Friday, 17 April 2009

Sweden 'Jails' Webmasters



Let the bells ring out from every corner of the EU, a legal principle has been established in Sweden that makes the owners of every site,every blog and every search engine responsible for every comment, every dot and i and what passes through the site whether it touches your server or not.

The Corporates are delighted, Governments salivating at the prospect of internet censorship, the glory days of Governments book burning are back !

The BBC pushed out the verdict as a news flash such was their delight.



Fortunately, the case is going to appeal.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

best suggestion to get out of this one would be for every blogger to but a search engine winkpedia part if that is possible (i am no technical expert).
Thus catergorizing oneself as a google or many enterprise site.

Ultimately in the law money talks, government taxes will be used to silence anything they dont like the jist of.

Anonymous said...

Was the Pirate Bay really a good thing, though? Being beyond the control of governments, their system was a good way to evade censorship. But that wasn't what it was actually used for.

So, Libertarian types: must all businesses be restricted to transactions involving physical property? How can we create markets for intellectual property without some sort of copyright law? And how can there be any form of copyright law without some sort of law enforcement?

Old Holborn said...

The Pirate Bay is a mere search engine and repository of user-uploaded content. It hosts no copyrighted files. All file transfers are between the machines of the end-users, and they never pass through Pirate Bay servers.

Carl Lundström’s lawyer said that the very Internet infrastructure was at issue in the case; all sorts of sites and services that are completely legal—such as Google—link to at least some infringing content, or allow users to upload such material

Ampers said...

Hmmmm... you could just change the sheep for the Internet:

Letter in the Telegraph this morning concerning the EU directive of tagging all the sheep in the UK. It simply said: "If the sheep are innocent, they have nothing to fear"

Anonymous said...

The internet is already a shadow of its former self. Mark my words, we'll get back to the gestetner and leaving print on trams, trains, and buses.

Quite frankly the internet is shit.
Bout time we woke up to other real-time activities.

Anonymous said...

OH, I understand that. But why are you supporting TPB?

(1) TPB is an unethical organisation because it makes money by facilitating copyright infringement. The TPB guys have got rich by selling advertising, which reaches a wide audience because of the large numbers of people visiting the site in order to steal IP. If you support them, you are tainted by them.

(2) TPB is not like Google. Google will remove copyrighted content when asked. TPB will not, unless it's content that will get them into real trouble like child pornography. Their moderation is selective and politicised. Their politics are "information wants to be free" and "we want to make huge amounts of money from your IP".

(3) TPB is an anti-market organisation because they undermine the market for intellectual property. From a free market perspective, their business is the equivalent of a money-forging ring.

(4) People who steal IP are not fighting for freedom any more than chavs who take drugs are fighting for legalisation. They are just taking what they can get while they can get it for free. The highbrow philosophical justifications for IP theft are in Marx territory. The IP thieves are simply helping the Government to make a case for the eventual police state measures that will be introduced to prevent access to future Pirate Bays and use of unauthorised peer to peer applications.

Anonymous said...

Amazing that a country that has one of the lowest incarceration rates for criminals in the world (including some violent ones) can jail these guys.

Or is it?

apocalypse nowish said...

Anynomys
Answers

1) No they haven’t. That’s the point. They provide a marketplace, a meeting portal at best, were others do “crime”. PB have however sold advertising on their site, but according to all records made very little money out off it. And steal IP? What?

2) This is sort of true and they only thing really being against them. But again you miss the point. They have been charged and convicted for having a place where others can meet to do “crime”. In other words, every mall owners are criminals since they got shoplifters. Every government is a criminal (duh) for building roads people drive to fast on. And so on and so on. In reality if someone hacked my blogg and used it for crime, I would be guilty, I provided the means.

3) This is not true. First of all, how do you measure “intellectual property”? Secondly, if you are right, every wave of energy or bits of information going out from a company, a government or a person should be regarded as “property”, which is totally absurd and the consequences are mind-boggling. Finally, this is neither the point. Even if you also are right in this regard, it is not the sharing of movies or whatever that is really at trial here, it is everything. Every piece of information, every culture phenomena, every history paper, debates like this one, blogs and so on.

4) Steal IP? What are you talking about? And governments will use this that you can be sure off. As of the last turn of the year I wouldn’t call Sweden a democracy anymore. If you think you have bad surveillance laws in the UK, you should move to my birth-nation. A paradise for any fascist. This is only a piece on this totalitarian road.

Gareth said...

Anon said:

"(3) TPB is an anti-market organisation because they undermine the market for intellectual property. From a free market perspective, their business is the equivalent of a money-forging ring."

That is a fallacious argument.

Those to 'enjoy' pirated software, music, films etc would not likely pay for legitimate copies of all the things they pirate. It is not lost revenue to the music/software/films industry as they would never have got it in the first place (but less people would have experienced it).

From the pirateers perspective a more appropriate similie is radio - you can listen to music on the radio because it is advertising the music industry's wares. For something like software, demos work in a similar fashion. You get a taste of the software, you get a taste of the album through the singles. It's all a form of advertising.

It didn't use to be like this. Radio used to play music you could buy. Thanks to the music industry, music radio stations tend to play 'new' music that you can't buy for another few weeks. It's all to get instant number 1s in the charts really, as opposed to the old fashioned way of working your way up the charts week after week. But yoofs listening to 1FM or whatever are hearing music they literally can't buy. And the music industry expects them to be patient?

I'm still waiting for home taping to kill music.

Anonymous said...

I want people to think about this stuff instead of simply accepting the received wisdom that TPB are the good guys and the corporations are the baddies. I think Gareth (1347) is right to some extent, but what about the economics of it? Get a movie for £5 or get the same movie for £0? Which is better, from an enlightened self-interest perspective? Maybe you don't care if movies are being stolen, but what about the content that your livelihood depends on?

Now, to 1313. First, IP is real - as real as money or a contract. Copyright infringement actually is a form of theft. You can argue dictionary definitions, but think about the principle of it...

Secondly, opposition and denial to IP is a form of anti-capitalism. Intellectual property isn't some fascist thing designed to keep you down: you, personally, can own copyrights, form a company that sells IP and apply for patents. Even if you don't sell anything, IP law still helps you - free software such as Linux depends on it in order to stay free. IP law works for you, even though TPB and their supporters are trying to undermine it, either for selfish reasons or because of mistaken political beliefs.

Ampers said...

... not likely to buy...

Not altogether true. I tend to buy about five or six CDs a year. When I went on a site like Napster, think it had a couple of zeds in the name, I downloaded a lot of songs. But when I noticed I was buying five or six CDs from HMV every month because of hearing so many more songs, I deleted the website and all the songs.

I am sure there were many more like me.

Anonymous said...

Google in the dock next?

I doubt it. They provide searching facilities to amounts of illegal content that TPB could never reach

The Economic Voice said...

Oh please more censorship.....how are us bloggers or blog owners supposed to be responsible for what is said on our own sites.
Sickening yet coming very close to home.....

Pigs.. said...

Breaking news - Ian Tomlinson killed by 'abdominal haemorrhage' 2nd post moretm finds

Funny how it was missed by the Home Office pathologist in the first one...

Anonymous said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8004222.stm

Tomlinson death - plot thickens

SteveShark said...

I think if you look at it from the perspective of someone who relies on copyrighted material of any kind to make a living then PB isn't quite the nirvana it seems to be.
Take music...a name act - Sting, Oasis, Madonna, etc, etc - can sell enough product through legitimate sources that illegal downloading doesn't make much of a dent in their bank accounts. However, if you were comparative unknown or an up and coming act then such downloading would hit you a lot harder.
I'm on a few recordings myself and I've seen people charging for stuff I've done and I've never seen any money from it. Whilst it's really very, very minor league stuff, it's still copyrighted and if it's money owing to me, I'd like it or at least have some say over whether I want it made available. It's hard enough trying to make a living from music without having some of your efforts made available for zero return.
What I don't want harmed are sites like Dimeadozen which only publish torrent details of material with no legitimate availability now or in the past. These really are fan-only sites and harm no-one's income, although some artists take exception to what they consider to be substandard performances or substandard material.

SteveShark said...

The G20 policemn has been has been questioned under caution for the offence of manslaughter, it says here:

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/crime/g20-protestor-died--abdominal-haemorrhage--$1288688.htm

Katabasis said...

Anonymous 14.08:
"but what about the economics of it? Get a movie for £5 or get the same movie for £0? Which is better, from an enlightened self-interest perspective? Maybe you don't care if movies are being stolen, but what about the content that your livelihood depends on?"What about get a movie for £5 on the day it is released, instead of waiting months and paying £20 for a DVD with (generally) crappy "extras"?

Let me use an example - Battlestar Galactica. I loved this show. I downloaded many episodes. I also brought all of the available DVD boxed sets - and several times over as I also brought them for friends.

I downloaded the shows because I wanted to watch them as soon as they were released and was also sick to death of accidentally coming across spoilers from the americans who had already seen it weeks, if not months before.

I'd have happily paid a fair price to watch the episodes on the day of release (perhaps a £5 / episode 'premium' payment on the day of release, then £3 per episode after?)

The technology is available to do all of this - the consumer wants it. However, the production, distribution and broadcasting monopolies sit in the way.

I'm more than happy to pay artists fairly for their work. I'm not happy to pay, and kowtow to all of the leeches that cling on - these "industries" are now things of the past and should be consigned to the rubbish bin of history. Same with current copyright law.

Chalcedon said...

Pirate bay doesn't have any copyrighted materials on it's site or server. it's basically a rather specific search engine for linking your PC to a specific file on another person's PC. This being the case, the people doing naughties are the file sharers not Pirate bay.

Sounds like big business, Hollywood and the Music industry have their hooks into the law big time here.

Delphius1 said...

If it's illegal to provide links to copyrighted torrents, or (say) to link to illegal porn, then 90 percent of the internet is guilty.

apocalypse nowish said...

I can bet you a hundred pounds the story about Piratebay will be a move coming out from Hollywood. That will be then be shared on Piratebay…

Anyways, if any readers understand Swedish, this is the verdict that you can download from Piratebay:

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4853536/Tingsrattdomen_mot_Pirate_Bay

Anonymous said...

"Those to 'enjoy' pirated software, music, films etc would not likely pay for legitimate copies of all the things they pirate. It is not lost revenue to the music/software/films industry as they would never have got it in the first place (but less people would have experienced it)."

Oh well that's all right then, even though the piraters enjoy the music and films created only BECAUSE others paid hard cash to see / own them in the first place, but the creators aren't losing out because "they weren't going to buy it anyway".

Enjoy being a parasite much?

Old Holborn said...

Oh do fuck off

Ever seen a painting by Turner? Or Picasso? Or heard of Beethoven?

How much did it cost you?

Anonymous said...

"Oh do fuck off

Ever seen a painting by Turner? Or Picasso? Or heard of Beethoven?

How much did it cost you?"

Uh, Beethovens music might no longer be copyrighted, but the individual performances are. You PAY for classical music CDs, you PAY to listen to performances (unless its a free concert), and radio stations have a PAYMENT system in place every time they play a track.

You think music companies don't shut down classical music piracy?

As for paintings, you tell me - is there a large market for torrenting turner paintings?

No, there isn't. The estates DO guard their painters IPs with a vengeance, and woe betide anyone who tries to make a *profit* from their images. it wasn't so long ago Joan Miros estate threatened google simply because they used Miro images on their logo.

I'm going to assume you're smart enough to understand that more often than not, you're usually CHARGED to go to an art gallery unless special provisions are in place.

Try again.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails