×

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!

Sweden to Give Courts New Power to Hunt IP Infringers

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the unleash-the-p2p-sniffing-hounds dept.

The Courts 171

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The Swedish Culture & Justice ministers are preparing to give new power to Swedish courts to let them force ISPs to give up subscriber IPs. The end goal is trying subscribers in court for copyright infringement. As the one-time home of the Pirate Bay, which is now internationally distributed, they face both US pressure and push-back at home. The Swedish arm of the Pirate Party is calling this move a 'sanctioned blackmailing operation', but hopefully the Swedish courts won't allow the IFPI to use as many tricks as the RIAA has in US courts."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

171 comments

Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (4, Insightful)

inTheLoo (1255256) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762602)

How can they call this a legitimate request [cdt.org] , given the recent outrages by the companies involved [slashdot.org] ?

Shame on Wired for repeating the propaganda phrases, "illegal file sharing" and "piracy". It's not against the law in many countries and sharing should not be considered damaging or wrong anywhere. Giving someone a copy of a book is not the same thing as feeding them to the fish. I'm used to better things from Wired than this.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (3, Insightful)

RedK (112790) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762688)

You can sugar coat it all you want, if you are unauthorized to redistribute content, and you are doing it, what you are doing is Piracy. It also happens to be illegal in many countries, including the one we discuss here, where there are copyright laws that define the scope of what is legal and illegal distribution of said content. If you share a file for which you have received authorization to do so in the form of a license, you are in fact participating in illegal file sharing.

As much as you don't like it, it's the way it is. Not all file sharing is illegal, but not all of it is legal. Morals have nothing do to with lawfulness of it. Giving someone a copy of a book is not like giving 3,000,000 other people a copy of a book. If you wouldn't have paid for it anyway, why are you so desperate to have it ?

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

RedK (112790) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762700)

If you share a file for which you have received authorization to do so in the form of a license, you are in fact participating in illegal file sharing.
WTB edit button. Always preview a post before submitting I guess :

If you share a file for which you have NOT received authorization to do so in the form of a license, you are in fact participating in illegal file sharing.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (0, Redundant)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762738)

If you share a file for which you have NOT received authorization to do so in the form of a license, you are in fact participating in illegal file sharing.
In some jurisdictions. Not all countries define this as illegal.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (4, Interesting)

nbert (785663) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763030)

Care to give an example? Even in countries being famous for copyright infringement it's forbidden by law (China comes to mind).

Of course there is the right for private copies in some countries, but as some poor RIAA representative put it during Napster's peak: "Ok, it makes a difference wether you share some music with your close friends or thousands of 'friends' over the net."

Just a little sidenote: Many countries have a problem with the sheer flood of indictions coming from *AA lawyers*. I see this as the true reason for legislation to change the rules by either: Giving the copyright holders direct access to the names of those pirating (making it an issue for civil-law), or by introducing a minimum level of damage before the jurisdiction is allowed to act. Of course I prefer the latter, but AFAIK no country had the guts to go this way yet. The UK and France are pretty close with the idea of simply blocking access for those infringing, but I somehow doubt that this will get popular.

*Just a little example from Germany: Over here content creators can't get the name behind an ip-address. So they indict, which leads to the following actions: The state's prosecutor knows it's not worth the hassle, but he has to investigate the identity of the other party - the file will usually be closed after this. The lawyer requests access of records and sends a monition to the person behind the ip-address. In this document he/she offers to drop all civil charges in exchange for a sum which is at a price point significantly lower than anything you would spend in court. For this reason 99% are settled this way, but it's still not a cheap deal for those affected. The problem with this system is that some lawyers send thousands of such requests automatically to one single prosecutor, thereby bringing the legal system to a grinding halt. Therefore legislation has seriously considered to introduce an exemption, below which prosecutors don't act.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763134)

"Care to give an example?"

canada, they tax blank cd sales for it. it's also worth noting many other countries also tax blank cd's.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (3, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763452)

Care to give an example?
Sure. You don't need a license to distribute anything that is in the public domain.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (4, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762816)

I have not authorized you to read this copyrighted post.

Police, please arrest RedK (112790). Thank you.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

newr00tic (471568) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762968)

I have not authorized you to read this copyrighted post.

Police, please arrest RedK (112790). Thank you.
Fucking NARC, man; jeez..

;)

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (2, Insightful)

prxp (1023979) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762732)

If you share a file for which you have not received authorization to do so in the form of a license, you are in fact participating in illegal file sharing. (...)As much as you don't like it, it's the way it is. Not all file sharing is illegal, but not all of it is legal. Morals have nothing do to with lawfulness of it.
Pirate bay provides links (or trackers) to files, those trackers/links are not copyrighted in any way and there's not law in Sweden that forbids such practice (unlike USA's DMCA). So, In Sweden doing what Pirate Bay does is not illegal AT ALL. No morals, just legality.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

RedK (112790) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762758)

Of course, the article is about the government amending the law in order for the proper right holders to go after the sharers themselves. It is not about the Pirate Bay at all except for a brief mention that they were from Sweden.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (4, Informative)

trawg (308495) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762840)

Pirate bay provides links (or trackers) to files, those trackers/links are not copyrighted in any way and there's not law in Sweden that forbids such practice (unlike USA's DMCA). So, In Sweden doing what Pirate Bay does is not illegal AT ALL.
That's fine - but that's not the point of the article. It sounds like they're giving up going after the Pirate Bay, specifically because there's no laws against its existence. They want to go after the people that are USING the Pirate Bay, and they're getting laws crafted to force ISPs to cooperate by giving up details of file sharers.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763352)

If that's the case, who wants to bet that the boom gets rampantly lowered on everything, legitimate or not?

I'll give an example: Nine Inch Nails. Since some of NIN's stuff falls under Interscope's purview (everything before the latest release), but then there are *legitimate* releases on TPB (Ghosts is released under CC, and is not only shareable, but is also being seeded by an official NIN seeding account), as well as some grey-area ones (there are several NIN releases that have appeared, all from the same account name, with material that was never really released to the public and/or had not been released in quite some time from Interscope. Blog posts/comments from Trent Reznor before or near these releases indicate that he was likely involved)

So, say they get the information to start going after the users. Do you really think the recording goons looking for infringement are going to care about which material is which and under what license, or are they just going to say "OMG PEOPLE SHARING NIN! SUE SUE"? I'm eagerly awaiting Trent getting his first cease-and-desist/subpoena for distributing his own works.

(I was going to include the fact that R. Stevens is also using TPB to release his newly CC-licensed Diesel Sweeties books, but...no offense to DS...that isn't likely to come up on the radar anytime soon)

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762786)

You can sugar coat it all you want, if you are unauthorized to redistribute content, and you are doing it, what you are doing is Piracy.
No, what you are doing is copyright infringement. No ships are attacked when you torrent something.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762792)

if you are unauthorized to redistribute content, and you are doing it, what you are doing is Piracy.

      No, piracy also involves a certain degree of wooden legs and parrots and hoisting "Jolly Roger"'s and broadsides and cutlasses, etc.

      How come if you come to my house and I put on a CD you're allowed to hear the music, but GOD FORBID you hear the music by any other means including internet radio which now has to pay god knows how many million dollars for "rights".

      The RIAA is about GREED pure and simple. Please provide verifiable documents that prove that ONE SINGLE ARTIST has seen ONE PENNY from the RIAA, who apparently fight in their name. In fact many musical groups ENDORSE "piracy", even in their song lyrics (example Molotov:Yofo; Radiohead, etc), because they are fed up of being ripped off by studios.

      Please stop bleating like a sheep and start using your brain. The "cost" of distributing "n" copies of music is now almost ZERO. Why do you insist people still have to pay $15-$20 for a "CD" or $.99 for a "song"? Middlemen add nothing to economies. They are parasites pure and simple.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (4, Insightful)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762874)

How come if you come to my house and I put on a CD you're allowed to hear the music, but GOD FORBID you hear the music by any other means including internet radio which now has to pay god knows how many million dollars for "rights".

Convenient how you failed to mention that it *WOULD* be illegal if you burned a copy of the CD for your friend.

The "cost" of distributing "n" copies of music is now almost ZERO. Why do you insist people still have to pay $15-$20 for a "CD" or $.99 for a "song"? Middlemen add nothing to economies. They are parasites pure and simple.

The record companies can sell their products for whatever price they want to. Just like any other company. They make outrageous profit selling CDs for $15 each, but that's not illegal, and as long as people keep buying them for that price, they'll keep doing it.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762918)

The record companies can sell their products for whatever price they want to. Just like any other company.

However, the market is being distorted by the copyright monopolies. For most kinds of product, a competing vendor could sell cheaper product that is adequately substitutable - due to copyright monopoly law, doing that is classed as "piracy" for some types of information pattern expressed in a physical substrate.

That is _why_ the companies can get away with charging so much money and still stay in business - they've got the government giving them monopolies, usually under some socialistic "help the starving artists" lie.

Personally, I support the abolition of copyright law. They (the copyrightists) have apparently decided to make it a stark choice between communications liberty and enforcement of copyright. If they say "well, we won't release anything if we don't get our copyright monopolies", I say "Fine by me!". Everyone's freedom of communication is simply more important than their monopolies or their ability to make a profit. It's not even all artists that would be hurt - it's that subset of people that are only happy if they get a distribution monopoly. We can simply do without their "art".

Remember, the term "intellectual property" is a debate-framing tactic designed to make you think that copyrights and patents and such are "like" physical property and therefore similarly worthy of protection.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (2, Insightful)

Double_Duo_Decimal (1104907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762962)

Exactly. No one should be out to make art for a profit, and that's precisely what these middlemen want to do. They've brought up generations on the dreams of "making it big" being a rock n roll star or an A list actor, only to exploit those who actually do make it to the top of their game. So copyright can go straight to hell, and I don't care if I loose Heroes, Batman movies, and whatever bands that can't survive after it's dead. Theatre, live music performances, paintings, books, they'll survive. They've survived this long without life+70 haven't they?

MOD PARENT UP (2, Insightful)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763062)

Parent is insightful and informative.

"Intellectual Property" is a Propaganda term (oh wait, they get offended if you call them propagandists-- they want to be called Public Relations.)

The term "Piracy" is ALSO a manipulative tactic on the act of non-profit copyright infringement. Its such a minor infringement, where as the profit without permission on copy written work is a major infringement and is a core principle for the existence of copyright. Sadly, the "pirates" have embraced the term as part of their identity which HURTS their image to the outside world.

Large cartels that unfairly exploit creators for profit; while legal, are the antithesis of the this fundamental reason for copyright.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (0)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763732)

Damn right. And while we're at it, we should abolish those pesky laws against stealing. I know a Ferrari isn't exactly like music, but god damn it, I really want one. And since we're randomly changing laws for our own benefit, why not?.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22764304)

Parent is obivous troll. Why is there always one like this in every argument? Is it even worth parroting that copying something leaves the original in the hands of the original owner with nothing lost?

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

Yo Grark (465041) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763018)

"Convenient how you failed to mention that it *WOULD* be illegal if you burned a copy of the CD for your friend"

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if I were to burn you a CD, it's perfectly LEGAL here in Canada.

Yo Grark

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763482)

It would be illegal to burn a copy for your friend depending on what the content was. not all content is under such terms. It wouldn't be illegal to lend your friend the CD or sell it to him either.

Now lets pretend we all stay completely within the law, how does a band get exposure radio
well here is the playlist for radio1 a national station http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/playlist/ [bbc.co.uk] its a total of 58 tracks. to be played over the course of a week. not much exposure for bands not on the playlist. By restricting our exposure to legal sources we don't get to hear even 1% of the music available. On the other hand, the way the world really works is that people do share their musical tastes with their friends. Realistically most of us get introduced to a particular artists music through our friends and if we like it we tend to buy at least a percentage of it. A well put together mix Cd could contain many different artists and tracks. (rarely do record labels do a good job of this, they always add filler). Your illegal Cd can be key to many legal sales, due to the exposure of the artists on the mix cd.

So while illegal copying can be seen as a negative, it largely isn't. It's building a fan base. The actions of the RIAA far from raising legal sales, positively discourages the dissemination of an artists music , limiting an artists exposure and reducing the potential fan base of an artist.

"The record companies can sell their products for whatever price they want to. Just like any other company. They make outrageous profit selling CDs for $15 each, but that's not illegal, and as long as people keep buying them for that price, they'll keep doing it."

Isn't the RIAA saying that people are not buying CD's at $15 at least not enough of them, hence the crack down on individual piracy. The real damage to music sales is counterfeit CD's and I have never seen any argument posted here that counterfeiters deserve any sympathy.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763798)

Maybe it is illegal to burn a copy for your friend Where you come from, but it's not illegal where I come from. In Finland we still have the right to make copies for personal (and family) use. It has been estimated that ~5copies is still under fair use.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763066)

The "cost" of distributing "n" copies of music is now almost ZERO. Why do you insist people still have to pay $15-$20 for a "CD" or $.99 for a "song"?

Because it's NOT YOUR SONG. Why do you get the right to decide what someone else should charge for their works? Do I get to decide how much you can charge for your labor?

Don't buy it if you don't like the price. But you have ZERO RIGHT to tell the owners of the copyright how much to charge for the use of the copyrighted work.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763256)

Do I get to decide how much you can charge for your labor?

The labor goes into creating the first copy of the song. Subsequent copies are not made by your labor, and N.B. only copies exist. I say you are free to charge anything you want for copies of the song you have made. But only copies exist. "the song" does not exist.

Remember, the labor theory of value has long been discredited. Things simply aren't worth the amount of work put into them. I didn't ask you to make a song, I didn't ask you to release the song, I say you're free to charge what you want for release of your copy of the song, but if you won't release the song absent a copyright monopoly, that's fine by me too.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763260)

Why do you get the right to decide what someone else should charge for their works? Do I get to decide how much you can charge for your labor?


Don't buy it if you don't like the price. But you have ZERO RIGHT to tell the owners of the copyright how much to charge for the use of the copyrighted work.

It's so easy to debate simple-minded simpletons. The prices are as they are due to the fact that RIAA essentially forms a monopoly. They have even been found guilty of price-fixing. I should have the right to at least help establish what the price of their work is by being able to purchase similar items elsewhere. You can't do this with the present establishment. I also noticed that you use "owners of the copyright" rather than "artists" so you are likely an industry shill or a brainwashed troll.


There also lots of other issues to consider (and you apparently are not mentally adept enough to realize they even exist). Why is US copyright life+90 years? More people would respect copyright if the terms were reasonable. As it is, by the time something that comes out today becomes public domain, my grandchildren will be looking for a nursing home (and this is assuming the cartels don't go after even *more* extensions). Star Wars is 31 years old. It should be in the public domain now. George Lucas got his protection and got a chance to make a ton of money off of it. We should now have it in the public domain, which was the original give-and-take idea of copyright. Star Trek TOS is even older and it should be in the public domain. Hell, even "Laugh, Clown, Laugh" isn't in the frigging public domain and my *grandparents* are too young to have seen it when it came out!

Do you begin to see why people have no respect for copyright? If there were a reasonable time period for copyrights and the MAFIAA instead used legitimate means to catch infringers, I would be all for them and say screw the freeloaders. But, with what we have now, the MAFIAA can rot in the tenth circle of hell [theonion.com] .

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763406)

I see. I am a simpleton. Because I understand the law AS WRITTEN, and believe that the owners of property should have the right to use, sell or license their property as they see fit?

When was the RIAA convicted of "price fixing"? I know that 5 labels were found guilty of colluding with three store chains to set a MAP, but that's not the RIAA.

You don't think copyright should be as long as it is; others think otherwise. In your oh-so-enlightened mind, that makes you God almighty correct and the rest of us simply simpletons who go along with the sheep. And if we don't agree with you we MUST be shills or trolls! Heaven forbid anyone disagree with such a towering intellect as yourself!

So, other than your PERSONAL feelings that copyright should be considerably shortened, what exactly is wrong with Sweden enforcing IP rights? What is wrong with the owners of the copyright enforcing their LEGAL rights?

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763428)

Exactly! What is so wrong with slave-owners enforcing THEIR legal rights too?

You've entirely missed the point. The law is wrong. Enforcement of unjust law is wrong. That is what is wrong with Sweden enforcing intellectual monopoly (I"P" is a propaganda term) rights - Sweden should be abolishing copyright, not enforcing it.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (2, Informative)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763480)

Sir, your calm demeanor and carefully set forth logic are a wonder to behold. Let's go through this one at a time, shall we?


I see. I am a simpleton. Because I understand the law AS WRITTEN, and believe that the owners of property should have the right to use, sell or license their property as they see fit?
I understand the law as written as well. You are a simpleton because you do not ask the rather obvious questions "Why is the law written this way?" and "Is this law right and just?"


When was the RIAA convicted of "price fixing"? I know that 5 labels were found guilty of colluding with three store chains to set a MAP, but that's not the RIAA.
Here [arstechnica.com] . That took all of two seconds on an internet search. You could simply have searched for the terms "RIAA price fixing" and you would have received numerous hits, but I guess you were too busy having your apoplectic fit.


You don't think copyright should be as long as it is; others think otherwise. In your oh-so-enlightened mind, that makes you God almighty correct and the rest of us simply simpletons who go along with the sheep. And if we don't agree with you we MUST be shills or trolls! Heaven forbid anyone disagree with such a towering intellect as yourself!
If you will actually bother to read what I wrote, I called you a shill or a troll because of the terminology you were using. You were talking about rights holders rather than artists. Also, the "others [who] think otherwise" are generally members of groups like the RIAA and others who stand to profit from eternal copyright. Copyright is a fiction, albeit a useful one if done properly. The purpose of copyright is to give a person legal rights for a limited time in exchange for the product of their creativity becoming publicly available after the time has passed. Or, to put it another way, instead of having artistic and inventive works be kept secret, the government grants legal rights so as to foster the developments of the creative arts. Again, the reason I called you a simpleton is because, while you may understand the law as written, you do not seem to begin to grasp *why* the law is there in the first place.


So, other than your PERSONAL feelings that copyright should be considerably shortened, what exactly is wrong with Sweden enforcing IP rights? What is wrong with the owners of the copyright enforcing their LEGAL rights?
Again, if you will actually bother to read what I wrote, I did not say that there is something inherently wrong with copyright itself. The problems are (at least with the RIAA and possibly will be with its Swedish counterpart) (1) how long should those rights last? and (2) how should one be allowed to prosecute infringers? If I think you stole something of mine, I am well within my rights to persue legal action against you. I am not within my rights to hack your computer to try to find emails of you bragging about it, nor am I within my rights to kick in your door, hold you at gunpoint, and search your house for it. Do you even begin to see the problem here?


And, by the way, your feet stink and your mother dresses you funny.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763584)

Sir, your calm demeanor and carefully set forth logic are a wonder to behold. Let's go through this one at a time, shall we?

We shall!

I understand the law as written as well. You are a simpleton because you do not ask the rather obvious questions "Why is the law written this way?" and "Is this law right and just?"

I see. So in this case you are agitating to break the law because you disagree with it. In this story, the government of Sweden is acting to uphold the law, and we were discussing the legal rights of copyright holders. The "morality" of the law is obviously open to interpretation as you'll find people on both sides of the issue. But the actual existence - and concrete language - of the law should not be in doubt.

You could simply have searched for the terms "RIAA price fixing" and you would have received numerous hits, but I guess you were too busy having your apoplectic fit.

See, if you actually could follow your OWN LINKS to their parents, and look up the original lawsuit [state.ny.us] you would find that the RIAA is not named as a defendant. It's not the RIAA. Your original statement is provably false. Maybe being able to read and follow the links Google provides would do better than just throwing three words into Google? Maybe you don't understand the legal system of the US, but if the RIAA was found guilty, then they had to be named. Not named, not guilty.

If you will actually bother to read what I wrote, I called you a shill or a troll because of the terminology you were using. You were talking about rights holders rather than artists. Also, the "others [who] think otherwise" are generally members of groups like the RIAA and others who stand to profit from eternal copyright.

Many artists are copyright holders. Many artists sell their copyrights for cash, to other companies who manage the copyrights. Others turn their copyrights over to the public domain. Talking of the copyright holder is the correct statement as it encompasses all these people - whoever holds the copyright has the legal right to pursue violations of the copyright. Artist, label, museum, collector.

Copyright is a fiction, albeit a useful one if done properly. The purpose of copyright is to give a person legal rights for a limited time in exchange for the product of their creativity becoming publicly available after the time has passed. Or, to put it another way, instead of having artistic and inventive works be kept secret, the government grants legal rights so as to foster the developments of the creative arts. Again, the reason I called you a simpleton is because, while you may understand the law as written, you do not seem to begin to grasp *why* the law is there in the first place.

Oh, I fully understand the law! I hold several registered copyrights trademarks, as well as patents. And I also understand that currently the government has decided that - in exchange for releasing your works to the public - you get the right to exclude others from copying it for a given duration. And that duration changes depending upon the status of the work, when it was first created/claimed/published, and/or the death of the original author [cornell.edu] . Apparently you do not like the duration; that's fine. But I guess you're OK with the fundamental principle of copyrights? If so, then you simply disagree on a fine point of duration, not the right.

Again, if you will actually bother to read what I wrote, I did not say that there is something inherently wrong with copyright itself. The problems are (at least with the RIAA and possibly will be with its Swedish counterpart) (1) how long should those rights last? and (2) how should one be allowed to prosecute infringers?

So your problem - as you believe - is that the term is too long, and that the copyright holder can legally sue you for violating their copyright. Yet you think that copyrights are OK. And if anyone disagrees with your position regarding these two, they are a simpleton. That's what I read, and that is what you wrote.

The fact is that copyrights exist, the government - for better or worse - has decided that they will exist for a set and defined amount of time, and that you can sue for losses or damages relating to violations of the copyright. You agree this is the current state, that this is the law, yet because you do not agree with the law you support violating the rights of other individuals who seek protection of the law.

Rather than take your frustration with the law out against the government, you choose to attack your fellow citizen who actually operates lawfully. And that is your definition of moral?

If I think you stole something of mine, I am well within my rights to persue legal action against you. I am not within my rights to hack your computer to try to find emails of you bragging about it, nor am I within my rights to kick in your door, hold you at gunpoint, and search your house for it. Do you even begin to see the problem here?

Sure, and I see companies/organizations/individual who obtain information illegally, or act in illegal manner, get slapped down. At the same time, I do not think that individuals operating within the courts should be slandered and maligned for exercising their legal rights.

You have an issue with the laws, then take it up with the government, rather than attack individuals or corporations operating legally within the laws of the nation.

And, by the way, your feet stink and your mother dresses you funny.

Sometimes my feet do smell. Of course, my mother passed away 9 years ago from lymphoma, and spent the last 6 months of her life as an invalid here at my house as I worked from home to take care of her, and watched her die in her bedroom. I'd ask you drop the cutesy act trying to be funny...

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763674)

I see. So in this case you are agitating to break the law because you disagree with it. In this story, the government of Sweden is acting to uphold the law, and we were discussing the legal rights of copyright holders. The "morality" of the law is obviously open to interpretation as you'll find people on both sides of the issue. But the actual existence - and concrete language - of the law should not be in doubt.
What's your point? My point is that, due to the excessive length of copyright, it is now an unjust law. That sort of law is deserving of nothing but contempt.

See, if you actually could follow your OWN LINKS to their parents, and look up the original lawsuit you would find that the RIAA is not named as a defendant. It's not the RIAA.
There are other articles dealing with this [bbc.co.uk] . While "RIAA" is not listed in the lawsuit you linked to, the biggest and not-quite-so-big members of the RIAA are specifically listed on the lawsuit. Saying it is the RIAA is simply common shorthand. Or, to put it another way, if the members of a group are parties to a lawsuit, saying that they and not the group are being sued is a distinction without a difference.

Many artists are copyright holders. Many artists sell their copyrights for cash, to other companies who manage the copyrights. Others turn their copyrights over to the public domain. Talking of the copyright holder is the correct statement as it encompasses all these people - whoever holds the copyright has the legal right to pursue violations of the copyright. Artist, label, museum, collector.
True, but artists who sign up with an RIAA member label are not and generally get pittances if anything. Again, the questions are (1) how long should copyright last? and (2) how should one be allowed to persue infringers?

So your problem - as you believe - is that the term is too long, and that the copyright holder can legally sue you for violating their copyright. Yet you think that copyrights are OK. And if anyone disagrees with your position regarding these two, they are a simpleton. That's what I read, and that is what you wrote.

The fact is that copyrights exist, the government - for better or worse - has decided that they will exist for a set and defined amount of time, and that you can sue for losses or damages relating to violations of the copyright. You agree this is the current state, that this is the law, yet because you do not agree with the law you support violating the rights of other individuals who seek protection of the law.

Rather than take your frustration with the law out against the government, you choose to attack your fellow citizen who actually operates lawfully. And that is your definition of moral?

No, the problem is not just the length of copyrights, but the means which the RIAA (and again, presumably their Swedish version will as well) have used to go after infringers. Also, you seemed to have missed the whole part about the RIAA bribing^W contributing to the campaigns of so many congresscritters to get the laws changed to their benefit. 28 years of copyright was working fine in a world with slow communications. If anything, with the ability today to get the word out about something and promote your work, copyrights should be even shorter than 28 years since there is considerably less lead time to get a work exposed to the public.

Sometimes my feet do smell. Of course, my mother passed away 9 years ago from lymphoma, and spent the last 6 months of her life as an invalid here at my house as I worked from home to take care of her, and watched her die in her bedroom. I'd ask you drop the cutesy act trying to be funny...
Actually, my initial comment was the setup for a joke. The fact that you responded so angrily is the punchline.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763916)

Perhaps you should read this [thomaspaine.org] ,although since you might be a shill or troll(so hard to tell them from a zealot these days) allow me to place one of my favorite paragraphs before you


Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honours than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those honours could have no power to give away the right of posterity. And though they might say, "We chooses you for OUR head," they could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say, "that your children and your children's children shall reign over OURS for ever." Because such an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the next succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool. Most wise men, in their private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils, which when once established is not easily removed; many submit from fear, others from superstition, and the more powerful part shares with the king the plunder of the rest. Thoms Paine


While it is not speaking to this particular subject,he words still ring true.By giving such outrageous copyright extensions our rulers have colluded to give the *.AA the power to say that our children and our children's children shall reign over YOURS for ever".It was also made VERY clear during the founding of this country (and which our current congress critters would most likely hope that we would forget) that unjust laws and unjust leaders should be fought with every breath and deed.If we do not fight with everything we have against these unjust laws then nothing will every change.Simply because they will buy the votes of whomever we elect-PERIOD.Anything that deprives such of that which he covets most (wealth and the power that comes with it) CAN and SHOULD be done by those that still believe in fighting for a just system of government.


So in conclusion,while you might think it is just fine to pass laws that will lock our children's children into tithing just to view and listen to artists long passed, it really doesn't matter WHAT you think.It Matters what WE,THE PEOPLE think,which is why that is on top of the constitution.And unless you are willing to throw an ever increasing amount of the populace into your already overcrowded and decaying legal system,you WILL lose.Because the people will break unjust laws,no matter how you try to pretty them up with words like I.P.As Paine said all those years ago,it is simply Common Sense.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

bemo56 (1251034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763076)

Why do you insist people still have to pay $15-$20 for a "CD" or $.99 for a "song"?
You should come to Australia (the one with Kangaroos - not snow), with the exception of one franchise I frequent, most recent albums cost $30-$40 here. Even Trent Reznor complained about the pricing here [wikipedia.org] . That is something to complain about!

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763362)

If I play a CD in my home, very few people get to hear it. They also aren't going to copy it, and won't be able to with the same clarity.

Now if I go about streaming music, hundreds and thousands of people can listen to it. I am basically giving away music for free. In addition, they can also rip the stream and get the music.

No, actually (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762862)

Piracy is acts of robbery on the seas. What you are doing when you share files is infringing on copyright. I don't know why the term piracy was co-opted in popular press for copyright infringement, but as far as I can tell, there's no basis in law. All the law I find relating to copyright infringement, that's what it is called. The reason that I press this issue is that piracy is still very much a real issue in the world. In the US people are very shielded from it because nobody fucks with the Coast Guard (to fire on a Coast Guard ship is an act of war), but in much of the world it is still a very real problem.

Also I would say the argument of "Morals have nothing to do with it," is pretty stupid. In the US at least, laws must be just. It isn't simply an abstract concept, it is actually codified in the Constitution. Lower laws must conform to higher level laws, and all laws must be just.

Well it can be quite fairly argued (and indeed is in some RIAA cases) that copyright law is unjust. It has two major constitutional problems:

1) The whole reason Congress is allowed to make copyright law is the Constitution grants it. One of the lines in Article I Section 8 reads "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;" Ok, great, however like most of the powers granted in the Constitution to the government, there are limits. It doesn't say Congress has the right to do whatever they want with regards to IP. It says that they may secure an exclusive right for a LIMITED amount of time, and the reason they may do so is to promote the progress of science and art.

Ok well it seems current copyright law runs afoul of both. For one, I don't think that "Life plus 70 years," which is the current US copyright length, is what is meant by "limited time." It seems that is far too long. Then there is the fact that the whole reason is to promote science and art, where it seems that the currently lengthy copyrights are used to suppress it. Companies hold on to copyrights, refusing to release the work or allow derivatives. For example companies go after sites distributing copies of old console games, despite the fact that the companies themselves have long since stopped selling those games and indeed refuse to do so anymore. They just sit on the copyright, and stand in the way of using it for any progress.

2) All punishments must be fair, as per Amendment 8 which reads "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." In the case of copyright infringement, the part we are interested is "nor excessive fines imposed." The statutory damages seem to run afoul of that. $150,000 per incident of statutory damages? Are you kidding me? It is quite literally more than you'd get had you physically stolen media containing a copy of the work.

So it seems that the current situation may well be unjust, immoral, and thus it certainly DOES matter. I hate this idea of "The law is the law." Ya well, guess what? The law can and should be changed. It was the law at one time that you could own slaves, certain humans were seen as worth less. That was actually right in the Constitution. That doesn't mean it was right. It is silly to simply point to a bad law and say "Well that's the law so there."

Re:No, actually (3, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763038)

The following is the entry for piracy [merriam-webster.com] from Merriam-Webster Online. Note the third definition.

1: an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2: robbery on the high seas
3 a: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright b: the illicit accessing of broadcast signals

Re:No, actually (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763206)

Dictionaries describe common usage. When discussing a legal matter, it is correct to use the appropriate legal terms. In a legal sense, piracy is robbery and other crimes on the high seas. If you checked a law dictionary, you'd find a very different entry for piracy.

In any technical discussion, it is important to use proper terminology; this is as true in legal matters as others.

Re:No, actually (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763246)

That's not surprising, dictionaries are responsible for defining words in terms of common usage. Since the media likes to use it that way, well then that is a definition the dictionary should have. However, I contend that's wrong since it is a legal term and as far as I can tell does not apply to copyright infringement. As I said, the reason that this is something I take particular issue with is that piracy is very real and is no joke. Calling a severe criminal issue and a simple civil issue the same thing is stupid.

I mean suppose we decided to start calling it "rape" when someone exceeded the speed limit. If it was used widely that way, then that definition would be added to the word. However I think people would take issue, and rightly so, with using the term for a severe crime on a mild civil issue.

No different here. Copyright infringement just doesn't sound that serious, perhaps because it really isn't. So instead they use the word piracy to give it more impact. I contend that is wrong, especially in the legal sense.

Re:No, actually (2, Informative)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763372)

piracy, n.
3. The unauthorized and illegal reproduction or distribution of materials protected by copyright, patent, or trademark law. See INFRINGEMENT.

"[T]he test of piracy [is] not whether the identical language, the same words, are used, but whether the substance of the production is unlawfully appropriated." Eaton S. Drone, A Treatise on the Law of Property in Intellectual Productions 97 (1879).

Black's Law Dictionary (2004)(citation abridged)

Re:No, actually (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22764102)

At an attorney employed by the RIAA I prefer the term Piracy since draconian punishments are still on the books for Piracy in some juridstrictions. Roman law specified crucifixion. Modern European state claims to be a lawful successors and the law has never been explicitly repealed. Similarly the British Empire specified hanging before a jeering mob. Since neither America nor some other successor states ever explicitly repealed the law we regard it as still in force.

God save the Queen or SPQR as appropriate depending on your locale.

Corporations are not people (1)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763100)

Seems the premise of the content "industry" is security by obscurity. We all know how well that works out...

Corporations are not citizens and they are not human. Allowing them citizen status (which they have) lets them have many of our rights but without the draw backs of being human. It leads to many problems.

Take away corporate ownership of "IP" rights. At least then they can't lay off influential creators/inventors before retirement to save money -- with that line "What have you done for us lately?" How about (80 - Current Age) years? I think 30 years is plenty.

Re:Corporations are not people (2, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763154)

An alternative would be to declare corporations as privately-owned governments. This would eliminate the need to handle the complexities of imposing the legal constraints imposed on individuals by imposing the legal constraints of the Constitution.

Another option is to abolish all rights for corporations and require that either a declared individual in the corporation represents the company for all rights and penalties, or that corporations are merely collections of individuals and that the individuals have wholly independent rights and responsibilities.

All of these approaches have drawbacks, as well as benefits. Some day, society might even figure out if any are any good.

Re:No, actually (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763124)

In the US at least, laws must be just. It isn't simply an abstract concept, it is actually codified in the Constitution. Lower laws must conform to higher level laws, and all laws must be just.
In a sci fi book I'm reading, a police AI observes that the purpose of law is to create order and that justice is incidental.

I'd be willing to argue, for at least certain groups/types of laws, that justice is relative depending on your perspective.
For example, I'm sure abolitionists saw what they were doing as "just".

2) All punishments must be fair, as per Amendment 8 which reads "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
!excessive != fair
Punishments can obviously be unfair without being excessive.
See: Punishment for possession of crack cocaine [wikipedia.org]
I think that's excessive and unfair, but the Supreme Court has yet to agree on either count.

Re:No, actually (1)

Plutonite (999141) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763436)

In a sci fi book I'm reading, a police AI observes that the purpose of law is to create order and that justice is incidental.
There are laws for various types of domain. Preventing chaos/violence/destructive behavior..etc can be described as creating order, while fighting free file-sharing is done on completely different and more abstract grounds (mainly the theory of purported loss of revenue for the artist/originator of the media). In other words the entire basis of this particular legislation is the notion of "justice".

Note also that we have evolved our morals/instinctive reactions to "injustice" (insert definition here involving underdog, undeserved damage/harm... etc) in part because they motivated the individuals who have these feelings to bring order/prevent destructive chaos, hence aiding survival of the group. In other words, the two are related; we don't have our emotions/moral reasoning for no practical reason.

I'd be willing to argue, for at least certain groups/types of laws, that justice is relative depending on your perspective.
I agree, and that is exactly the case here. What some lawmakers have seen as just is seen by many people knowledgeable in the domain as unjust and uninformed. There is no chaos being withheld society by having these pathetic laws as they stand, because the NORM is that they are violated anyway, and by (arguably) the same number of people who would violate them if they were not there (I am talking about free sharing of digital info, not commercialized distribution).

Which is why discussions and refutations from us here are a good thing despite the fact that the law is against us in some places. We (the geeks) are hopefully more understanding of what is happening and have a better idea of what *is* just and "orderly" in this domain, so we can hopefully change the reality imposed on us by the current system. It is not just that I buy a piece of digital media with stuff on it and then be told that I can't put that it on another CD, or give it to someone for free at my expense. It is not just that our freedom to do as we please with the things we buy (or are given for free) be violated by corporations for profit. Copyright is, in *some* cases (like the one being discussed today) completely orthogonal to basic human ideals of freedom, particularly that of information (read: free speech).

Technology has moved very fast in the engineering world, but the ethical philosophy has sadly lagged behind, and innocent people have suffered.

This use of the word piracy is not recent (4, Informative)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763356)

Actually, piracy has actually been in use as a term to describe infringing on another's intellectual property rights for at least 180 years in American courts.

For an example, see Blunt v. Patten, 2 Paine 397, 3 F.Cas. 763 (1828):

In answer to a question from the court, whether the defendant had pirated from the drawings and papers, or from the engravings, he answered, from the engravings.
. . .
The act that secures copyright to authors, guards against the piracy of the words and sentiments; but it does not prohibit writing on the same subject. As in the case of histories and dictionaries.

Re:This use of the word piracy is not recent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763554)

And it was propaganda back then too - Goebbels didn't invent propaganda, he merely refined it. 180 years is NOT a long time anyway, that's only 3 overlapping human-basic lifespans or so.

Re:This use of the word piracy is not recent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763750)

you don't even bother to argue against the concept - you just compare it to the work of Nazis, then dismiss it. You're either trolling, or one of the worst debaters here.

Re:No, actually (1)

dpx420 (1210902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763578)

I don't know why the term piracy was co-opted in popular press for copyright infringement, but as far as I can tell, there's no basis in law.

Unauthorised radio stations that would be illegal in a particular country used to broadcast from boats outside territorial waters, hence 'pirates' For most people the shift in meaning to unauthorised copying of music/video media wasn't much of a jump.

Re:No, actually (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763602)

The reason that I press this issue is that piracy is still very much a real issue in the world. In the US people are very shielded from it because nobody fucks with the Coast Guard...


That sounds real good, and I'd like to agree with you, but it just isn't so. In 2006, some pirates off Somalia fired on the US Navy. [blogspot.com] As a former Navy man, I'm proud to say that the sailors returned fire in the finest tradition of their Service, sinking one of the pirate vessels and capturing the rest. To bring an old slogan up-to-date, "Billions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!"

piracy (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763722)

Well, don't nitpick the word, TPB also picked it up.
Wouldn't it sound worse if they are called The Intellectual Property Infringers' Bay?

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

Derosian (943622) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762864)

One reason to have something you haven't paid for is to find out whether it's good. I often borrow books from friends and if the book is good enough I buy it myself, so I can reread it later. I do the same thing with games, I will download them and if I consider them worth the price I will buy the game. Many games, such as WoW, Oblivion, F.E.A.R., The Orange Box, I could keep on listing the games I've bought which I felt deserved my money AFTER I played them, some games offer trials and sometimes that is enough, but other times I want to get the feel of the whole game. On the other hand why does someone have the right to tell me how I can use something I have purchased. I purchased a CD from the store, it is my property, as long as I am not making money from it, which is what I consider real piracy, then what is wrong with doing whatever I want with what belongs to me.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

amirulbahr (1216502) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762886)

"Piracy"? IANAL, but if anyone here is, could you let us know if that term is in fact used in legislative text anywhere in the world with regards to copyright infringement?

Morals have nothing do to with lawfulness of it.
Correct. But if these laws are not here for moral reasons, then they should exist only to provide some overall net benefit to society. Many would argue that patent laws, which were conceived to stimulate innovation, do the exact opposite in the software industry. Many would also argue that copyright infringement laws of today with regards to the sharing of artistic works do nothing to contribute to the net artistic output of society.

Giving someone a copy of a book is not like giving 3,000,000 other people a copy of a book.
You can't eat your cake and still have it. It is either illegal by the letter of the law or it is not.

Don't Side Step the Issue. (1)

inTheLoo (1255256) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762910)

Laws should follow morals not the other way around but both seem to be against the requested change here. Try reading the EU directives and tell me why ISPs should be forced to violate their customers privacy because some MediaSentry group suspects the customer of making an unauthorized copy. In this case both laws and morals are against the change.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763054)

You can sugar coat it all you want, if you are unauthorized to redistribute content, and you are doing it, what you are doing is Piracy.
Mod -100 lies lies and more lies.

Quote me one nations laws that back up what you just said. You can't, because that is not what ANY nations piracy laws state. Also no nations copyright laws will mention the word piracy.

Sugar coat it all you want, but you are just spreading lies and more lies

The only document I can even find that links copyright and piracy is the Cathach of St. Columba, a seventh century book of psalms. No nation abides by this document as law anymore.

In case you didn't notice, we are in the 21st century. You have a lot of legal catching up to do my friend.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763078)

I say we can the copyright laws look at all the trouble people like the RIAA, MPAA cause if we simply canned copyright it would save us all this trouble and we could move on.

All our problems would be resolved.

~Dan

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763264)

if you are unauthorized to redistribute content, and you are doing it, what you are doing is Piracy.

"Unauthorized" as in "forbidden by some authority". There is no such authority over imaginary property. Ideas cannot be owned.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763450)

Well, the way it is used has nothing to do with infringing content. It is all about guilty until proven innocent, paying a fine to the tune of thousands of dollars in legal defence regardless of the lack of validity of the so called evidence.

It is about threatening and intimidating the public via civil suits where it is cheaper to surrender and pay thousands of dollars to defend against false accusation that would even see the light of day in a criminal court but can be used in corrupted civil courts that are biased towards those with large amounts of money. It is about settling out of court when the RIAA/MPAA take on some by accident who can afford a proper legal defence and basically shoots down the false accusations.

What is really becoming really apparent, is that the copyright laws need to be completely reviewed in a public forum. What should or shouldn't be copyrighted. How long copyright should last and obviously whether it is still needed or would sufficient content be created with out it. Is copyright becoming an excessive burden upon society? Is copyright bleeding off too many resources that could be more successfully deployed else where in society. Is the greed that motivates a lot of copyrighted content producing a excess of antisocial destructive content and would reduced copyright protection actual result in an improvement in the social quality of the content ie. less profit more value to society. Of course the really big issue, with cheap publishing via the internet and P2P, should the parasitic publishers actually be targeted for elimination as they no longer add any value to the content and are certainly no longer required for it's distribution?

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22764526)

No, people do NOT have the right to download all the digital media they want for free. They are also NOT pirates, and file sharing NOT illegal. At least where I live it's not. Show me a law that says if you share music, you're a criminal. The only sugar coating I see is from this shill that somehow got modded up to +5.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (5, Insightful)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762712)

Yes it brings to mind Saddam Hussein's mock trial. One judge was removed in response to his refusal to refer to 'the accused' or 'the defendant' as a tyrant. Whilst in a normal court if a judge called an insane serial killer anything other than the defendant the whole trial would be setback. There seems to be a tendency to label things black and white in recent times. That combined with the un-Americanism of questioning the rules builds quite an interesting layman's lexicon.

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763346)

OK, so here is a question for you....

If you go to a book store, purchase a copy of "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", then go to Kinko's ( or whatever your local equivalent is ) copy every page including the front and back covers, get all neatly collated and stapled then go give it to a friend are you doing something illegal?

Re:Illegal files? Illegitimate Requests! (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763954)

Shame on Wired for repeating the propaganda phrases, "illegal file sharing"

I thought the adjective "illegal" was to differentiate it from legal file sharing. Propaganda to me would be using the term "file sharing" to mean "illegal file sharing", thus making it easy for someone to think that all file sharing is illegal.

Sparkle and Fade (2, Interesting)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762632)

Pirate Bay will fade just as every other p2p system has before it... WinMX, Kazza, Limewire, Napster, FTP, IRC... Wait is IRC still going? It's been so long since I was on there downloading Dreamcast images...

Re:Sparkle and Fade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762764)

Yep. IRC's still a great resource -- it's just not very high profile. Many private chans have an ungodly amount of 0-day stuff. Even some -1-day (and newer) releases.

Re:Sparkle and Fade (2, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763010)

Shhhhhhhh. IRC is nothing more than a series of chat rooms :)

Re:Sparkle and Fade (2, Interesting)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763034)

Shhhhhhhh. IRC is nothing more than a series of chat rooms :)
If by "series of chat rooms" you mean, "seedy underbelly of the internet". You would be correct sir, although I've heard places like DALnet aren't populated with such, ahem, extreme content these days.

Offtopic I know, but I've always wonder why the recording cartels and law enforcement didn't go after IRC with much publicity. It's not that under the radar, Dateline was using what appeared to be mIRC when they were buying credit card numbers in one of their under cover stories.

Re:Sparkle and Fade (1)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763332)

It is one of those things that is just underground enough that they don't want to call attention to it. Truth is that IRC would probably have a tough go of it too. Any network that stands straight up to the RIAA/MPAA is going to have a very tough time.

A lot of people said TPB would be laughing them off forever but I knew that wasn't true. Multi-billion dollar multinational corporations don't go down without one hell of a fight. Also, one could make a strained argument that they actually are trying to adapt and evolve with the changing environment.

Re:Sparkle and Fade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762796)

Pirate Bay will fade just as every other p2p system has before it... WinMX, Kazza, Limewire, Napster, FTP, IRC... Wait is IRC still going? It's been so long since I was on there downloading Dreamcast images...
Pirate Bay IS NOT A P2P System! They provide trackers to P2P networks, they don't even share any file. And as far as I'm concerned IRC and FTP have nothing to do with P2P.

Re:Sparkle and Fade (1)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763086)

Pirate Bay IS NOT A P2P System! They provide trackers to P2P networks
Exactly it's part of a larger whole that enables the peer 2 peer transfer of files, a system [wikipedia.org] , if you will.

And as far as I'm concerned IRC and FTP have nothing to do with P2P.
They do in the fact, atleast if we're talking about the broader, sharing of copyrighted works. Which is one of the very reasons p2p is such a hot topic these days.

Big 4 Music Companies Sparkle and Fade (1)

gnutoo (1154137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762986)

The record of dissaster you quote is also endless resurgence. The 4 big music companies on the other hand have been crapping out 15% every year. File sharing and the rise of independent music producers are linked by more than temporal coincidence.

lol (0, Redundant)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762668)

A "torrent" file does not a copyright infringement make.

Re:lol (3, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762756)

That is true, however the downloading of a torrent might soon be considered 'intent' and authorize search/seizure if your PC and all your backup media.

Its a lot easier to deny a random search/download on something like the ed2k network as you don't know what you are getting until its there.. With the torrent from a well documented place like PB, its pretty much clear what you were doing.

What needs to be done is complete plausible deniability, like is offered on FreeNet with its encrypted local store and communications, but with some sort of multi-homed downloads so it doesn't take months to get a file. ( of course that doesn't help you if you have CDs full of the stuff for backup and you get raided. )

Re:lol (3, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762992)

This whole discussion is coming down to two basic points. 1) what they are doing is illegal, and 2) the law which makes it illegal is unfair.

The purists are just reinforcing the first point, and telling the pirates that the correct action for them to take is not point 1, but to deal with point 2 instead.

The pirates are using the reality that the industry and government are rigged such that it's not possible to fix point 2, to justify point 1.

I believe that most people that consider this situation will come to the same conclusion. You should not break the law even if the law is unjust, so long as you have the mechanism to get the law fixed. Once those efforts ("the system") fails to work in the favor of justice and fairness, then you have at least some moral standing to break the unjust law.

it's a bit like rebellion. Most people agree that trying to try to overthrow your government is a bad idea, so long as you the people have the ability to affect change. Once you have come to the conclusion that you cannot fix what is broken, it's time for revolution. Read the preamble to the constitution.

The same thing is happening here with copyright that happened every time there was a revolt in the past. People are "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore." And most sensible people can stand back and observe the situation, and agree that yes, they are breaking the law, and yes there is some justification to their actions.

Tightening the laws and controls never fixes these sorts of problems. (you cannot fix the problem by addressing point 1) As long as a significant injustice remains, there will always be a faction fighting for change. (you must address point 2) The examples are too numerous to mention, and exceptions all but nonexistent.

Re:lol (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763224)

If you haven't tried one of the recent Freenet builds (0.7 alpha builds), you should. It certainly won't match other file sharing programs, but it's far, far better than it used to be (not to mention more secure). It works, though slowly, for large files.

Also, for large files (over 32kB), Freenet is multi-homed -- all the pieces end up in different places. For popular files, many different nodes will cache copies locally, so it will speed up -- basically automated demand-dependent load balancing.

hrm (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762674)

can hope they won't let them pull the BS the RIAA has, but now the RIAA's BS is startin to catch up with them and so is the judges gettin fed up with it.

Pirate Bay is law abiding! (5, Insightful)

prxp (1023979) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762698)

Pirate bay doesn't disrespect any of Sweden's Copyright laws. In Sweden (unlike in the US) it is not forbidden to provide a link to a copyrighted material, even if this link connects you to a potential infringer (trackers have the same interpretation). Also, in order to be protected by copy right law in Sweden, works must have a certain level of artistry and/or technical merit. Simply the fact that you have written a piece of (crap) text doesn't entitle you to any copyrights over the text (say, like an email message), it's gotta be something really relevant, that you've put some effort in creating.

Re:Pirate Bay is law abiding! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762724)

Well exactly. What this story is about is blackmail, that much is true. Sweedish law was very fair and liberal, which is why TPB flourished there *perfectly legally*. But the Sweedish government have been strongarmed by the US. This boils down to international bullying on behalf of a few powerful special interests. Which (apart from the genocidal wars) is why we all hate the US. Nobody likes a grubby little bully.

Re:Pirate Bay is law abiding! (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762762)

Please stop with the 'genocide' crap. The US has made plenty of mistakes but the last thing even close to genocide we committed was against Native Americans in the 19th century. Disagree with the current wars all you want, but let's stop it with the hyperbole.

Re:Pirate Bay is law abiding! (1)

Dyolf Knip (165446) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762964)

It wasn't genocide, but as recently as WW2 we did round up people of an unpopular ethnicity, force them to sell their belongings, and herd them into concentration camps where the mortality rate was signifcantly higher than was normal. Still a while back, but frankly I don't see any great epiphany on the part of the American public not to ever do that again.

Re:Pirate Bay is law abiding! (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#22764034)

I disagree. If you were correct we would have put Muslims in camps by now. We haven't, and I'm thankful for that.

Re:Pirate Bay is law abiding! (2, Informative)

stubear (130454) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762928)

Swedish copyright only protects works created in Sweden. The Berne Convention, an international treaty protecting copyright law worldwide which Sweden has agreed to, states that copyrighted works are protected by the laws in the country where they were created. This means that in Sweden it is illegal to distribute a work created in the US unless you have been given a license to do so. This also means that my e-mails are equally as protected as any other work regardless of technical merit.

Re:Pirate Bay is law abiding! (4, Informative)

prxp (1023979) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763040)

The Berne Convention (...) states that copyrighted works are protected by the laws in the country where they were created. This means that in Sweden it is illegal to distribute a work created in the US unless you have been given a license to do so.
I beg to differ. And since IANAL, here it is a quote from wikipedia about it [wikipedia.org] :

The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognise the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way it recognises the copyright of its own nationals, which means that, for instance, French copyright law applies to anything published or performed in France, regardless of where it was originally created.

Re:Pirate Bay is law abiding! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763050)

Treaties aren't actually all that powerful, they don't have the standing of law. The USA routinely disregards its treaty obligations.

From TFA: (4, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762734)

Mar 14, 12:33 PM EDT

Sweden Pursues Illegal File-Sharers
...

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., MGM Pictures Inc., Colombia Pictures Industries Inc., 20th Century Fox Films Co., Sony BMG, Universal and EMI have until Feb. 29 to file claims for damages in the case.

So, is that Feb 29 of this year, or in the next leap year, or is this article HOPELESSLY OUT OF DATE? Did they file it or not?

Re:From TFA: (1)

zsau (266209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763498)

Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Why and how? Seven per post seems awfully inefficient.

Re:From TFA: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22763952)

They were forced to read it --- they're his proofreaders!

Is Sweeden special or something? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22762778)

In all other countries, the law has the right, should they suspect someone of a crime, to request and receive this information. Is Sweden different in this regard? If not... why is this news, and why the new law?

One interesting side effect... (2, Interesting)

maotao (1200677) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762848)

... is that this opens up the possible risk of having the justice system completely soaked in IP-release-claims.

The ministers writes
"Today copyright holders are by and large bound to report internet copyright violations to the police. The Police and attorneys work has admittedly improved through enhanced education and specialisation but its not reasonable that this whole responsibility should be placed on police and attornies alone.

On the contrary it is in many cases more naturally and suitable that the copyrights holders themselves are given the ability to intervene against [copyright] intrusions. "
[Link to original article posted in Svenska Dagbladet http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/artikel_972903.svd [www.svd.se] ]

Of course, it won't be the artists or filmmakers themselves who collects evidence, it will be the organisation backing them up. But, and here is the interesting part, it may very well backfire with thousands and thousands of demands being sent to the courts, from hundreds of known, not-so-known, and completely unheard of artists who's found their work on various sites. It can also lead up to a civil disobediance campaign where people start reporting en masse just to clog the system with demands.

I'm far from a fan of the current government but I must say they have an interesting take at the end of the article.

"To battle illegal filesharing it is required that affected branches takes their responsibility. If copyright is used to protect obsolete businessmodels then it will in the long run be impossible to defend it"

Re:One interesting side effect... (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 6 years ago | (#22764472)

I'm far from a fan of the current government but I must say they have an interesting take at the end of the article. "To battle illegal filesharing it is required that affected branches takes their responsibility. If copyright is used to protect obsolete businessmodels then it will in the long run be impossible to defend it"
Yes. "Interesting". Copyright has been used to protect obsolete business models for decades, and this is yet another step. Their long run must be a very long one indeed.

Question (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22762956)

What will happen when all IP infringers are hunted down and eliminated? It seems to me that open source, and all things that distribute IP for free would be the next target.

Re:Question (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763108)

What will happen when all IP infringers are hunted down and eliminated? It seems to me that open source, and all things that distribute IP for free would be the next target.

The infringer is a target because he is downloading - and redistributing - files that aren't being offered for free. Perhaps because the master file cost $100 million dollars and the labor of 400 people to produce.

Re:Question (1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763390)

Don't waste your typing time...

The people that think there is nothing wrong with simply giving away material wont listen to your well founded and quite true argument.

They want to rant on about how Nine Inch Nails and whoever the other band was that decided to allow the download of their work for "You decide how much" fail to mention that those guys are already quite wealthy and they made their money from doing things with the "Evil Record Companies".

I have made all those arguments and others but the people who think they are above the law and that "Information wants to be Free man!!!" don't care and wont until someone kicks down their door and hauls them off in cuffs, or... They do something that sells huge and they watch their $$profit$$ getting siphoned off by the same illegal file sharing and then just watch their tune change.

Re:Question (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763402)

It seems to me that open source, and all things that distribute IP for free would be the next target.


Well that makes no sense, since they can't pursue anyone who isn't distributing something they have control over. But then this is the idiotic persecution fantasy that so many people on this site revel in.

lower prices and piracy will disappear forever (0, Flamebait)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 6 years ago | (#22763120)

The best solution to the problem of increasing and unbalanced government and law enforcement power over the lives of everyday citizens is to educate the public as much as possible about the problem. Although the perpetually increasing powers of governments over our lives are being perpetrated in the name of protecting intellectual property today, they have nothing to do with the intellect or with anyone's property. Rather this is a ploy to gain control. Today it's IP. Yesterday it was the idea that everybody should be equal (Communism), tomorrow it'll be some other lame excuse.

If the media companies really wanted to put an end to piracy, they'd lower the prices of music recordings, movies, and other media, so that people would purchase legitimate originals, since they're superior to pirated materials and since the cost is reasonable anyway.

The only reason, and I do mean the ONLY reason, that people waste their time to pirate this crap, is because they perceive its value to be much less than its cost. Take a newspaper dispenser for example. You can put in your 25 cents or whatever a newspaper costs nowadays, open the door, and jack all the papers inside the machine. How many times in the history of the world has this happened? NONE! You know why? Because the cost of a newspaper is sufficiently low (i.e., reasonable) that nobody would bother. I believe that the added sales of music and movies due to lower prices would more than compensate for the lower per-unit revenue, not because piracy would end, but because people would simply buy more music and movies given that they're much more affordable.

Anonymous darknets (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22764474)

These kinds of actions will only boost projects like Freenet, GNUnet, OFF and I2P. None of them aren't really useful for the big masses yet but that's only a question of time. Maybe the amount of copyright infringing filesharing will go down for a short while, but it will still increase over time and move to completely anonymous darknets where nobody can identify anyone and nothing can ever be removed once put there, no matter how illegal or unethical the files are. In the current file sharing networks there is at least a possibility to remove for example child porn (because most file sharers agree that it shouldn't be spread). That possibility will go away in the upcoming anonymous networks.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...