days? will
    i be fined for linking to Microsoft after they
    are declared and illegal monopoly??? *grin*
  • I don't think there is such a country.
    maybe we should buy a small island and declare independance!
    that way we have our own country where we can put our servers.
    we can also get our own TLD offcourse (every country has one) , what about .mp3 :-)
    that way we can set up a domain name for our favorite artists! e.g. www.metallica.mp3

    ---
  • But then the question remains: What countries have/have not passed laws concerning mp3s? I'm going to guess that I should probably know this by now, but since I don't, and it's an issue [now], what countries allow mp3s/haven't ruled against them? We need to collect a list of mp3-friendly countries.. where we can stick our mp3 servers ;-)


  • Unfortunately, you can bust someone for "pointing at the doorway." I'm no lawyer, but that's what charges of conspiracy, accesory before- and/or after-the-fact and contribution (e.g. contributing to the delinquency of a minor) are for. And then there are always "samaritan laws" (laws which make it a crime not to try and prevent a crime or accident or to neglect to come to the aid of someone in need.)

    Crazy stuff, kids.

  • International / Interstate Law (Score:4)

    by waldoj ( 8229 ) <waldo@@@jaquith...org> on Tuesday December 28, 1999 @06:50AM (#1439409) Homepage Journal
    This ruling is really interesting in that it exposes the huge problem of how international law is affected by the Internet.

    Obviously, there's no simple solution for problems like this. Sweden (as always :) is clearly in the right on this, and the decision appears to have been a wise one.

    But it won't be long until the tables are turned against us with similar rulings. (Violations of copyleft or something.) The only method of fixing this, or so it appears, is establishing firmer international copyright laws and forming governmental forces that extend beyond the borders of any one country.

    It's funny that US lawmakers seem to think that they can tax goods purchased over the Internet. That would involve all of them agreeing on a given method and value of tax, along with figuring out what state(s) get the revenue.

    If they can't agree on this, how will we ever get 180+ countries to agree on copyright law?
  • Personally I find this fair. Linking to music should be considered equal to broadcasting it.

    Wow.. interesting point, indeed. Being a musician myself, .. I still dunno how to feel about it. :)

    I would say, however, that a link is not a broadcast - the 'music' is still originating from the host. If the host doesn't want people linking to stuff, it should be easy enough to make all links dynamic, and change em every couple of hours, or to use a simple authentication system, to at least make it annoying to link to things.

    --
    Blue

  • here you go (Score:3)

    by / ( 33804 ) on Tuesday December 28, 1999 @06:53AM (#1439412)
    But I don't think it's any clearer.


    Hufrättee friede-a i pilutmål mut "moosikpuret"
    1999-12-27 19:39

    JÖNKÖPING
    Ett fisa fägee till puretkupiered moosik på Internet är inget legbrutt. Först
    måste-a det befises ett moosikee legts in utun tillstånd.

    Dee bedömningee gör Göta hufrätt, sum på måndegee friede-a ee 17-åring
    sum åtelets för ett sprida moosik oolegligt på Internet.

    Unledningee till ett dee 17-årige-a Felköpingspujkee på sin hemsida legt ut
    länker till puretkupiered moosik fer ett hun fille-a impunera på sina
    kemreter. Det fer fikteegt för hunum ett få så många besökere-a sum möjligt.
    Bork Bork Bork!
    Någut hun lyckedes fäl med, på bera några måneder besökte-a toosentels
    persuner hemsidun.

    - Fi trudde-a ett hufrättee skoolle-a fälla ynglingee, säger ee besfikee Lers
    Goosteffssun, fd för skifprudoocenternes intresseurguneeseshun IFPI, sum
    öferfäger ett försöka öferklega till Högsta dumstulee.

    Utun tillstånd


    - Fi lär ooss äfee ef såduna här dumer sum går ooss imut. I nästa fell
    kummer fi gifetfees ett fisa ett dee sum her legt in moosikffeelerna på
    Internet her gjurt det utun tillstånd, ooch då kummer puretee ett fälles i
    fert fell för medferkun, säger Lers Goosteffssun.

    IFPI, Interneshunel Federeshun ooff zee Phunugrephic Indoostry, her sum
    hoofoodooppgifft ett befeka de-a rättigheter sum upphufsrättslegee ger.
    Bork Bork Bork!
    Oorguniseshunee företräder itt femtiutel skifbuleg sum tillsemmuns
    sferer för curka 95 prucent ef dee sfenska skifmerknedee. De-a seneste-a
    åree her ellt mer puretkupiered moosik i så kellede-a MP3-filer sprideets
    ilektruniskt öfer nätet.

    - Jeg trur ett Internet på sikt kummer ett bli itt sooferänt tekniskt
    hjälpmedel för ett sprida bra moosik legligt. Mee det ter några år innun
    rättfisun hinner iffett teknikee.

    Dömts till fängelse-a


    Lers Goosteffssun säger till TT ett det under de-a seneste-a månederna kummit
    flera dumer, både-a i Ioorupa ooch i USA, där persuner dömts till fängelse-a för
    ett oolegligt ha sprideet moosik på Internet.

    I det ektooella målet fick besökerna på hemsidun ee hänfisneeng till oolika
    vebbedresser där ljoodffilerna funns. Moosikffeelerna pesserede-a eldrig
    17-åringens serfer utun gick durekt till besökerens detur. Därigenum her
    hun inte-a gjurt moosikee tillgänglig i dee mening sum efses i upphufslegee,
    skrifer hufrättee.

    Däremut, mener hufrättee, skoolle-a 17-åringee koonna bli irsättningsskyldeeg
    till moosikrättighetseenneheferna.

    - Fi her imellertid inga pluner på ett kräfa irsättning. Fi är inte-a ute-a
    iffter dee här pujkee sum persun, utun iffter företeelsee sum sådun, säger
    Lers Goosteffssun på IFPI.
    Cecileea Undersun Idvell/TT

  • Jönköping

    Showing the way to pirated music on the Internet is no crime. First it must be proved that the music was uploaded without permission.

    This is the judgement of Göta Hovrätt [second line court], that ruled a 17-year old not guilty of illegaly distributing music on the Internet.

    The reason for the 17-year old to post links to pirated music was to impress on his friends. It was important for him to get as many visitors as possible. Something he succeded well with, in just a few months thousands of persons visited the page.

    - We expected the court to convict the youth, says a dissapointed Lars Gustafsson, CEO of IFPI [Swedens RIAA], who considers appealing to Högsta Domstolen [Supreme Court, with some differances to the US concept].

    Without Permission
    - We learn from these rulings even if they go against us. In the next case we'll certainly show that the person who uploaded the music files to the Internet did so without permission, and then the pirat will be convicted al least for assisting, says Lars Gustafsson.

    IFPI, International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, has as it's main task to guard the rights the copyright law gives. The organization represents about 50 record companies that amongst themselves represent about 95 per cent of the Swedish record market. During the last years more and more pirated music has been spread electronically in so called MP3 files via the Internet.

    - I think the Internet will become a great technical tool to spread good music leagally. But it will be several years untill Justice catches up with technology.

    Scentenced to prison

    Lars Gustafsson says to TT [Swedish news wire service] that there's been several court rulings, both in Europe, and in the USA, where persons have been scentanced to prison for illegaly spreading music on the Internet.

    In the case in question the visitors to the page were reffered to several web addresses where the music files were located. The files never passed the 17-year olds computer but rather went directly to the visitors computer. Because of this he did not make the music availible in the spirit expressed in the copyright law, writes the court.

    On the other hand, the court says, the 17-year old could owe the copyright owners money [no mention of why].

    - We have no plans on demanding money. We're not after this boy, but rather the occurance [of pirated mp3s], says Lars Gustafsson at IFPI.

    Cecilia Anderson Edwall/TT

    Erik

    Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?

  • Translation of the Metro article to English (Score:4)

    by Xemu ( 50595 ) on Tuesday December 28, 1999 @07:01AM (#1439415) Homepage
    Bork. Bork. Bork.

    Quickie translation of the Metro article:

    THE COURTS OF APPEALS FREED IN CASE AGAINST "MUSIC PIRATE"
    1999-12-27 19:39

    JÖNKÖPING
    Showing the way to pirated music on the Internet is not a crime. It first has to be shown that the music has been published on the Internet without permission.

    This judgment is done by Göta hovrätt (court of appeals), which on Monday freed a 17-year old that had been charged with illegal distribution of music on the Internet.

    The reason that the 17-year old boy from Falköping, Sweden, had links to pirated music on his homepage was that he wanted to impress his friends. It was important to him to get as many visitors as possible. Something he did well, in just a few months time several thousand people visited the homepage.

    -We thought the court of appeals would convict the youth, said a disappointed Lars Gustafsson, president of the record industry federation IFPI, who thinks about appealing again to the Swedish Supreme Court.

    WITHOUT PERMISSION

    - We learn even from sentences like this that goes against us. Next time we will of course show that the person publishing the music on the Internet did so without permission, and then the pirate will be convicted at least for collaboration, says Lars Gustafsson.

    IFPI, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, is focused on enforcing the rights that the copyright law gives. The organisation represents more than 50 record companies that together has more than 95 percent of the Swedish music market. In later years, more and more pirated music in so called MP3-files has been distributed electronically on the net.

    - I think the Internet in time will become a superior technical aid to distribute good music legally. But it takes a few years before justice catches up to technology.

    SENTENCED TO PRISON

    Lars Gustafsson says to TT that it during the last few months several judgments have been passed, both in Europe and the USA, where people have been sentenced to prison for distributing music on the Internet.

    In the case at hand the visitors on the homepage got a pointer to different web sites where the sound files were stored. The music files never passed through the 17-year old's computer but was sent directly to the visitor's computer. Thus he did not publish the music in the sense that is meant in the Copyright law, says the Court of appeals.

    On the other hand, says the court, the 17-year old could be forced to pay damages to the music right owners.

    - We don't have any plans on asking for damages. We are not after this boy as a person, but the phenomenon as such, says Lars Gustafsson from IFPI.

    Cecilia Anderson Edwall/TT
  • This is supposed to be fun? To a person that does not know Swedish, is not drunk, and adult? I must admit inability to understand my fellow humans at times :-/


    Erik

    Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
  • "It's funny that US lawmakers seem to think that they can tax goods purchased over the Internet. That would involve all of them agreeing on a given method and value of tax, along with figuring out what state(s) get the revenue."

    Actually, sales of items sold through the internet should be taxed exactly as items sold through mail order.

  • This Swedish ruling contrasts sharply with what is happening in the U.S. For example, a couple posting information from copyrighted "secret" teachings of the Church of Latter Day Saints ("Mormons") were enjoined from posting the information. They were also enjoined by a clueless judge from posting links to the copyrighted material that were published on another web site.

    Just yesterday an article [slashdot.org] was published about the posting of so-called trade secrets with regard to DVD encryption. Among the many defendants, a large group of them are merely defendants because they posted links to places where you could get the encryption information.

    I suppose that we are just going to have to get rid of the First Amendment in the U.S. After all, if I tell you that you can get bootleg or illegal information by flying to Hong Kong and frequenting the back alleys of the computer sections, I am protected by the First Amendment. However, if I link to the webpages of those Hong Kong pirates...I'm not permitted to do so.

  • Hmmm (Score:2)

    by BMIComp ( 87596 )
    After a while, of free reign, where anybody can pirate music, some people are starting to look around and asking questions... and one major question is if anything is happening to prevent mp3 distribution.

    Well, there isn't much people can do. There have been a few attempt to prevent people from pirating music, but not many succesful ones. It seems that this person was to set an example, to show that people aren't allowed to pirate music. And, it didn't work either.

    here's where i start to go off-topic
    But, the RIAA has also tried to prevent people from pirating music. So far, they've just tried to sue companies, such as Diamond [slashdot.org], for releasing the Diamond Rio. They also have attempted to sue napster [cnet.com], since they have a client which "created a forum that lets online users trade unauthorized music files directly from their PCs".

    Of course, if you haven't heard, there is then SDMI, which is promoted by the RIAA [riaa.com]. SDMI stands for Secure Digital Music Initiative [sdmi.org]. It is an attempt to prevent piracy of music altogether.
  • That is apparently very messy in the US because some states require you to tell them how much you spent in mail order from other states/countries (though most don't and the state looks the other way.)

    Here in B.C., most items are bought via mail order are not taxed by the province, but some items are illegal to bring across provincial borders (tobacco products mostly) or are taxed because you have to register with the government anyways (car registration/insurance)

    Mind you, B.C. is the only place where the insurance board (ICBC) is also the DMV... :-(

  • The swedish article translated (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If this hasn't been posted already... if so, sorry. Om jag översatt som en kratta någonstans så rätta mig gärna. --- Music "pirate" freed in swedish court JÖNKÖPING To show the way to illegally copied music in the Internet is not a crime. It must be proved that the music itself has been published without permission. So says Göta Hovrätt (Court of Gothenburg), when it as of this monday freed a 17-year old who had been prosecuted for spreading music illegally on the Internet. The reason for the 17-year old boy from Falköping to publish links to illegally copied music was to impress his friends. It was important for him to get as many visitors to his homepage as possible. He was successful, in only a couple of months thousands of visitors browsed the webpage. - We believed that the court would convict this young man. So says Lars Gustafsson, CEO of the swedish subsection of International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, IFPI, who also considers appealing to the swedish supreme court. NO PERMISSION - We learn something even from verdicts that don't go our way. After this, we will of course show that however published the music on the Internet in the first place did that without any permission, and the link-publisher will the be convicted for assisting, says Lars Gustafsson. (Some talk about IFPI - left out...) - I think that the Internet will eventually be the supreme legal distribution channel for music. Law must first catch up with the new technology though. SENTECED TO PRISON Lars Gustafsson says that during the last couple of months, we've had several verdicts in both Europe and the US where people have been sentenced to prison for spreading illegal music on the Internet. (REALLY??? I haven't heard anything about that. - translators note.) In the case with the 17-year old the visitors of the webpage were given directions to other webpages where the actual files were availible for download. The music never passed through the young mans computer but were passed directly to the visitors computer. Therefore, he has not published the music in any copyright infringing way. On the other hand, the court says, the young man could very well be liable to pay damages to the copyright owners of the music. - We have no plans about asking for money. We're not after this particular young man, but the phenomenon as such, says Lars Gustafsson.
  • Of course they didn't prosecute him for assisting in copyright infringement. That's a shaky law. Of course lawyers are happy to threaten you until they're blue in the face about how they can ream you a new asshole for violating these "laws". They hope you'll roll over and settle. But stick to your guns and when the time actually comes to prosecute you for these crimes, charger are mysteriously dropped. Why? So the bogus law can remain on the books and be used again to intimidate others. Crazy laws can be easily passed ad infinitum without any legal review. They cannot be removed from the books, though, until they are challenged in court by someone being prosecuted under them. Gov't sanctioned monogamous marriage and corresponging tax breaks would crumble if a set of multiple marriage partners sued for the benefits (mormons, muslims, etc., which allow multiple marriage partners). Gov't will settle out of court before letting these cases go to trial. Why? Bigomy laws cannot withstand a 1st amendment freedom of religion challenge (gov't is sanctioning one type of religion's marriage over another). By settling out of court or dropping charges, the case never comes to trial. The law remains on the books and politicians can posture about how they're "supporting family values". And the lawa can be used to intimidate others at a later date.
  • THE COOoRTS OoF EPPEELS FREED IN CESE EGEINST "MOoSIC PIRETE" 1999-12-27 19:39

    JÖNKÖPING
    Shooeeng zee vey tu pureted mooseec oon zee Internet is nut a creeme-a. It furst hes tu be-a shoon thet zee mooseec hes beee poobleeshed oon zee Internet veethuoot permeessiun. Bork bork bork!

    Thees joodgment is dune-a by Göta hufrätt (cuoort ooff eppeels), vheech oon Mundey freed a 17-yeer oold thet hed beee cherged veet illegel deestribooshun ooff mooseec oon zee Internet. Um de hur de hur de hur.

    Zee reesun thet zee 17-yeer oold buy frum Felköpeeng, Svedee, hed leenks tu pureted mooseec oon hees humepege-a ves thet he-a vunted tu impress hees freeends. Um gesh dee bork, bork! It ves impurtunt tu heem tu get es muny feesiturs es pusseeble-a. Sumetheeng he-a deed vell, in joost a foo munths teeme-a seferel thuoosund peuple-a feesited zee humepege-a.

    -Ve-a thuooght zee cuoort ooff eppeels vuoold cunfeect zee yuoot, seeed a deeseppuinted Lers Goosteffssun, preseedent ooff zee recurd indoostry federeshun IFPI, vhu theenks ebuoot eppeeleeng egeeen tu zee Svedeesh Soopreme-a Cuoort. Um de hur de hur de hur.

    VITHOOoT PERMISSION

    - Ve-a leern ifee frum sentences leeke-a thees thet gues egeeenst us. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Next teeme-a ve-a veell ooff cuoorse-a shoo thet zee persun poobleeshing zee mooseec oon zee Internet deed su veethuoot permeessiun, und zeen zee purete-a veell be-a cunfeected et leest fur cullebureshun, seys Lers Goosteffssun. Bork bork bork!

    IFPI, zee Interneshunel Federeshun ooff zee Phunugrepheec Indoostry, is fucoosed oon inffurceeng zee reeghts thet zee cupyreeght lev geefes. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Zee oorguneeseshun represents mure-a thun 50 recurd cumpuneees thet tugezeer hes mure-a thun 95 percent ooff zee Svedeesh mooseec merket. Um de hur de hur de hur. In leter yeers, mure-a und mure-a pureted mooseec in su celled MP3-feeles hes beee deestribooted ilectruneecelly oon zee net. Um de hur de hur de hur.

    - I theenk zee Internet in teeme-a veell becume-a a soopereeur techneecel eeed tu deestriboote-a guud mooseec legelly. Bork bork bork! Boot it tekes a foo yeers beffure-a joosteece-a cetches up tu technulugy. Bork bork bork!

    SENTENCED TO PRISON

    Lers Goosteffssun seys tu TT thet it dooreeng zee lest foo munths seferel joodgments hefe-a beee pessed, but in Ioorupe-a und zee USA, vhere-a peuple-a hefe-a beee sentenced tu preesun fur deestribooting mooseec oon zee Internet. Um de hur de hur de hur.

    In zee cese-a et hund zee feesiturs oon zee humepege-a gut a pueenter tu deefffferent veb seetes vhere-a zee suoond feeles vere-a stured. Bork bork bork! Zee mooseec feeles nefer pessed thruoogh zee 17-yeer oold's cumpooter boot ves sent durectly tu zee feesitur's cumpooter. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp! Thoos he-a deed nut poobleesh zee mooseec in zee sense-a thet is meunt in zee Cupyreeght lev, seys zee Cuoort ooff eppeels. Um gesh dee bork, bork!

    Oon zee oozeer hund, seys zee cuoort, zee 17-yeer oold cuoold be-a furced tu pey demeges tu zee mooseec reeght oovners. Um gesh dee bork, bork!

    - Ve-a dun't hefe-a uny pluns oon eskeeng fur demeges. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Ve-a ere-a nut effter thees buy es a persun, boot zee phenumenun es sooch, seys Lers Goosteffssun frum IFPI.

    ----
  • I just wish Sweden was as rational in all areas but that is offtopic for now. If you are connected and it becomes illegal to link to certain sites in your country, there are several ways to circumvent such nonsence:

    Link to a site in a country where it is legal to link to the site in question. (keep shell accounts in as many countries as possible) You could also choose to not link at all and instruct the user to copy/paste the URL. Ofcourse if there is anything 'illegal' to be linked word travels as fast as the Internet and it will not be possible to control. The very notion of applying law as we know it to information is absurd!

    Wish all well that are in the jurisdiction of the California court and the DVD case. Ofcourse we in Europe laugh as the US just keeps falling deeper and deeper to protect a few special interests while neglecting national interests. Let us hope that this ruling and many that will follow will show the US they don't own the world.

  • Bad Decision (Score:3)

    by dcs ( 42578 ) on Tuesday December 28, 1999 @07:29AM (#1439430)
    Frankly, this is not a good decision. What ought to have been ruled is that LINKING is not illegal, since it is not an actual copy of the content, and thus cannot possibly have broken a copyright license.


    OTOH, I won't say I'm happy because the decision offers a loophole through which conduct piracy. It's not only illegal, it's not ethical. Let me put it this way: to illegaly copy a song is equivalent to take GPL code and violate it's license (by making it proprietary, for instance).

  • Some courts have made linking to certain materials illegal. But what, precisely, is the illegality? For example might this be illegal?: an example link [slashdot.org].

    However, would the same "link" be illegal if the HTML was omitted, for example: http://www.slashdot.org/ .

    Clearly, there are serious First Amendment issues in the first case. However, the issues are even clearer in the second case. For example, if the second case were true, then it should also be illegal to print lists of such URLs in a print publication.

  • Several countries in South America, Aisa and Eastern Europe do not recconise IP laws. Did it ever occur that posting on a private access server, while maybe not legal in many lands 'by the book' is 100% acceptable as these IP laws are unenforcable in this context. In most lands an unenforcable statute is an 'illegal law'.

  • Hmmm... (Score:1)

    by jsm ( 5728 )
    So let's set up a page "collecting evidence of horrible copyright violations on the Internet." Just to prove how dastardly these MP3 miscreants have become, we can prove how prevalent the violations are by cataloging and linking to all MP3 anywhere, with a fully indexed and searchable interface. We wouldn't actually have the MP3 files on our site. Kind of like a fundamentalist site linking to all porn everywhere.
  • It's good to see that somewhere on this Planet they still have a bit Sense of Justice left.
  • The gambling industry already has the "lockdown" on the offshore hosting. I believe that there are multiple "casino" servers in the island of Jamaica, where they can service people in the states or anywhere that prohibits gambling. Its to my understanding that this is perfectly legal.

    -sorry you can't use that port, Windows is already screwing my Back Orifice!!
  • This is supposed to be fun?

    Yeah. It _is_ fun. The 'translation' is supposed to be a more english spelling of the swedish pronounciation; i e when an american tries to read it out loud, it is supposed to actually sound somewhat like it should.

    Imagine the average english speaking guy read the words 'musiken' and 'moosikee': it's pretty obvious which will sound better..

  • Lets say I have a link to a web site:

    www.bikesrock.com

    and the owner of that domain sells it to a porno company in Singapore that makes it into a biker chick porno web site with kiddie porn on it. Now I have a link to a kiddie porno site. If I don't check my links for a few months, then I could be breaking a law through no actions of my own. Any law like that would be dumb.

    They could change a site to have the text of a copyrighted book. Bam, I've just broken a copyright law.

    Boy, that makes it easy to frame people. Let's just change a site that someone or a company is linked to to something that breaks the law to make them a criminal.

    Laws like that defeat the purpose of hypertext on the internet.


  • Sweden is way out of bounds when it comes to its support of a 'war on drugs'. Booze is a bit expensive but otherwise from all the people i know from there, your country is quite progresive in many major areas such as non censorship and freedom of speech and general freedoms most countries only pretend to have.

  • In Michigan, it's ``you're required to report it all, and we really really mean it.'' I know that some larger online/mailorder places have deals with certain states to collect sales tax for states where they do not do business if they are selling to a resident of that state. I know the states would love for all retailers to do this.

    Congress could actually exercise its constitutional power (``regulate interstate commerce'', as opposed to all the other powers they seem to think they have but should be given to the states) and require online/mailorder retailers to do this in all situations. I imagine they probably will as online retailers start picking up more and more steam. I would not be opposed to this specifically, since it is not an additional ``Internet tax'', just a better way of collecting the taxes. However, any tax specifically on goods or services purchased online would meet with my and many others' strong resistance.

    As for international sales, aren't duties and tariffs such already supposed to be collected, regardless of the method of sale?

  • This may very well be a strawman, but I think not.

    My question is: say it's illegal to link to MP3z or warez, because it is said to be, in effect, distributing illegal music or software

    Is it also then illegal to say that in Grand Rapids, Michigan, you can find prostitutes on S. Division, because that would be (in effect) soliciting prostitutes?

    Just a thought. :-)

  • Nah, it has to be proven that you knew (or at least should've known) that the link was pointing at illegal material in order to frame you.

  • If they can't agree on this, how will we ever get 180+ countries to agree on copyright law?

    They(*) don't have to. They are already implementing TRIPS [eu.int] which will do it for them.

    (*) - Here "They" refers to the EU, but I'm pretty sure the Digital Millenium Copyright Act will bring the US into compliance as well.

  • ..seems like the big bad wolf, willing to do anything to get it's prey.

    They have been running a big advertising campaign in TV to stop pirates ("Music Pirates are punished"), and they are using young people as agents to catch the "criminals".

    In one case, their agent called a DJ several times to get him to make a copy of a CD. After days of pressure, he did lend out the CD, only to be fined 2,200 USD. (16,000 DKK).

    According to danish law, you can't set up a crime like that. IFPI does not consider what they did illegal activity. The organization is also raiding student buildings, schools and bars where young people hang out. Just goes to show that they hunt the small(est) fish, not the big criminals.

  • I fail to understand why he should have been charged since he was linking to anothers' work. OK, IANAL, however, as I understand it, by uploading an mp3, a user is "creating" material. Someone linking to that material is citing a reference to an existing work, the intellectual property of another person. If I write an article, it is perfectly legal for me to cite a reference to "further reading" in an appedix or footnote. Is it not therefore equivalent to create a hyperlink on a web page?

    Jonathan.
  • In your marriage example, or in any other similar case really, could the claimants (eg mormons) force the government into court by refusing to settle, or does this cause complications? It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone did force the government into court over the silly laws.
  • Comparing the GPL to licenses for other types of intellectual property is unfair. What almost nobody in the world seems to realize is that software is not in the same class of intellectual property as a painting, photograph or song. Think about it: a compiled executable is (in a loose sense) an implementation of one or more algorithms. An algorithm is a set of very specific instructions for manipulating some data.

    Since algorithms are invented by people and require creativity to invent, it seems logical that they should copyrightable. But not programs. Why not? Because a program is an implementation of some algorithms, and not an algorithm in itself!

    To draw a simple analogy--a painter copyrights his painting. He does not copyright the canvas it's painted on, nor does he copyright the paints he used to render it upon the canvas. If a software company wants to copyright their software, that's fine with me because I will always find a way to modify, copy and to whatever else I want to the software without even breaking the license agreement or breaking any laws, because the laws are treating the software as if it's an idea! (If you're not convinced of this email me and I will go over it with you in detail.) I'm free to do this because the software publisher has attempted to copyright the medium and not the idea. I never even need to consider piracy.

  • Ahh, so thats what they used to read the 'Swedish messages' the last time I went over the pond. It definately sounded like whomever was telling us the safty instructions didn't know a word of Swedish, but was reading phonetics or somesuch. Hilarious.

    Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
  • (I'll pretend you don't know this, but if you actually do, you can pretend too -- it'll be fun.)

    It's all in the spirit of the Swedish Chef [almac.co.uk] of Jim Henson's Muppets fame. The enchefferizer is supposed to take English text and make it sound like the Swedish Chef [almac.co.uk] were butchering it with his (hilarious if you're a Merkin) accent [almac.co.uk]. To learn more, there's always alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork.
  • If I libel Joe Blow and you link to my libelous site, are you libeling? If I use copyrighted material without permission on my site and you link to it, are you in violation of copyright? If a search engine returns a link to a DVD hack site, has it violated trade secrets? If I link to ToysRUs and they are hit by your class-action lawsuit, will you name me in the suit? If you mention to me a site that is run by the mob(lets call it a verbal link), can your car be impounded under RICO? If I've lusted after my neighbor's wife in public on my page, and you link to it, will you go to hell?

    These questions point out the ridiculous nature of allegations that a link equates to responsibility for content seen in this and the DVD hack case...

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close