Legalize file-sharing on the Internet

[Moridin]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/06/08/pirate.party.eu.win/

(CNN) -- A Swedish political party which wants to legalize file-sharing on the Internet scored a surprise victory Sunday when it took a seat in the European parliament. The Pirate Party won 7.1 percent of the Swedish vote to claim one of the country's 18 seats in the European parliament.

"Together we have changed the landscape of European politics," Pirate Party leader Rick Falkvinge told file-sharing news Web site TorrentFreak after the win.

"The citizens have understood it's time to make a difference." The single-issue party was founded in 2006 through anger in Sweden at controversial laws that criminalize file-sharing.

A one-issue party that doesn't care about the environment, the economy or the jobs? The salvation for an increasingly authoritarian EU that compromises heavily when it comes to integrity issues?

 

[seyitcan]

That's big irony.There is no doubt that EU is not "Global Factor" anymore.Give clear example of that to you: When USA decided to attack Iraq,EU objected that,but USA do not care them.Anybody does not listen to EU anymore.Eu is just like a Disneyland in terms of education,famous historical cities.

 

[Borek]

USA do not care them.

Weak argument. When deciding to attack Iraq USA also didn't care about logic and common reason.

 

[f95toli]

It is not quite fair to call them a single issue party; they are more of a single TOPIC party. They are focusing on all Internet/telecom issues and lately the file sharing hasn't been quite as important.
It is true that they were founded because of the file-sharing issue but their biggest boost came when the Sweden implemented a recent EU directive that requires ISP so log and save IP numbers etc, another recent law made it easier for FRA (roughly to the Swedish equivalent of NSA or GCHQ) to get permission to intercept Internet traffic that passes through Sweden. Both of these issues have been VERY controversial,even among members of the major parties.

The Pirate Party has been getting a lot of support from various IT companies etc (who don't like the idea of having to "police" the Internet traffic they carry) so they are not quite as much as a "fringe" movement as one might thing; they are not extremists or anarchists.

Note that I am not saying that I would vote for them; but I can understand why many people did.

 

[signerror]

Thieves!

 

[signerror]

Various IT companies etc (who don't like the idea of having to "police" the Internet traffic they carry) so they are not quite as much as a "fringe" movement as one might thing; they are not extremists or anarchists.

They are certainly extremists, and you're disingenuously offering up a strawman distraction. If governments enact unreasonable, authoritarian measures, that is a problem, and it is a separate issue from the crimes they attempt to redress. The flaws of the cop do not exonerate the criminal. Pirates are thieves, and it's a disgrace that they've managed to blur ethics so muddily that voters think they're some sort of rights activists.

Shame on Sweden.

 

[Borek]

they've managed to blur ethics

Few years ago I wanted to buy a complete set of The Blue Planet (Attenborough documentary) on DVD. I wanted a legal copy. It was unavaiable in Poland, so I have checked amazon.com - and it was there, for - say $40. I decided it was a good price, and I was raedy to click when it occurred to me that due to region codes my DVD won't be probably able to play the DVD. So I have checked amazon.com and it was for around 40 GBP. Difference in price was absolutely inacceptable, and the only reason for this difference was that some idiot decided that people living in Europe should pay more. I have not bought the set, but my faith on good will of copyright owners was seriously undermined.

A year or two later i decided I want to listen to some music - and it happened that at the time itunes.com started (or some other similar service). So I logged, registered - and learned that everybody in Poland is a thief, so I can't buy anything.

Sorry, but Big Four is the last source of ethics to me, unless I will be looking for a blurred version. They are bunch of greedy bullies, using law to their advantage - see Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Good that someone tries to oppose them.

 

[Moridin]

Guess what drove up the prices to start with?

 

[Moridin]

I found the following to be quite entertaining, as well as sad.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1184607/pirate-bay-rival-scuppered (english)
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article5321758.ab (swedish)

The head of the Swedish antipirate agency got his name changed from "Henrik Pontén" to "Pirate Pontén" by a false application to the Swedish tax authority.

 

[f95toli]

They are certainly extremists, and you're disingenuously offering up a strawman distraction. If governments enact unreasonable, authoritarian measures, that is a problem, and it is a separate issue from the crimes they attempt to redress. The flaws of the cop do not exonerate the criminal. Pirates are thieves, and it's a disgrace that they've managed to blur ethics so muddily that voters think they're some sort of rights activists.

Shame on Sweden.

Did you actually read my post? As I wrote above: All I am saying is that I seriously doubt they would have gotten anywhere near 7% if they had been all about file sharing. The debate in Sweden over the past few months has been all about FRA and the implementation of IPRED (which is a EU-wide directive); file sharing as such has largely been a non-issue (expect when it comes to the Piratebay trial).

The problem with the main parties when it comes to questions regarding the Internet is that they too often only listen to one side of the argument (and the Swedish parliament had a seriously bad track-record when it comes to Internet-related legislation long before file sharing was an issue).
The reason why I am saying that the Pirate parties are not extremists is that they were opposed to changing EXISTING laws.

The so-called FRA law (which passed recently) I referred to above has absolutely nothing to do with file sharing; FRA is part of the military intelligence and they are not allowed to operate inside the country; i.e. the law is all about giving them more rights when it comes to listening to traffic passing THROUGH the country; it is about spying on communications between other countries. The problem is of course that it is not at all obvious who will make sure that they follow the rules; FRA is as VERY secret organization and there have been serious concerns when it comes to external oversight.

Now, IPRED is of course related to file-sharing but the debate has -again- been more about the implementation (and once again the main parties seem to be oblivious). The main problems with the law as it stands is that gives e.g. a record company the right to demand that than ISP hand over information about who is using a certain IP number. Now, I don't have a problem with the record companies protecting their property; but I DO think that these things should be handled by the police (with a warrant); stolen property is a crime and should not be handled by the companies themselves.
Secondly, another problem is that laws passed at the same time require an ISP to log Internet ALL traffic (IP numbers) and keep the records for 6 months; i.e someone could quite easily check which websites I visited 3 weeks ago (but again, I wouldn't have a problem with the police monitoring traffic, as long as they have a warrant and they are targeting a suspect).
There are other issues as well but I guess there were the main ones. Again, to some extent the Pirate party actually have more "mainstream" views (=the old laws) when it comes to these issues than many of the established parties.

Now, would I vote for the Pirate Party? No; there are more important issues and I don't like their ideology (which I think is too liberal). However, I DO understand why someone who is disillusioned about the main parties and want to protest against the establied parties would.
Also, I don't actually have a problem with them being in the EU-parliament (one member); hopefully they will be able to keep the debate alive.


Also, I think it is a bit curious that this has been getting so much attention; the fact that a racist party like the BNP here in the UK get two send two people to the parliament should be much more worrying (not to mention Wilders party in the Netherlands, they came 2nd!)

 

[kyleb]

Pirates are thieves, and it's a disgrace that they've managed to blur ethics so muddily that voters think they're some sort of rights activists.

You are blurring the difference between copyright infringement and theft. Not that I have any interest in defending piracy, but there is a obvious difference between sneaking a CD out of a store and getting a copy of it from a friend. I hope the Pirate Party will help the EU come to better acknowledging that difference, as the industry lobby has been far to successful in their efforts to obscure it.

 

[LowlyPion]

... but there is a obvious difference between sneaking a CD out of a store and getting a copy of it from a friend.

In the one case the store owner gets ripped off - the CD company gets paid. In the other, the CD company gets ripped off through loss of a sale. The retail operation derives no benefit either way. In fact given a choice the store owner would rather you rip it off on-line than from his store.

Either way there is economic harm inflicted. Neither is a victimless crime.

 

[humanino]

When USA decided to attack Iraq,EU objected that,but USA do not care them

Are you so proud of that move that you fail to realize you should have listened ?

 

[kyleb]

In the one case the store owner gets ripped off - the CD company gets paid. In the other, the CD company gets ripped off through loss of a sale.

That doesn't rightly follow; were the friend incapable of making a copy he might have just loaned out his original instead.

More to your argument, I'd wager the majority of content pirated is stuff the pirates never would have bought anyway. For example sake; say someone tells me I should listen to some particular song, but instead of purchasing it off iTunes or whatever, I look it up on YouTube to listen to it there. Would you call me a thief for that?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

They are certainly extremists, and you're disingenuously offering up a strawman distraction. If governments enact unreasonable, authoritarian measures, that is a problem, and it is a separate issue from the crimes they attempt to redress. The flaws of the cop do not exonerate the criminal. Pirates are thieves, and it's a disgrace that they've managed to blur ethics so muddily that voters think they're some sort of rights activists.

Shame on Sweden.

Ethics regarding copyrights have been blurred in the other direction for decades. Copyright was instituted originally to protect artists and writers for approximately fifteen years in order to promote these endeavours by allowing for better financial benefits to the individuals that undertake them. The overarching purpose was to benefit the public by continued infusion of educational and culturally significant material from a properly motivated class of intellectual entrepreneurs. The material is supposed to eventually fall into the public domain to the benefit of everyone. Before this the idea that something like the image of the Mona Lisa or the sound of Beethovens 9th belonged to anyone other than the people was rediculous.

Fast forward to the 20th century and we find the corporations of post industrial nations seeking to benefit from the intellectual endeavours of individuals. Through the monopolization of publishing houses and by contract with book sellers the corporate publishers eventually made it nearly impossible for individuals to become successfully published authors without them. This situation begat the 'vanity publisher', an alternative for authors to major corporate publishing, which is yet another industry mostly designed to take advantage of writers.
Taking a look at the music industry which is the most vocal in current copyright issues we will also find the most notorious exploiter of individual copyright owners. Cases of the music industry ruining and making slaves of musicians are legend.
Then there is Disney. The first and, until recently, most vocal champion of extending and strengthening copyright protection was primarily out to protect their biggest and most iconic money making machine. "Save Mickey Mouse" became the war cry of a movement that tricked the public into accepting the legal and social revolution which has led to a perversion of copyright law that protects the corporations holding our culture hostage.

In our modern world the internet makes the sharing of information by both creators and audiences much easier. It is tearing down the conventions created by corporations for the disemination of ideas an information. It is no wonder that the contingent of vocal supporters for further strengthening the long arm of copyright protection are major corporations while individual creators who make their material freely available on the internet enjoy much greater success than they would have otherwise. And no wonder that this Pirate Party are seen as a modern Robin Hood fighting against the opression of wealthy fat cats.

 

[jostpuur]

Pirates are thieves, and it's a disgrace that they've managed to blur ethics so muddily that voters think they're some sort of rights activists.

Democracy sucks, huh? You can never know when you have to disagree with large amount of folks.

 

[LowlyPion]

That doesn't rightly follow; were the friend incapable of making a copy he might have just loaned out his original instead.

More to your argument, I'd wager the majority of content pirated is stuff the pirates never would have bought anyway. For example sake; say someone tells me I should listen to some particular song, but instead of purchasing it off iTunes or whatever, I look it up on YouTube to listen to it there. Would you call me a thief for that?

Browsing is not the complaint of the artists. Mix disc compilations of your faves blown from your computer and dropped in car cds or played repetitively through your iPod is.

The issue with codifying copyright law is determining the point at which there is commercial infringement. You can't mitigate the crime of one extreme with examples at the other.

 

[kyleb]

I am not attempting to mitigate anything, and as I previously stated I have no interest in defending piracy. Rather, I am taking issue with your "loss of a sale" argument by providing an example of what one can classify as a lost sale, and one which I believe is technically prosecutable under the DMCA.

 

[Moridin]

Browsing is not the complaint of the artists. Mix disc compilations of your faves blown from your computer and dropped in car cds or played repetitively through your iPod is.

The issue with codifying copyright law is determining the point at which there is commercial infringement. You can't mitigate the crime of one extreme with examples at the other.

There is no crime to begin with, since intellectual property does not exist. If I analyze one of your cookies, then go bake my own, have I stolen something from you? Of course not.

Furthermore, the loss of revenue argument does not hold water. Since the prices are so high I would not have bought it to begin with.

 

[robertm]

I wonder, would cloning someone's special breed of poodle be prosecutable?

Here is an interesting discussion on the copy writing of genes, including yours: http://pointofinquiry.org/"

In this interview with D.J. Grothe, David Koepsell discusses the implications of corporations patenting parts of the human genome, and how current patent practices negatively impact basic scientific research in genetics. He reviews the history of the practice of patenting genes and contrasts private ownership of gene sequences found in nature with that of the public ownership of the work of the Human Genome Project. He contrasts discovery with invention, and argues that patents should apply only to the latter. He details the relationship of human genes being patented with the practices of big agribusiness owning engineered crops, such as Monsanto's "terminator corn." He discusses the ACLU's recent lawsuit against Myriad Genetics on behalf of scientists and cancer patients, and how it may lead to one of the most important legal battles in the history of biotechnology. He talks about "upstream" and "downstream" patents, and how this impacts genetic research. And he discusses various solutions currently proposed for the problems resulting from private ownership of naturally occurring gene sequences.

This seems applicable to our discussion.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I wonder, would cloning someone's special breed of poodle be prosecutable?

Here is an interesting discussion on the copy writing of genes, including yours: http://pointofinquiry.org/"



This seems applicable to our discussion.

As to your question one would need to legally acquire the genetic material and the manner and agreement by which it is acquired would determine the way in which it can be used. Michael Crichton wrote a book called Next(fiction) which deals with this issue (not with poodles but with humans).

Technically non-engineered genes should not be patentable. You can only patent the particular application. I imagine though that it could be, and probably has been, argued that the specificity of application is inherant in the gene itself and so without the patenting of the gene there is no protection of the patented application.

 

[kyleb]

I wonder, would cloning someone's special breed of poodle be prosecutable?

Monsanto popped into my head the moment I read your question, and by that standard it seems arguable that simply allowing another dog to be impregnated by such a special poodle would be prosecutable.

 

[Hurkyl]

There is no crime to begin with, since intellectual property does not exist.

 

[jostpuur]

There is no crime to begin with, since intellectual property does not exist.

I guess the word "exist" is used in a similar manner as in this piece of discussion:

Person A: "Nothing can move faster than light."

Person B: "Actually a graph of an oscilloscope can move faster than light."

Person A: "But the graph doesn't really exist".

The intellectual property and the graph of the oscilloscope exist in a sense that we can talk about them, but they still exist only in a highly subjective manner. They are not physical objects that would exist somewhere else than in human minds.

 

[russ_watters]

Both the original statement and the analogy are wrong! Intellectual property exists and a graph on an oscilloscope, moving faster than C exists too.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Both the original statement and the analogy are wrong! Intellectual property exists and a graph on an oscilloscope, moving faster than C exists too.

The thing is that while one can easily claim ownership of a thing in one's possession the only means of claiming ownership of an idea (in the form of rights to printing, manufacturing, ect) is through the law.

 

[russ_watters]

There is no crime to begin with, since intellectual property does not exist. If I analyze one of your cookies, then go bake my own, have I stolen something from you? Of course not.

I know this is 3 weeks old, but just to be clear here, are you arguing that there shouldn't be intellectual property or do you really mean that it just plain doesn't exist? Because a huge fraction of our legal resources are devoted to this issue. It most certainly does exist!

And yes, "intellectual property" is ideas, so if you take someone's recipie without their permission, that is stealing.

 

[russ_watters]

The thing is that while one can easily claim ownership of a thing in one's possession the only means of claiming ownership of an idea (in the form of rights to printing, manufacturing, ect) is through the law.

You are wrong on both counts. "Ownership" is a legal thing so when someone claims ownership of something in his posession, he's claiming it as a matter of law. Consider the opposite: if you steal something and now it is in your posession, do you own it? Of course not!

Now you probably just mean that when you "own" a physical object, you can lock it in your house, carry it on your person, and otherwise protect it yourself. If that's what you mean, then you can most certainly do the same with an idea.

 

[jostpuur]

Instead of deciding that Moridin is wrong, I chose to figure out what he must have meant with the word "exist", so that his statement would be right. It could be that Moridin's choice a words was not the best possible one, and I wasn't particularly defending the choice of words, but more like explaining them.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You are wrong on both counts. "Ownership" is a legal thing so when someone claims ownership of something in his posession, he's claiming it as a matter of law. Consider the opposite: if you steal something and now it is in your posession, do you own it? Of course not!

Now you probably just mean that when you "own" a physical object, you can lock it in your house, carry it on your person, and otherwise protect it yourself. If that's what you mean, then you can most certainly do the same with an idea.

Ownership of a physical object is not determined solely by law. Mere possession is enough to assert ownership of an object. As long as you are capable of maintaining possession of that object you more or less own it. This can not be done with an idea. You can not simply lock it away and say it is yours forever more.
As an example a US musician lost a copyright case to a German musician even after proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he never could have even heard the music he had supposedly stolen which was only sold in Germany and played on German radio.
One does not even have to have actually seen or heard your idea from you or anyone connected to you to "steal" it.
There is absolutely no way to retain possession of intellectual "property" except through the law, the willingness of others to not copy your idea without permission, and the willingness of others to enforce such a standard of "property rights". This is as opposed to simply maintaining possession of a singular object.

 

[russ_watters]

Instead of deciding that Moridin is wrong, I chose to figure out what he must have meant with the word "exist", so that his statement would be right. It could be that Moridin's choice a words was not the best possible one, and I wasn't particularly defending the choice of words, but more like explaining them.

The word "exist" has a pretty clear meaning and while you tried to find an interpretation that would work, you failed because your analogy is wrong. You may well be correct that that's what Moridin was getting at -- but it is still wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

Ownership of a physical object is not determined solely by law. Mere possession is enough to assert ownership of an object. As long as you are capable of maintaining possession of that object you more or less own it.

That's quite clearly untrue as shown by the stolen property example I gave earlier. The fact that something is physically in your possession and you are physically capable of guarding it is not a major factor in determining ownership. This is a clear matter of law.

This can not be done with an idea. You can not simply lock it away and say it is yours forever more.

Of course you can! You can write it down, tell no one, lock it in a safe, and it will forever be yours. Or you can patent it and it will be yours alone for 17 years.

As an example a US musician lost a copyright case to a German musician even after proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he never could have even heard the music he had supposedly stolen which was only sold in Germany and played on German radio.
One does not even have to have actually seen or heard your idea from you or anyone connected to you to "steal" it.

Ok...so what? One example of how ownership of intellectual property is protected by the law does not say anything about how ownership of intellectual property can be physically protected. There are many ways, from safe deposit boxes to encryption.

There is absolutely no way to retain possession of intellectual "property" except through the law, the willingness of others to not copy your idea without permission, and the willingness of others to enforce such a standard of "property rights". This is as opposed to simply maintaining possession of a singular object.

I gave some other examples of how you can protect your possession of intellectual property, however you just said, in essence - 'you can't except how you can'.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The word "exist" has a pretty clear meaning and while you tried to find an interpretation that would work, you failed because your analogy is wrong. You may well be correct that that's what Moridin was getting at -- but it is still wrong.

The word "exist" can be rather nebulous. The idea of any "rights" what so ever can be fairly vague as well though the idea of the "right" to own physical property has the advantage of being attached to a rather concrete object.
I believe the point (at least in my estimation) is that "intellectual property rights" are a convenient social/legal fiction that was instituted for a particular purpose (Moridin though may not agree that the purpose has merit). Unfortunately, as I ranted on about in a previous post, the original purpose has been lost and supplanted with the notion of a 'natural right' to ownership of intellectual property (perhaps to the edification of Moridin's anarcho-capitalist views). It is really quite easy to challenge the idea of a 'natural right' to intellectual property.



You posted while I was typing, I was unsure if you intended to respond to me.

That's quite clearly untrue as shown by the stolen property example I gave earlier. The fact that something is physically in your possession and you are physically capable of guarding it is not a major factor in determining ownership. This is a clear matter of law.

While it is often misconstrued as fact the oft quoted "Possession is nine tenths the law" is fairly accurate. One must prove that one legally possessed an object and that it was illegally appropriated. The law actually favours the person who is in physical possession of the object. Even by hook or crook one can claim ownership of a stolen object in one's physical possession and be legally validated so long as no one can prove that the object was in fact stolen. So as long as one can maintain physical possession of an object one can claim "ownership". It is an indisputable fact.

Of course you can! You can write it down, tell no one, lock it in a safe, and it will forever be yours. Or you can patent it and it will be yours alone for 17 years.

In the case of copyright that would be lifetime plus seventy years. Also one needn't apply for a copyright (I am unsure about patents) but only be capable of proving the idea was yours originally.
We are talking about ideas. People have them all the time and it has been shown that multiple people in various locations across the world have come up with similar ideas at approximately the same time (see: Tesla v. Marconi, among others). So how does one legitimately and objectively claim ownership of an idea if it is accidentally "stolen" by someone else outside of a convenient legal fiction?

Ok...so what? One example of how ownership of intellectual property is protected by the law does not say anything about how ownership of intellectual property can be physically protected. There are many ways, from safe deposit boxes to encryption.

This in no way protects against people "stealing" your intellectual property by simply coming up with the same idea as you did at approximately the same time. Have you not ever thought of an idea totally and completely on your own and then seen that someone else had the same idea before, or even after, you did and capitalized on it? If you have not then I'd bet money that I could start a thread in GD and get at least a dozen people responding who have experienced this.
Not that I really begrudge these people who have "stolen" my ideas and made money off of them, but I would still expect some reciprocity if I were to independently come up with an idea at the same time as someone else and be sued for having "stolen" it.

I gave some other examples of how you can protect your possession of intellectual property, however you just said, in essence - 'you can't except how you can'.

Can't except can. I hope that my reference to copyright and patent as convenient legal fictions answers this. Aswell I will point out again that while one can claim ownership of a physical object through physical possession, and must be proven to have stolen this property, one needn't even be proven to have actively "stolen" intellectual property to be held liable.

 

[humanino]

a graph on an oscilloscope, moving faster than C exists too.

No it does not exist in the sense used in the analogy which you decide to refuse to understand. Nothing can move faster than light (in the sense of something carrying energy) and so the spot does NOT exist (because it is a mere geometrical intersection and not carrying energy). The analogy is perfectly appropriate to the current situation. Intellectual ownership is certainly less trivial than owning a car. The car is built, I buy it and register it. Pretty much all ideas are not the creation of a single individual, and many of them may have patent attributed not to whom conceived it first, maybe simply because the person who conceived them failed to realize how he could patent them.

 

[Borek]

So, whom do you call the pirate?

Copyright hypocrisy.

possibly the largest copyright infringement case in Canadian history.

The infringer has effectively already admitted owing at least $50 million and the full claim could exceed $60 billion. If the dollars don't shock, the target of the lawsuit undoubtedly will: The defendants in the case are Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada, the four primary members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association.