Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Crowdsourced Finnish Copyright Initiative Meets Signature Requirement

Unknown Lamer posted 1 year,2 days | from the serve-the-people dept.

Your Rights Online 166

First time accepted submitter Koookiemonster writes "The Finnish citizens' initiative site (Finnish/Swedish only) has fulfilled the required amount of signatures for the third initiative since its founding. This means that the Parliament of Finland is required to take the Common Sense in Copyright initiative into processing. The initiative calls for removal of copyright infringement as a crime, reducing violations by private individuals to a misdemeanor." Torrent Freak notes "This makes Finland the first country in the world in which legislators will vote on a copyright law that was drafted by citizens."

cancel ×

166 comments

Lobbying lawyers are also citizens... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44359767)

It would be really surprising if there are no "eastereggs" written by lobbying lawyers in there...

Re:Lobbying lawyers are also citizens... (4, Informative)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359793)

It would be really surprising if there are no "eastereggs" written by lobbying lawyers in there...

The proposal in its entirety is fully-accessible online and can be read by anyone. Also, it's not editable by everyone, it's not a wiki -- lobbyists can't just pop in there and add or edit stuff as they please.

Re:Lobbying lawyers are also citizens... (3, Insightful)

smitty_one_each (243267) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359971)

Stand by for this exercise in self-government to be crushed in 3 ... 2 ...

Re:Lobbying lawyers are also citizens... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44360359)

So, it's written by citizens, just other citizens?

I think it would be more remarkable to discuss which laws were written by non-citizens. Neglecting post-war reconstruction efforts, of course.

U.S., cough, international pressure much? (4, Interesting)

tibit (1762298) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359773)

I wonder how much U.S., cough, international pressure will they get so that there's no chance of any such law ever passing. Should this initiative succeed in Finland, there's no knowing what other countries may pick up on the idea - and that would really be disastrous to the public image of the media cartel. Note that I specifically said "disastrous to the public image". As far as I can tell, it'd actually improve the bottom lines of the cartel, but they themselves seem to pretend otherwise. It's an industry driven by a bunch of control freaks, it's not even about money anymore.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (0, Troll)

ScentCone (795499) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359809)

As far as I can tell, it'd actually improve the bottom lines of the cartel

Please explain why that would be.

It's an industry driven by a bunch of control freaks, it's not even about money anymore.

Yeah, like wedding photographers, jewelry artists, poets, screenwriters, game producers, web programmers, novelists, small film makers - nothing but control freaks!

The most freakishly control-minded people I seem to meet are those who want "control" over the people who create stuff because they entertainment on their own terms (meaning, free), rather than on the terms that the person who has created it has offered their work.

The people who create things want to control how they bring their work to market. You want to control the people who create things. Who's the control freak?

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (3, Insightful)

Ragzouken (943900) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359855)

no one wants to control people who create things; nobody is trying to force the people who create things to do anything. they just want to remove the control over people who reproduce what other people have created.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (4, Insightful)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359893)

I don't know, I'd kind of like it if those content creating people would just let me buy/use their products in my country. I live in Canada for frig sakes and I can't subscribe to Hulu and get the crappy watered down version of netflix without a proxy server or VPN. It's like they go out of their way to limit their markets to stop us from giving them our money. I can't count the number of times I've clicked on a link in an article to some news story or a youtube music video and received the "Content not available in your region".

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

Salgak1 (20136) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360001)

Of course, the obvious reaction:

Blame Canada [youtube.com]

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360083)

I was just thinking how ironic it would be if that link didn't work. I use to be a big south park fan, so I've seen it.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360029)

They don't want you to be one of their clients.

Fortunately it's not a problem as long as you don't need them to be one of your providers.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360153)

Fortunately it's not a problem as long as you don't need them to be one of your providers.

That's easy to say when you're not the one surfing the net and come across several news articles a day that consist of blocked videos. I remember once CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) posted an article with a link to a youtube video that just said "Content not available in your region" The article was only up on CBC for about 20 minutes before they corrected it, but it was still kind of a slap in the face when our own public news corporation is posting stuff their supposed audience can't watch because we live north of the border.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360535)

You can blame our Canadian media companies, they're the ones licensing things for decades and preventing Netflix from getting movies and TV shows.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360839)

The point still stands, the media cartel is preventing us from getting content and forcing us to find alternate means of consuming something we otherwise might pay for. I pay for Netflix, but only because I can get a free proxy so I have the American version. If I had the crappy Canadian version, which I did initially and canceled, I wouldn't bother paying for Netflix and would just pirate the content I want to watch. Which is what I do when I can't find something locally at a reasonable price.

To me it doesn't matter if it's the American or Canadian media cartel, they both do the same thing and it's ridiculous to stop people from paying for something they want when you're trying to make money by selling a product, but only to certain people. There are a lot of other products this is done with.

At one point I wanted to by a dedicated media server I found one I liked at Best Buy, but was disappointing with the specs on it. I looked it up on-line to compare it with other similar machines and found there was an american version of the same system, except it actually had good specs. The Canadian version came with 2 GB ram, and a 250 GB hard drive, the American version was 8 GB ram and a 1 TB hard drive for basically a $100 more. They wouldn't ship the American version to Canada and for awhile I contemplated having it shipped to my mother in South Carolina and having her ship it to me.

Another example, Amazon's Kindle Fire. My brother and sister wanted to get one for my step-mother, quite a while ago, and had planned on ordering one from the states until I pointed out that you couldn't use the Amazon app store or the network the Fire ran on in Canada.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1, Redundant)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359907)

But why should someone who creates something not be able to control how it's used? That seems pretty basic. It wouldn't exist at all if not for them.

See, the problem I have with copyright reformers is that copyright is a quite well thought out piece of law (relative to most, anyway). It gives people who create things an optional tool that they don't have to use. It allows everything from Hollywood movies to open source software. If someone felt their work was best given away for free, they could certainly do that, or they could use a creative commons style license and many people do.

Now the situation we have is that a whole generation of people doesn't have any respect for other peoples work. They feel they deserve free movies, music and software because "zomg industry!!!" (reality check - the content industries are quite small relative to others, like the tech or energy industries). They feel that people who create things should have fewer options than today, less freedom to decide how their work is used, because gosh isn't it annoying and inconvenient when you want something and can't afford it?

Much though I dislike the way the US government puts political pressure on other countries, Finland does not, last time I checked, have an equivalent to Hollywood. Probably its people would benefit if the government just shrugged and said, well, we don't create much relative to other people so why bother enforcing their copyrights? Might as well take what we can for free! Party time!!

The problem is if everyone does that, you kill the goose that laid the golden egg. The idea that nobody who creates movies or writes software cares about money is naive and childish. People do create less when they are unable to earn an income doing so.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44359955)

First of all, it's not the creators who have the control.
Secondly, it's the punishments that go overboard.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360147)

First of all, you're wrong, the creators have the control. I own the copyrights on my works and I control them. I can, however, choose to enter into a contract and allow someone else to publish them (although I still own them) or I can sell them outright. Well, I have to admit I'm a bit wrong - *copyright infringers* attempt to usurp that control.

The punishments *can* be harsh, but typically it's simply an order to quit and provide restitution.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (4, Insightful)

Ragzouken (943900) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359959)

Maybe there are good reasons to give people control over intellectual property, but I don't get why anyone would think that's obvious or some inherent right or entitlement. Why should making something prevent other people from making the same thing with their own resources? When you introduce an idea into popular culture you are planting a seed on someone else's soil. Then, like Monsanto, you are saying "you aren't allowed to use this plant without my permission, or in ways I don't approve of". It clearly doesn't have the same strength as physical property, and I can't take it as obviously something a creator is entitled to.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360175)

Does this include your employer (or a client) simply deciding they don't want to deal with you anymore and using your output without any recompense? If not, please explain why an author doesn't deserve the same type of protection you do on their livelihood.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (4, Informative)

green1 (322787) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360445)

I believe the authors should get exactly the same type of protection I do on their livelihood. I get paid hourly, once I have completed an hour of work I will never be paid for that same hour again. Why should it be different for someone who makes something copyrighted? I am not able to obtain any future royalties on the ethernet cables I install today, and the end customer gets full control of them to do whatever they want. They will never have to compensate me further if they want to move them, re-terminate them, sell them, or put data signals accross them. Once I've installed them, and they've paid me, we're done and I no longer have any say whatsoever in what they do.
Authors created work for thousands of years before copyright was invented. I don't see them stopping even if copyright were to vanish altogether.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | 1 year,2 days | (#44361169)

There are alternative models. My favorite is the kickstarter approach:

1. Studio makes a trailer for their potential awesome movie (Movie in this example, it works for other media too).
2. Studio announces production cost.
3. People pledge their money towards production, considering how much they want to see the movie, how much they've liked things by the studio in the past, and so on.
4. If enough people pledge, the studio takes their money and makes the film. They have an incentive to do a good job, because if they churn out rubbish no-one is going to contribute to their next project.

The content gets made, the people get paid, and no copyright is required at all.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

ctr2sprt (574731) | 1 year,2 days | (#44361221)

That's a great idea, but the problem is that the cost of digital reproduction is near enough zero as makes no difference. If you publish an e-book, and I buy a copy for $5, why would anyone else buy a copy when they could get one for free from me? Some people would do it out of habit. Others would do it because they feel it's the honest thing to do. But most people would not. I've got to imagine that it would be really hard to make a living this way.

You'd probably have to switch to a Kickstarter-like model. The prospective author uploads a high-level summary of what he wants to write. People who want to read it donate a couple bucks. The author then writes something and releases it for free. This would probably work, at least in a sense, but it'd be hard to fund longer works this way. You'd get a lot of short stories, novellas, and serials. I've got nothing against those formats, but I do like to have some diversity.

Philosophically, we're both in total agreement. I really only have a problem with how it would work (or not) in practice. I think a more realistic solution would be to have copyright, just like we do now, but with a drastically reduced term. Like, one year by default, up to a maximum of five years if you apply for an extension each year. If you can't break even on your copyrighted work in less than five years, you're never going to. If people are willing to wait for your copyright to expire rather than buying now, your work isn't important enough to deserve protection.

Yup, it's called "Redundancy notice". (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44360451)

You also don't get paid for each time the company reuses the work you did for them: you get paid the once. You want paying each time a copy is made? They will refuse. You have to create more work to get paid more money.

But the "copyright creators" do not want to perform to the same standard, even when they bring up that standard as a method to "prove" that they deserve and are entiteld to special treatment.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44360471)

Thats exactly how it does work for almost everyone who isn't an author of some description.

When you stop working for an employer they continue to make use of what you produced without further recompense. I don't see why anyone would be confused about that, it's fairly well known.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

jalopezp (2622345) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360497)

It does, yes. But this is why you should never do any work before signing a good employment contract. Information does not work like that because anyone can copy it and many people can enjoy it. You can't make a contract with everyone in the world before you produce your art. But this does not mean that you can force them to pay for something that is intrinsically free.

Also, it is definitely intrinsically free. The only reason you can charge for it is because an artificial monopoly (copyright) has been legally created so that an artificial shortage can be introduced into the market. This is not necessarily a bad thing - but we should certainly be clear about where natural rights are.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44361025)

Most of us get payed for our time, If I put in 40 hours I get payed 40 hours, I don't get to come back in a year 'hey you're still using that computer/backupsystem/site/... I set up, that'll be x$$ or else.

I'm pretty damn sure that most musicians, writers and actors put in nowhere near the 8 hours a day 5 days a week that everyone else puts in.

Should there a mechanism for creative people to get payed? Sure, BUT the current situation with copyright is nowhere near a reasonable balance. The original 7 years with a possibility for 7 years extention was pretty reasonable. The current life of author+70 years is flatout abusive.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44361171)

ah, but that's the thing:
- the artist creates the original performance, and quite often a recording of it
- they pirate is using his own resources (bandwith, cpu power and diskspace) to make his own copy
consequently by that argument it's the pirate that owns the copy

Before recording devices became available, copying a performance required you to have the skills necesary to perform it.
Then recording became available and suddenly creating copies of a performance no longer required music/acting/writing skills, just big expensive machines.
Now technology has moved on yet again, and those big expensive machines are everyday devices we carry in our pockets and bags, making a copy of a performance is childsplay (literally)

That the price for a copy of performance will drop is inevitable, the genie is out of the bottle, the entertainment industries need to learn to deal with it, if not... they'll inevitably perish.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359973)

But why should someone who creates something not be able to control how it's used? That seems pretty basic. It wouldn't exist at all if not for them.

Because no one - no one, not a single person on earth, ever - creates in a vacuum. Everyone steals from everyone, gets inspiration from everyone else, and so much content gets created that it is guaranteed that two people will create very similar art. As such, copyright is by definition an inhibition of the creative process. For a real-life example, see the lawsuits about red double-decker buses in front of a black-and-white Big Ben.

People do create less when they are unable to earn an income doing so.

Some of the most fun I had with music was attending house concerts a friend of mine was throwing. These people will keep singing with or without copyright. Some of the best pictures I've seen come from amateur photographers. They'll keep doing it with or without copyright. Same for painting, games and any other art form.

You're mistaking getting rich with making money, creating art with selling art, and that less is always worse. Even if 90% of all artists stopped creating, there'd still be more art around than you can ever consume.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

TheP4st (1164315) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360331)

As such, copyright is by definition an inhibition of the creative process. For a real-life example, see the lawsuits about red double-decker buses in front of a black-and-white Big Ben.

I believe I know the image you are referring to, but I have never heard about a lawsuit in relation to it so I got curious as well as disturbed at the thought of the ridiculousness artists are faced with, sadly my search-fu failed me in my attempts to learn more. Can you provide a citation?

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44360041)

So, should Ford be able to control your car after you buy it?

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360185)

No normally. But if you use it as a template, manufacture clones and sell them, yes.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

TheP4st (1164315) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360599)

So, should Ford be able to control your car after you buy it?

Haven't you noticed? A shocking amount of people believe in principles where that would be the case, and no arguments can ever sway them. The problem is that the believers in that principle actually think that a world where Ford controls your car after you but it isn't that bad after all. Perhaps to them, it is even preferable?

The Believer might be a minority in pure numbers but they are a vast majority in pure monetary interest and influence. The giant corporations and their executives largely are leeches creators who give a piece of themselves -their soul if you are so inclined- to create a piece of art, be it a movie, song or drawing that make you and I stop; think and evolve emotionally.

Genuine art is created by people for the people, deviate from this and we end up with east block propaganda posters and Justin Bieber being the epitome of art. That is not a world I want to be part of, do you?

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44360079)

Now the situation we have is that a whole generation of people doesn't have any respect for other peoples work.

They have heard free music on radio and free shows and movies on TV all their lives. Is it a wonder they think those are free? Creator cannot release something for everyone to consume and then take it back and ask money. When something is released, it is free from then on and no law is going to change it. Either something is released or it is not, there is no middle ground.

'Release' means setting something free. If creators don't want others to copy their work, they can't let anyone hear or see it. Simple as that. Good luck selling music no one has heard before.

"People do create less crap when they are unable to earn an income doing so." FTFY. I can live without blockbuster movies, trendy TV-shows and with only the music made for free. Entertainment "industry" can go fuck themselves and get real jobs.

One question: is art really art if it is made for money? Someone forced themselves to push out a turd just to get money, not because he really liked to do it.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360249)

This is about the most shallow and lame excuse for reaching for justification I have ever read. Are you seriously so thin of mind that you think music is the only thing that is effected by copyright? Does that thinness extend to the inability to understand that those producing "free" music and videos are just creating promotional pieces in hopes of generating a paying audience?

"Someone forced themselves to push out a turd just to get money, not because he really liked to do it."

Nice straw justification for the dehumanization of the artist attempting to make a living at art so you can live with yourself for ripping them off.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44360419)

Does that thinness extend to the inability to understand that those producing "free" music and videos are just creating promotional pieces in hopes of generating a paying audience?

I don't know, does a child sing in hopes to get money? Because that is art at its purest form. Expressing yourself, nothing more.

Asking money for self expression is an abomination that will only work with artificial limits using technology and building walls around concert stages and movie theaters. Now that the technology based limits are nullified, only walls around live shows remain. You should be happy the walls still work and will continue to work.

You can label it shallow and lame all you want, but I can imagine a world without immaterial possessions. Can you?

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44360189)

Copyright was to last xx years, then the work enters public domain.

Where's Steamboat Willie? Where's the original Tron? Where's any Disney movie? They keep re-releasing them every 10 years or so with minor tweaks that they then claim are *new releases* in the eyes of copyright law, granting them another decade to rape/pillage/plunder.

Return copyright duration to it's original duration, watch thousands upon thousands of works enter the public domain, watch as people are allowed to sing happy birthday in public without paying a license fee. Watch as the movie / music industries sputter in indignation over the *theft* of their illegal profits...

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

TheP4st (1164315) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360265)

But why should someone who creates something not be able to control how it's used? That seems pretty basic

It do seem basic, however do you really believe that for example Britney Spears, RHCP or any upcoming artist signed to a label by contract have any control of what they create? If you do, then we'd better not continue debating the topic as we obviously live in parallel universes and we'll never be able to even begin to understand each others differentiating opinions.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (2)

silanea (1241518) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360363)

The subtle point of the Initiative that seems to be lost on you is that there exists a whole spectrum of possible implementations of copyright law in between the quasi-Hitlerian approach taken by Hollywood and the rest of the high-volume industry and the free-for-all approach envisioned by fourteen year olds in the comment section on TPB. Making sure artists are compensated for their work is one thing. Very few people seriously argue against that. But allowing the monopolisation of culture for the lifetime of several generations? Bankrupting or imprisoning people for sharing a few songs or films? We treat arsonists, drunk drivers and drug dealers less harshly than the punishments some of the high-profile filesharing cases resulted in.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360563)

What you and the broader industry keep assuming is that there is only one model, 'create stuff to get paid' which also frequently assumes some sort of royalty model for getting paid in perpetuity for some nice thing made a ludicrously long time ago. There is a good reason this sticks in the craw of so many people. The rest of the world that labors and toils for the infrastructure that allows society to live doesn't get to be paid in perpetuity for work they've done. They 'get paid to do work' and that pay (generally speaking) happens once per unit of work. There is nothing today that prevents artists from 'getting paid to create' instead of 'creating to get paid'. We live in a kickstarter era, if you have proof of talent you can take that to the market and simply ask them, 'will you pay me to make a thing?' And if so, they will get as much money as the market will support in advance. There is then NO REASON for them to be paid in perpetuity for that thing every time somebody copies/references/remixs it. They've gotten the money the market wanted to give them already. It should now be free to the rest of the world.

My fundamental problem with all IP law (copyrights and patents etc.) is that it presumes to dictate to people how they can and cannot use or configure their own property. If I have a storage medium, no government or corporation should be able to tell me that the way I order the bits on it magically makes it legal or illegal. Similarly for patents, if I want to use my tools and my raw materials to make something, the fact that somebody else thought of it first should be immaterial. And don't bring me any bullshit about innovation. More innovation is being stifled by patent law than buoyed by it, and indeed the winners are often not the small fry inventors but the conglomerates who get wind of their work and have both faster R&D and bigger legal departments. Patents go to people with the best patent lawyers, not necessarily actual inventors.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (5, Interesting)

Miamicanes (730264) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360657)

> But why should someone who creates something not be able to control how it's used?

Because there's a blurry line that, once crossed, transforms a creative work from a mere commercial expression into part of society's cultural tapestry. Once that happens, you could argue that the creators should still have the right to profit from it for a term, but that the original creators themselves no longer truly "own" it in any moral or cultural sense. It has become bigger than they are.

Some examples:

* Disney's "Victory through Air Power" and "Song of the South". Walt Disney himself sought to personally destroy every copy of VtAP after World War II. He failed only because a lost copy was sitting in a Department of Defense warehouse. The film, viewed today, is positively horrifying... a thousand times more when it sinks in that it's a *DISNEY* film showing yellow planes with slanted eyes divebombing American ships. It's definitely not a cartoon to show little kids for entertainment. BUT, it's one of the most potent records we have today for understanding the cultural background of America's involvement in World War II. It vividly illustrates it in ways that are chillingly real because it's so over the top. The era's newsreels are so sanitized, they almost qualify as comedy. But a *DISNEY* film playing to blatant racial stereotypes? Whoah. That's big. It makes it really sink in how totally Americans were into World War II locally.

Under Berne-inspired copyright law, Disney (as the film's creator) has the absolute right to destroy it. ***SHOULD*** they?

* Disney's "Song of the South". This has always been a problematic film for Disney. It was controversial when it opened in theaters because it talked about one of America's most culturally-taboo topics at the time. No, I don't mean race relations... I'm talking about (*shudder*) /divorce/. Yep, that's right. For anybody who's never actually seen the original movie from start to finish, it's about a kid from Atlanta who gets sent to live with his grandparents on their farm in the rural south while his parents go through a messy divorce out of sight. Everything else was subplot. Complicating things even MORE for Disney, some of their most popular and enduring characters, memes, and marketable songs came from that very movie. Hell, half of Frontierland's characters and rides were inspired by it.

Under Berne-inspired copyright law, Disney has the absolute right to destroy it, or at least prevent anybody from watching it commercially. ***SHOULD*** they? ESPECIALLY when you consider that even the original high-ranking NAACP members who complained about it later admitted that they'd never actually WATCHED it prior to issuing their condemnation, and conceded that while they weren't really *happy* with it, their original gut reactions were a bit overblown.

* Star Wars. The holiest of holy films that defined the childhoods of Generation X... and George Lucas' determination to screw with it to wring a few more bucks out of the original (or at least, the current copy re-edited and re-assembled from original footage). Nobody will argue that Lucas shouldn't have the right to make "improvements" with each new release... but should he ALSO have the right to suppress distribution (even when he's compensated fairly) of the original version? Remember, we aren't just talking about a mere movie. Star Wars (oops, "Episode IV: A New Hope") practically DEFINED the childhoods of millions of American (and eventually, European, Asian, and other) kids. If the Earth were about to be hit by a planet-killing asteroid, a rocket ship were about to leave earth with a few dozen survivors to keep the human race alive, and they had to choose between a copy of Star Wars (the original) and the bible, I put the odds at at least 40-50% that the rocket would be taking off with a copy of Star Wars on board.

Under Berne-inspired copyright law, George Lucas has the absolute right (assuming he hasn't sold it to Disney) to refuse to ever license the original for public viewing again. Given the cultural impact his movie had, and the fact that an average X'er can probably quote more lines from Star Wars than from the Old Testament, should he *really* be allowed to? Or can we agree that Star Wars is now as much a part of western civilization's cultural tapestry and collective mythos, even more than Aesop's fables, the Grimm Fairy Tales, and the works of Shakespeare. Star Wars is probably the most potent argument for some form of cultural/copyright Eminent Domain being used to protect the very few works that achieve this elite status from casual commercial destruction or neglect.

Similar arguments can be made about things like the film of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. Its owners certainly deserve to profit from its commercial use, if only because they spent the money (back when film wasn't cheap) filming what was likely to have been just another public speech by someone who was newsworthy, but (at the time) non-deified. But can anyone -- King's family included -- be truly said to literally OWN it in any moral, ethical, or even historical sense? Even indifferent American high school students sleeping through the most sanitized version of semi-fictional American History see that speech at some point. It has clearly taken on a life of its own. But there are some who'd argue that copyright law does, and SHOULD, give the film's owner the absolute, inalienable right to do with it as he pleases, including destroy it. They're wrong, at least subjectively... and if they ARE technically legally right, then we MUST change copyright law to reflect that at least some works become part of a greater culture that transcends mere commercial ownership.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | 1 year,2 days | (#44361207)

I'd also add a more modern classic: The Church of Scientology has a history of using copyright to silence any criticism of the books central to the organisation. Anyone who quotes or even paraphrases from the books in order to point out the sillyness within faces the risk of a lawsuit - and even if they can successfully claim fair use, the legal fees can easily drive an individual into financial ruin. How much control should they have?

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | 1 year,2 days | (#44361127)

"But why should someone who creates something not be able to control how it's used?"

Enforceability. Laws don't come free - it costs tax money to run even civil courts, and much of copyright is now a criminal matter so there is the cost of investigations. There's the social costs too - it's near-impossible to enforce copyright in the digital age, so the only way to be effective in doing so requires either an automated censorship system of some sort (youtube), or restrictions on the availability of technology that can be used for infringement (DMCA laws, the 'blank media tax'), or draconian punishments for the few who are caught in order to scare the rest straight. All very bad things. Then there's the classic issue of rights: They are often in conflict. If you grant a creator control over something they thought up, then you are also denying the use of that something to other people.

You can't just pass laws based on vague moral hunches. You need to consider if the costs (outlined above) are justified by the benefits (Increased production of creative works, created jobs, moral rights of creators).

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44361193)

But why should someone who creates something not be able to control how it's used?

Why should they?? Does Ford get to decide how you use your car? Does kellogs get to decide what you can and can't do with that box of corn flakes? If you give or sell me something, it's MINE. You no longer have any rights to it whatever, except copy rights.

See, the problem I have with copyright reformers is that copyright is a quite well thought out piece of law

The concept of copyright is extremely good, the actual laws are disastrous, and I say that as someone who holds copyrights that should have fallen into the public domain by now. First are the exceptionally long terms. Art is like science and engineering, in that what comes new is from something old, "shoulders of giants". Imagine how technology would stagnate if patents lasted as long as copyrights? Well, art is stagnating under the weight of copyright law. I could not profit from this [slashdot.org] because it incorporates the lyrics from a forty year old song. That song should not be under copyright!

If you get caught shoplifting a DVD from WalMart, it is a misdemeanor with only a small fine. Get caught torrenting it from TPB and you can be ruined financially. THIS IS JUST INSANE!! Look at the DMCA; that's a clusterfuck of epic proportions. If the work is protected by technology, why does it need to be protected by law?

Why should Paramont be able to claim with no proof at all that I infringed their copyright and have my work removed from the web? It's not happened to me but it's happened to others. And the onus is on the alleged infringer to prove his innocence, rather than being on the accuser to prove his accusations before the material is removed?

Copyright law as written is so bad that you have people actually calling for copyright's abolition. If the laws were sane you wouldn't have that, and you'd have a hell of a lot less "piracy" as well. There is absolutely no reason whatever that dead musician's works from half a century ago should be protected, and there's no reason non-commercial infringement should be illegal at all, let alone able to result in imprisonment. Piracy is, after all, just PR.

-mcgrew

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44360167)

No, they want to take control over what the individuals who might lend a movie out to a friend, or copy one for their kids to watch a thousand times while preserving the original intact.

They want to make it so difficult that people will eventually pay to watch it every time they watch it - that's what the greedy bastards want - all while paying the artists absolutely nothing after they subtract warehouse storage rental, transportation costs, packaging costs, etc... (yes, I know digital has none of these, but it's in most of their contracts)...

The *pirates* are the people who take one media, rip it, reproduce it on a large scale and sell it for a few bucks for each disc.

The end-users are the ones who have to suffer through 3 or more *NOTICES* about how they are criminals for daring to actually enforce their fair use rights by making kids copies, or shifting media from dvd / blu-ray to tablet/phone/computer.

The *artists* would be much better off without the MPAA/RIAA and their ilk, as they'd actually have a chance at collecting some of the earnings, while the lazy fat slobs in charge of the MPAA/RIAA would have to get off their asses, pick up a trash stick and bag and earn their pittance for a change.

I look forward to the day when all these big cartels are brought up under the RICO act and the big-wigs in charge spend years playing butt-buddies with Bubba and his 236 friends.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360441)

no one wants to control people who create things

That's not true: The RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP, and quite a few other large organizations would very much like to control people who engage in creative work so they can extract a large portion of the revenue that fans are willing to pay.

For example, there are thousands of good independent musicians out there touring, selling their CDs at their gigs, and nowadays selling or giving away their tracks online. You probably haven't heard of most of them, because the RIAA ensures that radio stations only play music distributed by them, and major retailers only sell recordings from their artists.

Similarly, there are lots of independent filmmakers out there doing making films and selling DVDs. Many of them make a decent living at it by doing corporate promos and training videos and such, but they also sometimes try to have the next Clerks or Blair Witch Project. You probably haven't heard of them either, because they can't get widespread distribution.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (4, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359931)

Yeah, like wedding photographers, jewelry artists, poets, screenwriters, game producers, web programmers, novelists, small film makers - nothing but control freaks!

Not that I agree with the previous post, but you seem to mistake the media industry with the media creators.

The relationship between the two is more or less the one between cows and Nestlé. They milk the cow, process the product and even draw a cow in the envelope picture, but I wouldn't equate attacking Nestlé with being against cows or milk.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359939)

Nestlé being Nestle [nestle.com] .

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (5, Informative)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359947)

The people who create things want to control how they bring their work to market. You want to control the people who create things. Who's the control freak?

Coming from a staunch conservative like you, this line amuses me. It betrays a complete lack of understanding of what copyright is, where copyright originated, what its purpose is and why people are upset with the current copyright regime.

Here, let me clue you in:
1) Copyright is a law that restricts the ability to make copies of anything human made.
2) Copyright is an evolution of the old royal print charters. Knowledge was known to be power, and the kings of yore realized very quickly they didn't want just anyone printing whatever they wanted.
3) The purpose of copyright is to control the flow of information and goods. Some of it can be good (it gives writers a chance to make a living), some of it can be bad (it gives people the chance to manipulate the flow of knowledge).
4) What people are upset about is that current copyright terms go far beyond benefiting the original creator, have criminal penalties on them and actually make it very difficult to create something without getting lawyers involved. The only reason you don't see every novelist ever being sued by everyone else is because most are penniless.

Now that you know the story, feel free to participate in the discussion.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (-1, Troll)

Merk42 (1906718) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359995)

The solution is it should be legal to copy things in perpetuity without giving the content creators a dime because I'm an entitled baby, gimme gimme gimme.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44360567)

The solution is it should be legal to copy things in perpetuity without giving the content creators a dime because I'm an entitled baby, gimme gimme gimme.

Who is entitled? The ones who want to use their own brains and machines however they want, or the ones who want to distribute their own works while retaining the ability to tell the recipients (transitively) what they are allowed to do with those works? One of these two groups is expecting to be granted power that extends waaaaay beyond the natural order of things. Now, you tell me, who is the entitled baby?

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

tverbeek (457094) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360273)

A huge part of the problem is that copyright terms have ballooned in the last two centuries from the US's 14 years (with a 14-year extension if the creator was still alive), to a minimum of 50 years after the creator dies – longer in most countries – and well over a century if the material is produced by a corporation. Instead of a fairly brief window for a creator to profit from the work while creating new works, it's become either a hereditary legacy for the creator's descendants to live on, or an effectively permanent monopoly for for a corporation to license. The purpose of copyright and patents as outlined in the US Constitution ("to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries") is no longer being served.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44359977)

You are, dude. If all you create is a string of 1's and 0's, then there isn't any way for you to control it. You are the one banging your head against nature, thinking you can control it.

Unless i'm demanding you work (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44360373)

Unless i'm demanding you work for me and given me the result of your work for free, I am not controlling you.

If you won't produce under terms that are acceptable to the public, then don't produce. Your ass will be hit by the door on the way out.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (2)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359837)

It's a fine balance for the media cartel. They can't come out and say, "Yeah, piracy is helping improve our profit margins." because 1) they make money from suing pirates, while making money from piracy promoting their products and 2) if they admit they've been lying and everyone starts pirating content there's a chance piracy could end up hurting their bottom line.

Personally I think it's best for them just to ignore piracy and not comment on in one way or another; just go on selling your products. If you're offering at a reasonable price, in an accessible format and people like it then they'll buy it, but trying to control every aspect, especially with digital content, is just going to generate malice and is just cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (3, Informative)

Pecisk (688001) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359883)

No need for U.S. or international pressure. Finland is subject of multiple so called "intelectual property" agreements, which require lot of rules in question to be implemented in national law. And you can't overrule it - sorry, that's why they went "IP trade agreements" in first place.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359999)

If such agreements become incompatible with Finnish law they will have to be abandoned. I can't really see how that would end up hurting Finland more than it would the US.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (2)

Pecisk (688001) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360037)

They are technically "overruling" even constitution, it doesn't mean that they can be incompatible with it though. Only way to strip those rules from law book is void agreement. But for that there can be much wilder political and economical consequences.

Would like to see healthy discussion about it anyway of course.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44360195)

Or do like Russia does: pretend that you're complying with agreements and rules but don't actually do much more than bare minimum as a show when someone is looking.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

ultranova (717540) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360267)

I can't really see how that would end up hurting Finland more than it would the US.

And that's the problem, actually. Finnish politicians have this weird thing going where they show their responsibility and altruism by hurting their own country. It lets them pretend to be European leaders or global leaders rather than the leaders of a small, insignificant country at the arctic circle. And being leaders, it's not them but the rest of us who pay the price.

That's the reason why Finland typically goes above and beyond what any bad agreements actually require: a weird form of national self-harm. And it's why this initiative doesn't have any chance of passing.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

jalopezp (2622345) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360559)

Duh, honouring IP agreements is a requirement to be in the WTO and therefore the European Union. The relevant agreement is TRIPS [wikipedia.org] .

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

G-forze (1169271) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360025)

True to some extent, but the Finnish copyright law as it is written today goes above and beyond what is demanded in the treaties. This is one of the things this initiative is trying to correct. Lowering penalties for infringement, allowing more "fair use" scenarios and promoting legal distribution options is what this is about. Not about rolling back any treaties.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

Pecisk (688001) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360085)

Ok, then it is doable then, good to know :) Of course, question is if there's goodwill from politicians to do this, but still...if agreements doesn't block it, there's some hope :)

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360051)

No need for U.S. or international pressure. Finland is subject of multiple so called "intelectual property" agreements, which require lot of rules in question to be implemented in national law. And you can't overrule it - sorry, that's why they went "IP trade agreements" in first place.

Finland could ignore these treaties. America would go to the WTO crying foul, the dispute settlement body would probably agree, then finland would have to either repeal the relevant law or suffer the consequences. In this case the most likely consequence would be the US getting to take retaliatory measures of some kind against Finland, either an import tariff on Finnish goods or maybe even getting to crap all over finnish copyright.

This might be just what we need to get rid of Linus as he loses the copyright on linux to some huge american corporation (obviously this bit is a joke).

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (1)

Pecisk (688001) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360113)

I didn't say that you can't ignore treaties. You can. But you can't precisely pinpoint implications. Starting from lawsuits, and ending with political fallouts.

U.S. is biggest IP producer to date, so they will protect their export. I can fully understand them. World couldn't allow such agreements in first place.

Re:U.S., cough, international pressure much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44360069)

AFAIK the existing international agreements only require countries to grant and enforce exactly the same IP rights to foreign artists as they do to domestic so as not to favour the latter. For instance, in Finland you're allowed to copy and hand out up to 20 pages or at most 7 % (whichever limit comes first) of written material for educational purposes. When I was studying for my M.Sc. many lecturers often gave such handouts from a different book than the course book so that the most important subject(s) were covered from the perspectives of two different groups of authors. All advanced course books were foreign, often American.

What's the world coming to? (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359781)

Politician's better watch out and rush to make that illegal. It'll be terrible if people realize they can make their own common sense laws rather than depend on politicians taking money from lobby groups to tell them how to think.

How will politicians survive without lobby groups paying their salary?

Re:What's the world coming to? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359835)

Yes, where's this heading to?!?... why, next thing you know, they'll legalize whistleblowing and impose transparent governance as a rule of law!
It may well be the end-of-world-as-we-know-it!

Re:What's the world coming to? (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359853)

"end-of-world-as-we-know-it!", hold onto your socks buddy, the whole universe is about to implode.

Power to the People (2)

sincewhen (640526) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359787)

Can anyone from Finland chime in and let us know if this is likely to go ahead untarnished by the political process, or will it be a given lip service and normal politics resumed ASAP?

Re:Power to the People (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44359833)

You can a little while and see. Why do you have to know right now? Are you going to do something about it?

Re:Power to the People (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44359877)

Reading comprehension AC, learn it.

Re:Power to the People (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359845)

Can anyone from Finland chime in and let us know if this is likely to go ahead untarnished by the political process, or will it be a given lip service and normal politics resumed ASAP?

Given the cynicist that I am I expect them to briefly glance at it, pretend to care about the issue, then reject the proposal while pocketing some "gifts" from "friendly parties" behind the scenes.

Re:Power to the People (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44359859)

The latter. Same thing as happened with the previous similar initiative to ban fur farming.

Re:Power to the People (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44359869)

Only one such proposal has gone through so far; it was about making fur farming illegal. This was in March. The politicians are supposedly still doing something about it -- but at the time it was presented to them, the overall impression was that they did not know what to do with it and avoided responsibility. (They have no legal requirement to implement the proposal. Only to give it a fair hearing.)

Re:Power to the People (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44359953)

A Finn here.

There is absolutely no chance that this results in changes in Finnish copyright laws. They'll have to vote on it, and they'll vote not to do anything just out of pure spinelessness.

Re:Power to the People (1)

bestalexguy (959961) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360531)

A Finn here.

There is absolutely no chance that this results in changes in Finnish copyright laws. They'll have to vote on it, and they'll vote not to do anything just out of pure spinelessness.

Whoa, do lobbyists use violence in Finland? Because AFAIK they use cash everywhere else, so it's greed over spinelessness

Re:Power to the People (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44360063)

As a foreign resident Finland I can be pretty certain that this isn't going anywhere. It'll be mulled over then dropped like a stone. If I recall correctly there are similar systems in place in other countries and they're given about the same level of serious discussion as the system here. Rule by the people and all that _

Buried in committee (1)

grimJester (890090) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360087)

A law legalizing gay marriage was proposed by 76 (of 201) MPs. The Legal Affairs Committee voted 9 to 8 to not let it go to a vote in the parliament, citing lack of time and low priority due to not being signed by a majority of MPs. There's been talk of citizens' initiatives getting the same treatment; specifically (unsurprisingly) an initiative on gay marriage that got the required 50k signatures in a few hours.

The law on citizens' initiatives requires any that get over 50k signatures to go to a vote in the parliament. However, it can be delayed indefinitely if the relevant committee never decides to bring it to a vote by the full parliament. After the next election, any remaining initiatives are scrapped.

Obviously, this goes against the spirit of the law, so there's a good chance the situation will change.

Re:Power to the People (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44361077)

Finn here.

This is the Litmus test.

The proceeding is somewhat new -- the previous initiatives have regarded the ethics of Fur industry, and gay rights (adoption, etc). Those are still pending.

How this differs, is that this is essentially one of Finland's core industries today, and the leading supporters are 35~ rising, well off, entrepreneurs, IT-professionals, etc. It is not just populist activism, but a real concern that has profound impact in actual business and prosperity of the country.

While this might be thrown aside by our politicians (whose work of late has been mostly harmful instead of beneficial), this will not be shut down with a whimper, but with an uproar -- there are powers behind this draft that won't take no for an answer without a convincing, public argument. On top of that, there is already support in the parliament, as some representatives there are former IT-professionals.

I am eagerly waiting to see where this leads to.

It will be discarded (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44359795)

Just like the rest of these proposals have been. The initiatives have no real effect but to distract the public and create a false sense of power for the people.

The article and summary a bit misleading (4, Informative)

DMNT (754837) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359813)

The political process is not as straightforward as the article suggests: It will first be passed on to a committee which will listen for various experts and interested parties, including copyright holders' associations. The committee will then be free to make amendments and changes to the proposal, even though the proposal is already written in a form of law text. After the committee it will probably be subjected to other various committees for review, for example the constitutional committee to check if it is in alignment with the constitution. At the end of this long committee process is the public vote in the Parliament, which is most often just a formality.

Therefore it is not guaranteed at all that the intended changes will pass even if the law will be changed in the parliament.

Re:The article and summary a bit misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44359963)

I still think the Finnish initiative process is better than the California proposition process. The Finnish process gives the citizens a direct voice on an issue but the political responsibility still sits with the elected representatives, who must vote on the issue. The politicians are paid to study the effects of a proposed law and then do the right thing.

"Drafted by citizens" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44359827)

It seems most copyright laws are "drafted by citizens," those citizens just happen to work for copyright lobbyists.

Nothing will happen (3, Insightful)

CptPicard (680154) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359839)

There will be no "vote on copyright law that is drafted by citizens". Some committee will just say that there are legal reasons why this can't happen and that's it. All this stuff does is stir up public discourse, which is IMO a good thing though.

Gaoat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44359913)

The 7op. Or were, Antibacterial soap. *BSD is dying It is the project to is dying.Things To decline for of BSD/OS. A need yrour help!

Who really buys that anyway? (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359927)

This means that the Parliament of Finland is required to take the Common Sense in Copyright initiative into processing.

And they will refuse this initiative according to the due process. Anyone who believes in 2013 that non-binding petition can make any tiny amount of difference needs to have a reality check.

You either have direct democracy inscribed in your constitution or you don't.

Re:Who really buys that anyway? (1)

jalopezp (2622345) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360679)

You either have direct democracy inscribed in your constitution or you don't.

And we don't, mostly because otherwise we'd end up banning minarets or something ridiculous like that. But Finland is a prosperous country of only 5 million people. They have a better chance than anyone of implementing a reasonable law that is more popular with its citizens than foreign industries. Not that it's a huge chance, just better.

Wrong interpretation of democracy (1)

mythix (2589549) | 1 year,2 days | (#44359949)

I think they got it all wrong, a petition is worthless on these kinds of topics.
It's like making a petition for dropping all taxes... Who wouldn't want to sign it?

Re:Wrong interpretation of democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44360103)

It's like making a petition for dropping all taxes... Who wouldn't want to sign it?

Anyone who isn't a completely retarded anarchist. The wisdom of the saying "I like paying taxes, with them I buy civilization" is certain even if its origins are disputed.

"required amount of signatures" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44360229)

Who would have thought they could get that much signatures?

(the phrase you're looking for is "required number of signatures.")

Similar system in the USA (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360303)

We have a similar system here in the USA, where ordinary citizens can write whatever law they want and have our Congress vote on it.

Its just that instead of submitting millions of signatures to Congress, you have to submit millions of dollars [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Similar system in the USA (1)

Shavano (2541114) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360365)

We have a similar system here in the USA, where ordinary citizens can write whatever law they want and have our Congress vote on it.

Its just that instead of submitting millions of signatures to Congress, you have to submit millions of dollars [wikipedia.org] .

That campaign contribution is just a a way of expressing to your Congressman that it's a great idea with tons of popular support. Really it is. Protected speech and all.

Print shops? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360341)

So if I set up a print shop that prints and sells copies of recent bestsellers and sells them dirt cheap to bookstores that sell them at deep discounts to consumer's that's a misdemeanor? How about if I download copies of the latest movie releases, burn them to DVDs and ship them all over Europe?

Re:Print shops? (1)

Major Ralph (2711189) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360769)

Simple, add in a clause that if you are selling said works, then it's more than a misdemeanor. This proposed law is really intended to protect the everyday joe from litigation.

Re:Print shops? (1)

mark-t (151149) | 1 year,2 days | (#44361059)

What if you're not selling the works, but are simply making many thousands of cheap copies of an otherwise good quality work to flood the market so that the (presumably much smaller) entity that was trying to make a profit from them is no longer viably able to?

Re:Print shops? (1)

jittles (1613415) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360843)

So if I set up a print shop that prints and sells copies of recent bestsellers and sells them dirt cheap to bookstores that sell them at deep discounts to consumer's that's a misdemeanor? How about if I download copies of the latest movie releases, burn them to DVDs and ship them all over Europe?

Then you would no longer be a private citizen but would be engaging in business. I think that almost everyone agrees that anyone who does that for commercial gain should have the book thrown at them.

Will the Finns be able to vote... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,2 days | (#44360407)

... to keep their country for themselves as well? i.e. to stop all non-white immigration, and to deport all non-white invaders currently in THEIR country?

Good start ... now finish it off (no pun) (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | 1 year,2 days | (#44360671)

Remove all penalties whatsoever for what is simply participating in culture.

So what? (1)

mark-t (151149) | 1 year,2 days | (#44361131)

Parliament will vote on it, as required... the outcome will be that they voted no. End of story.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...