Swedish Appeals Court Increases File Sharing Fine By A Factor Of Six
from the this-isn't-helping dept
Earlier this year, we wrote about a guy who was found guilty of file sharing 44 songs in Sweden, but after the court realized that the actual “harm” done by the guy was minimal, he was fined about 2,000 kronor, a total of about $300 — or approximately $7 per song. If you think that there needs to be some punishment for file sharing, then this at least seems reasonably in line and proportional to the offense. Of course, Swedish prosecutors appealed and not only sought to increase the fines, but also asked for jailtime for the guy. Talk about disproportionate punishment! Thankfully, the court turned down the jail time request, but it did increase the fine more than six times to 13,000 kronor or about $2,000. This is, still, a lot less than similar cases in the US, but it still seems way out of line for any “harm” done.
Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, punishment, sweden
Comments on “Swedish Appeals Court Increases File Sharing Fine By A Factor Of Six”
Let's try to keep an open mind...?
Okayyy, the MPAA and their ilk have drawn so much bad press with their heavy-handed tactics, that even level-headed writers get so upset they seem lose any sense of logic.
Yes, file sharing is almost omni-present, but it still forbidden by law. You *may* think that the world was better off before the first copyright laws (and indeed before royal priviliges) but I think most authors would beg to differ (disclosure: apart from being an IP lawyer, my entire family earns their living through creative works and their IP rights).
IP rights are exclusive rights, created to protect first authors and later other creative/innovative people. ‘Exclusive’ means just that: your right consists of the ability to exclude people from whatever specific use was bestowed on you. That mini-monopoly serves to help the author generate some income, instead of dying poor or living under patronage.
Enforcement of this right is expensive, however, and it was a boon to IP rights holders that some governments decided to help them by declaring IP piracy a form of theft that the government will do something against. The ‘damage’ (missed income) may be small, but every file-sharing erodes the right of the author further. Civil proceedings put the cost on the IP holder and that is additional damage: in my view, it would be unfair NOT to have the defendant pay this as well. The government is just cheaper, because it doesn’t charge convicts for the cost of their prosecution.
So, yeah, loads of people run traffic lights and some cops are *really* indiscriminate and vicious about fining folks for that. The damage is minimal, but they are eroding a rule, a system that society put in place for a reason (yeah, corporate lobbying sure made IP rights a whole lot more powerful, no argument there). So, tough shit, either own up that you want your content for free (even if the author did not want to give it for free) and get lawmakers to change the law through voting or criticise the WAY in which it is done only, not the system. Sounds fair?
Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
See, that last paragraph would be sensible, if the MAFIAA would also be sensible, and at least make a modicum of effort to adapt.
I abolutely appreciate where you stand, even though I disagree with it vehemently. To quote Jon Stewart (I’m doing that a lot lately):
“I disagree with you, but I’m pretty sure you’re not Hitler.”
Re: Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
Well, as the French say: “Du choc des opinions jaillit la verit?” (from the shock/collision of opinions the truth will arise)… but thanks, discussion is what the comments are for and I for one am not looking to preach, but I do feel some reasoned counter-arguments to what I consider pretty cheap IP-bashing would help the discussion.
Oh, and I do believe the anti-piracy hunts by the MPAA have made a mockery of collective rights enforcement, which in my eyes is sad. They appear to use a harvester combine / carpet bombing kind of strategy, which is simply unprofessional and detrimental to the system built on the idea of protecting the rights holders. I do not believe the MPAA/RIAA are doing a good job of anything.
Re: Re: Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
Well, give me about five years in charge of them, I’ll slash their legal and lobbying bills and innovate as well.
Re: Re: Re:2 Let's try to keep an open mind...?
Fire Mitch Rosen, Mitch Glasier, Sandy Aistars, and the CEOs of every part of all of these trading industries.
You’ll only need 1 year to see profit.
Re: Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
You said: “MAFIAA”
Me: Freetard idiot.
See how name calling plays out? Why not stick to the discussion and drop the heated name calling?
Re: Re: Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
You took time out of your busy schedule to comment on one word, ignoring the rest of the argument?
I mean, seriously?
Re: Re: Re:2 Let's try to keep an open mind...?
Cut the dude some slack…he’s on the clock. He’ll never make his post quota without a few filler pieces.
Re: Re: Re:3 Let's try to keep an open mind...?
Astroturfers gonna ‘turf.
Re: Re: Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
His post: an honest opinion that happens to contain a name you don’t like.
Yours: nothing of substance, only retaliatory name calling.
You really fail at debating, don’t you?
Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
And how do you propose people change the laws?
Being quiet about it without public discussion?
Here is another suggestion, everybody should criticize the system and spread the word everywhere of what is happening, copyright is ridiculous and it remains to be seen if it is even necessary anymore.
This is how people get to know how and why things need to change, not by being quiet about it.
Re: Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
Hmm, no, I don’t believe I was saying or implying anything of the sort: quite the opposite, actually.
Discussion (you know, with arguments and mutual respect) is excellent and if the majority of the population feels these rights should go, well… I am a fervent believer in democracy.
I *do* object to simplification and outright, unreasoned hate-campaigns: like it or not, make what reasoned choice you will, but the IP-debate is not that simple. Just weigh the pro and cons. “X is ridiculous” is just a simple opinion, I am sure you can do better… 😉
Re: Re: Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
Then you can’t ask people not to complain about the system, that is not democratic at all.
Quote:
If things don’t work are we going to ignore the fact that the reason it doesn’t work may well be the very system that allows and incentivizes those things to happen?
At some point people will see that nothing grows in poor soil conditions. If the system(soil) is not good there will be no “good ways” of doing things only bad, so maybe it is time to take a very serious look at the system and see if there are better ways and what was the forefathers missed.
Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
This is easily the best ‘other side’ comment I’ve seen on these boards.
Re: Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
I have to agree. It is good to have a reasoned debate on thee actual issues at hand.
Re: Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
Still conflates copyright violation with theft though. Even suggests that the law does it too when most penal codes draw a very distinct line between them.
Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
“IP rights are exclusive rights, created to protect first authors and later other creative/innovative people. ‘Exclusive’ means just that: your right consists of the ability to exclude people from whatever specific use was bestowed on you. That mini-monopoly serves to help the author generate some income, instead of dying poor or living under patronage.”
The problem is – these rights were not there to “protect” anyone. They were introduced as an incentive for the creative folk. this means that the “mini-monopoly” does not – and should not – guarantee ANY income for the creator. Indeed – a creator may wish to excersise their IP rights for reasons other than money – for example recognition, exclusivity or simply because they are assholes that refuse to share “their” property!
Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
Re: Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
If you wish to quote Robert A. Heinlein, maybe you should consider attributing the quote? It is actually quite good, so I have taken the liberty of doing it for you… you’re welcome! 😉
And yeah, so that makes … say Charles Manson a ‘free man’in your view? I suppose there is an existentialist argument to be made to that effect, but it is not really an ethical road I’d like to see society going down, do you? Pure classical anarchic philosophy is certainly idealistic: “every human being is only responsible and subject to itself”. Like most idealistic views (communism, capitalism, christianity, buddhism), it tends to have the drawback that people *can* be egotistic bastards who kill, maim, (mass-)murder, rape, pillage and … well, generally do despicable as well as wonderful things.
Anyhow, taking responsibility for your own actions is a fine thing and the basis of moral thought, so kudos to Heinlein. Just don’t expect your society and neighbors not to have views on your actions.
You might even learn something: after all, to quote Heinlein: “I never learned from a man who agreed with me.” 😉
Re: Re: Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
Accept one thing, with out a goal (the idealistic goal that I share with Heinlein, and I follow in my daily life) then society is left with the what we have today, wet-nurse governments… why not idealize and strive for everyone to begin taking responsibility for their actions??? I do not need a wet-nurse government standing beside me and telling me whats good and not, I can do that for myself….
Now to IP, as an Author and Inventor I will specifically say most IP is crap / overrated/ and a basis for lawyers to make money… I think I have made maybe 5 whole US dollars on a actual Copyright or Patent… What i have made money on is doing what i like and do really well, and making a name for myself in my industries, MY ability’s and Intellect are what people rent from me today, when and where i choose, not some IP law…. Patents and Copyright have only gotten in the way of some really cool things that could already be on the market but have to spend years going through the lawyers and courts and everything else because the companies are afraid of the IP Trolls and competitors suing….
To end on a positive note (I am sure you will recognize this)
“an armed society is a polite society”
Re: Re: Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
If you wish to quote Robert A. Heinlein, maybe you should consider attributing the quote?
I generally like to put what character said it in what book and such, but I was too lazy to track it down, so I just threw it in quotes so people didn’t think it was me. Easy enough to Google if someone really cared.
And yeah, so that makes … say Charles Manson a ‘free man’in your view?
Was Rosa Parks a “free woman” while she was in jail for not sitting at the back of the bus? As long as she acted in a manner consistent with her beliefs, I would say she was.
Like most idealistic views (communism, capitalism, christianity, buddhism), it tends to have the drawback that people *can* be egotistic bastards who kill, maim, (mass-)murder, rape, pillage and … well, generally do despicable as well as wonderful things.
Note that I never said that I expect society to refrain from punishing me because I broke the law. I only meant that I, personally, am morally responsible for deciding which laws to follow and which to ignore. I ignore so-called “intellectual property” laws because I find them to be a morally repugnant concept. Telling me that I have to follow morally repugnant laws because otherwise there would be “anarchy” assumes that everyone doesn’t already ignore laws they find obnoxious or wrong.
If the SS showed up at your house and told you that the law required you to point out all the Jews living nearby, would you follow the law, or follow your own sense of morality and justice? I hope that’s a rhetorical question.
So if we can assume that everyone already follows laws they agree with, breaks the ones they vehemently don’t, and tolerates the existence of some where the two categories overlap, do we already live in “anarchy”, or do we just live in a society where everyone agrees more often than not?
Re: Re: Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
The problem is that the IP companies are sociopathic non-humans whose stated goal demonstrated through their actions are to leech as much profit from the system. This is anarchy in action. The system is corrupt and the IP companies take advantage of and perpetuate the corruption. If anything, IP laws incentivize corruption in the system. They show that the will of the people can be ignored and the laws can be bought. Representation in this system is a myth, so saying, “talk to your congressman” is the biggest cop out ever. The lobbyists are talking to my congressman at lunch and you want me to send a letter so that an intern can read it and send back a form response on a completely different subject?
Re: Let's try to keep an open mind...?
“Enforcement of this right is expensive, however”
All enforcement is expensive when you have to use the courts and civil actions. However, this doesn’t give you the right to goad the government into making it criminal, and I put the blame for the high costs directly on the shoulders of the people charging for these ‘enforcement’ services. Yes, that would be the IP lawyers.
“So, tough shit, either own up that you want your content for free”
No one said they want it all for free. That’s your own baseless, ridiculous assertion.
Other than that, I’ve no problems with what you’ve said. Yeah, I can point out the ‘infringement isn’t theft!’ thing, but you’re already well aware of that, I’m sure.
Typically I agree with a lot of things written on Techdirt, but this time I disagree with the amount being out of line. Ignoring factors such as cost of living, average income, etc, of Sweden (I honestly have no idea, as my interests and education don’t pertain to that region of the world), I think $2,000 is a perfectly reasonable fine.
The fine isn’t only about harm done, it is also supposed to serve as a form of punishment and deterrence against it being done again. I am a student, I pay my own way, use government loans to cover tuition, etc, so $2,000 is a significant amount to me. It is likely a significant amount to most middle class people/families.
This is an amount that covers a reasonable value on harm that was done, it punishes the guy for his crime, will deter others from doing the same, but in no way can this amount be considered excessive and unreasonable. He was caught sharing 44 different songs. Want would be the total if he was caught speeding 44 times? Or caught littering 44 times?
Re: Re:
Littering causes “actual” harm, to the environment. This is proven fact.
Speeding has the “potential” to cause “actual” harm, to the public. This is proven fact.
File sharing “may” only have the “potential” to deprive the content creator of a “mythical” sale, causing “hypothetical” harm. No amount of research, however, has been able to prove this is a guaranteed fact.
Now, in my country, littering incurs a greater fine than speeding, due no doubt, to the actual vs. potential harm involved. Makes sense then that illegal file sharing attracts a far lesser fine than speeding, due to only the possible, potentially hypothetical, mythical harm involved.
I’d say the original judgement was indeed quite fair.
Re: Re:
I agree with you fully on this one. The idea of a punishment isn’t only to to find some way to make the offended party “whole” in some manner, but also to be dissuasive enough to stop the underlying bad act. It’s why the fine isn’t set as the retail price of the product, because clearly that would have no punitive or corrective value.
Your speeding and littering examples are good, but what about the more virtual, like “hacked into 44 computers (but did nothing other than enter)”, or “cloned 44 credit card numbers from his job”. Both of those are “virtual” crimes, and both come with significant penalties if caught. You don’t go to jail for the amount of time it took the commit the crime. That wouldn’t be meaningful, would it?
Re: Re: Re:
I agree that fines must be more than the retail cost in order to act as a deterrent, but when there is no legitimate commercial infringement (ie the infringer did not pirate material in order to sell it at a personal profit, and i think the proof here has to be a high bar, not simply ‘Internet Banner Ad revenue’), then the fines must also be reasonable. The fines should act as a deterrent, but also not be so high that they are then leveraged as a litigation business model.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you kidding? The settlement levels don’t even justify the cost of a lawyer at this point. I doubt that the rights holders in this case will see a penny.
It’s why the judge’s recent lowering of the Jammie Thomas settlement amount is so painful. The costs to move the case through the civil courts is high, the settlement needs to be mindful of the costs involved in getting justice, otherwise the system has denied justice.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Welcome to the commons condition.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The costs to move the case through the civil courts is high, the settlement needs to be mindful of the costs involved in getting justice, otherwise the system has denied justice.
Bullshit. Justice should have absolutely nothing to do with the costs of the lawyers. That is a completely asinine stance. If its a problem, get some cheaper lawyers, but don’t make it the court’s problem because YOU spent too much on lawyers.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
But having to spend any money at all because some *fellow citizen* decides your rights are not important to him, that has to kind of nuisance, don’t you think?
Remember, we are not talking government costs here (except for criminal prosecution of IP-infringement: big hurrah from the thats-free-for-us-IP-holders-dept.) but actual money paid by a fellow citizen to get your wrong (yes, breaking the law is wrong) corrected. Compare: some asshole wrecks your car that you use for your work and income, because he thinks cars are ‘evil environment killers’. Are you telling me that you don’t see the justice in having him pay up for the cost of the lawyer you needed to get him to pay the costs of repair, as well as maybe the money you lost cause you couldn’t get a rental car fast enough?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
This is a very different situation. In this case, the person who wrecked your car has deprived you of your car until it is repaired or replaced. In the case of file sharing, they have deprived you of hypothetical income.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The asshole who wrecked your car is also guilty of a criminal act and subject to punishment under criminal statutes.
Turn the scenario around. You’re sued by someone who thinks you don’t have respect for his rights and he has more money than you and he sues you in civil court.
You could hire a lawyer, only you can’t really afford one because you’re poor or even middle class, but still poor compared to the other guy. What choice do you have? Defend yourself alone in court, potentially losing your job and significant income, only to end up getting out-lawyered and being found liable for economic damages you can’t possibly pay?
If you up the cost of the damages to account for the cost of lawyers, you are denying justice because the plaintiff already had money enough to hire lawyers. That means that more money equals more justice. If that is the case, we need a new term for it because that isn’t justice.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Arrrrgh! More terrible car analogies! The two are no where near the same, and you know it. Please stop with the analogies that do not even come close to being analogies.
You want them to pay court costs and huge fines? Fine. PROVE ACTUAL HARM. Right now you’re sitting on a high-horse proclaiming it’s the law as if that were the morally appropriate thing, and calling copyright a ‘right.’ It’s an exclusionary right, not and inclusive right. It excludes the rights of the people to art and literature that is pertinent to culture and society to their detriment.
Cut the cord, already! Stop suckling at the teat of government and learn to adjust to the realities of today’s technological society.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I agree, I shouldn’t have to spend a dime just because someone else decided my rights weren’t as important as their rights. That’s why I don’t like the idea of having to lobby for the abolition of copyright. I mean, just because you think that my natural right to copy is less important than your government granted right to stop infringe on my rights, doesn’t mean I should have to pay. Unfortunately, if I want you to stop infringing on my rights, I’m going to have to pay for it. And that’s just not right. So please take your IP away, because it infringes my natural rights.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
But having to spend any money at all because some *fellow citizen* decides your rights are not important to him, that has to kind of nuisance, don’t you think?
Sure, it’s a nuisance. But, it’s your decision to go after copyright infringers in the first place. I personally believe that there are smarter business models available to utilize.
Look, I am not against awarding reasonable legal fees in a civil suits. My problem is that if you decide to hire 600 lawyers to do it, then that is not reasonable legal fees and you should have to cover the difference.
And my above comment was directed at the AC who keeps spouting that justice isn’t done unless the award covers all the legal fees incurred and that is simply silly. There is always an inherent risk of momentary loss involved in starting in any civil suit.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
er…momentary = monetary
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Well, fair point: many countries in Europe do not award damages for actual lawyer fees and instead award a set amount to cover lawyer fees. The idea is to keep the courts accessible to all.
Under the Enforcement Directive (a bundle of IP-holder friendly measures to be implemented in all Member-States) actual costs have to be awarded (so as to put the burden of civil enforcement on the infringers’ shoulders.
A nice idea, but now you get this: larger parties sue or send warning letters to alleged infringers and basically say “we will outspend you, win, and then make you pay our inflated legal bills, unless you settle now”. I am an expensive lawyer myself and this practice is very real (oh, and obviously it is quite effective).
In view of the ‘normal system’ for civil proceedings (where nobody gets their legal bills reimbursed by the losing side) many judges are very critical of this new system just for IP rights. Those judges are very active in lowering the amount awarded by referring to the phrase “full and *reasonable* costs” in the Directive.T hey have even published guideline amounts as to what they consider reasonable. A nice and wise thing in my view.
again see above you are paid weather you work or not particular with music or film again your argument fails as if you had a percentage of sales you you could make enough to keep you while you did more work.
that would be fair as you could make enough from sales from if music compilation albums re-releases if you were popular enough. and if printed works then again from reprints. of if you were crap then you would fail and not live on the same one single piece of work for your life (and in some cases your grand children’s life.
so every file share is a lost sale don’t think so never happen.
Re: Re:
Hmm, just curious: how would you live of the IP/royalty-proceeds of something that doesn’t sell? I think the entire point is to provide successful authors with a share of the proceeds throughout their lives…
I know and even represent film-writers and directors who start off with nothing, spend half their life getting funding, the other half working their ass off and when they retire, they can supplement what meager pension they may or may not have with the aggregate royalties from their various documentaries and films. Why would you take that away?
Re: Re: Re:
“I know and even represent film-writers and directors who start off with nothing, spend half their life getting funding, the other half working their ass off and when they retire, they can supplement what meager pension they may or may not have with the aggregate royalties from their various documentaries and films. Why would you take that away?”
Why is it that film-writers and directors keep getting payed long after the work is done when people like me don’t? I started from nothing, wasn’t given anything, and will have vary little by the time retirement comes around. I work just as hard if not harder then a film-writer or director, why don’t I keep getting payed?
What about those who build our roads? What about those who run the electric wires across the nation? What about those who teach the world? Billions of dollars are being made off of those people’s hard work. Yet all of them have to put in extra effort and save even more money in the hopes of saving enough to retire.
And what about you? Do you keep getting payed over and over again for one case you won? Or do you get payed over and over again for ongoing time and effort you provide?
Why is it that human nature needs to be stopped so someone can live off of work they did 35 years ago?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s quite an assertion. What exactly do you do for a living? And do you have any first hand experience of how much work goes into film production?
Because people who write scripts don’t get paid to write the scripts. If you wrote a movie and produced it today, it would be years before the film ever saw any profit. Take a movie like Evil Dead, which is as big an indie success as any film maker could hope for, it took years before they even made enough money to cut the first checks to pay back the investors. I don’t have the exact quote, it’s from a book written by Bruce Campbell, but I believe it was around a decade before they were able to begin paying people back. Forget about paying themselves.
On a related note regarding investors: why would a 3rd party invest in anything if it didn’t guarantee some kind of return in the future?
You’re answer is right there. These people got paid to begin with. That is not the case in creative fields. No one gets paid for labor — until they have enough clout — they only get paid for products.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I should not have said “guarantee some kind of return”. That should have been something more along the lines of, why would a person invest in something if they didn’t have the hope of getting a greater return sometime in the future?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
But that’s the purpose and the spirit of investment… Company offers stock, to build capital, I invest to make more money (long run typically) than I put in….
Sorry no different than any other investment/gamble….
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
But how do you get paid later for investing in art? There’s no stock market for that kind of investment. You could invest in the larger corporate interests, I suppose. But how does an investor make more money from financing a film if he doesn’t get some sort of slice of the profits?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
A slice or the whole pie? Take a look at Hollywood accounting and tell me they’re not getting enough slices as it currently is…
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
thats up to the contract and the negotiations… if you want my money, as an investment, you would have to show and put in a legal contract how you would pay me back, either a portion of the profits, or some other mechanism… or i will not give you money… how is that hard?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“I don’t have the exact quote, it’s from a book written by Bruce Campbell, but I believe it was around a decade before they were able to begin paying people back.”
My copy’s at home but it was probably If Chins Could Kill. I’ll have a look in about 7 hours when I get home.
But, to be fair that was a very different time. Not only would it be MUCH cheaper to make that movie nowadays on digital (the cost of film and film developing would have been their biggest expense), but the distribution would have been far easier. Making money back on an independent feature in the infancy of home video would have been tricky (according to Wikipedia is took 18 months from premiere to 128 screens!).
If you’re going to pick an example of a movie that took a long time to profit, you should probably pick something made after digital, DVD and the internet were mainstream. I’m not saying that people are suddenly able to make money instantly, you understand, just that the marketplace is so different that it’s a bad example.
“On a related note regarding investors: why would a 3rd party invest in anything if it didn’t guarantee some kind of return in the future?”
Amusing fact: there IS no guarantee that movies will make money. They’re a risky investment, which is why independents always have a hard time getting funding.
dont know what happened to my post above 1/2 of it missing
my entire family earns their living through creative works and their IP rights).
ok so you are prepared to sit back and count the $ coming surely you would be more inclined to do more and better work if you were paid a percentage of sales only. keeping fans happy and connecting with them more often. not paid for life work you did 50 years ago.
That mini-monopoly serves to help the author generate some income, instead of dying poor or living under patronage.
again see above you are paid weather you work or not particular with music or film again your argument fails as if you had a percentage of sales you you could make enough to keep you while you did more work.
that would be fair as you could make enough from sales from if music compilation albums re-releases if you were popular enough. and if printed works then again from reprints. of if you were crap then you would fail and not live on the same one single piece of work for your life (and in some cases your grand children’s life.
but every file-sharing erodes the right of the author further.
so every file share is a lost sale don’t think so never happen.
Re: Re:
Ahh, no, I am *not* saying every infringement is a lost sale: I have heard that argument thrown around by over-zealous IP-adepts, but that is not true either. Lots of people would never pay for the stuff they download and share for free. Some people even share content they dislike just to get good ratios on their torrents.
But the opposite (not every illegal download is a lost share, SO illegal file-sharing causes *no* damage) is just as unfounded. It is the exclusivity of the right that is eroded: every act of file-sharing lowers the moral sense of it being wrong and erodes the concept of IP rights itself. Now, laws are made by people and in democracies we get to think certain laws (passed under some majority at some time) are wrong, but living in a democracy and a rule of law also means you have to obey even the laws that you do not agree with (please spare me the ‘evil’ law scenarios: copyright is not in contradiction to human rights).
Re: Re: Re:
Which is not a bad thing.
Maybe in some very narrow circumstances IP law makes sense but by an large it is not necessary, there are many many industries that didn’t really on IP to be create or survive and to this day there are those that don’t have any protections and still can make money without concessions from the government.
Also how do you know piracy produce “harm” and not benefits? people can’t even prove definitely it does harm, they just assume it is harmful which nobody was able to show conclusively. Do you have any studies demonstrating with empirical, incontestable certainty that disregard for IP laws is detrimental?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well… read carefully: nowhere do I say that file-sharing, piracy, generic or even fake medicines, software theft, plagiarizing, etc. do *not* have economic effects. In fact, I am pretty sure most IP-infringement occurs precisely because it has an economic effect (ie. turns a profit for the producer).
I believe the piracy may in certain circumstances/ countries/ whatever indeed drive consumption and speed the wheels of the economy. Even a large black-market economy or arms-trading may do that. Economic arguments are certainly worth taking into consideration, but I believe the main questions hinges on how you want to reward creative and innovative minds in society, without demanding they have automatic business acumen, personal capital and social skills on top of their already impressive creative abilities.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
” the main questions hinges on how you want to reward creative and innovative minds in society, without demanding they have automatic business acumen, personal capital and social skills on top of their already impressive creative abilities.”
So why not leave it to the public to decide how to reward our creative people? At the moment it seems that the rewards are decided by the businessmen (who lean towards ripping off the creative people) who shout and complain as loudly as possible in their never ending quest to grab more money!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Quote:
Read carefully what you wrote there.
Filesharing causes no damages have then a foundation to those claims, but you claimed otherwise, that to me is pretty clear that you think illegal filesharing causes damage or is just me?
Now about copyright, copyright in America is not about how others will be compensated is about incentivizing people to produce something not to grant them income.
More what is wrong with people having to have more then one skill?
What happens to anyone who doesn’t have business acumen and social skills?
They don’t succeed and trying to create a system that don’t demand those things from people can only end badly for that society.
Re: Re: Re:
> every act of file-sharing lowers the moral sense of it being wrong
Morally, sharing is not only not wrong, it is a good thing. We learn since we are little children to share.
> and erodes the concept of IP rights itself
Eroding the “concept of IP rights”, the concept of you being forbidden to share and use information freely, is a good thing.
> you have to obey even the laws that you do not agree with
Unjust laws must be disobeyed.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh dear, do you really want to go that route…? My studies in law school and philosophy were over-saturated with this crap. OK, I’ll spot the obvious flaw there: hey, you are using another moral rule to obfuscate the point I was trying to make. Excellent court room trick, I admit. *tips hat* 😉
So, how shall I rephrase that? “every act of breaking the law lowers the moral sense of it being wrong to break the law”? There, better?
>> Unjust laws must be disobeyed.
Yeah, see… I believe that laws that prevent me from butchering someone who lays a hand on my kids are unjust. My neighbor believes *all* laws are unjust (especially tax laws, although he oddly loves all welfare laws). The nutjob across the street from my brother believes gun laws are a conspiracy against him by some nefarious otherworldly entities. “I don’t like it so it ain’t just” scares the crap of me, even in myself.
Maybe I’m wrong, but let’s say we save the civil disobedience exception for nazi-type legislation, ok? You are not some revolutionary by breaking the law. In my humble opinion, Heroes are people who take the time and effort to do the right thing in the right way.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The right way in this case could well be disobedience.
Because I’m sure not respecting any law that tries to tell me how I should use something I paid for.
Just like everybody ignores other laws even the police, remember the police trying to enforce the distance from the curb to make life difficult for some people?
Is there anyone that respect that law? How many people do you see measuring the distance of a car to the curb?
Didn’t a congress woman on live TV said to people to ignore foreclosures and told people to ask for the papers?
Didn’t the police in Wisconsin not broken the law by not removing protester from the government building?
There is a limit to what the law can do, even though it is important there are still things the law just can’t do and copyright enforcement is one of them.
Did anybody tried to enforce the law when hundreds of little girls were taking pictures and filming the Bieber movie?
That was a direct violation of the law and in some places is even criminal to film a movie in a theater.
So if some law is so easy to break and it undermines the law, the solution is not enforcement or trying to “educate” people they already proved for the last decades they will not respect it, no matter what the consequences.
In the ex-USRR it was a capital crime to listen to American music or watch American movies and some how people there had access to contraband and American artists had millions of fans there.
Bad laws are never going to be respected, that is the whole point, no matter what some want others to do they are not going to stop the “illegal” activity if the people don’t feel like doing it.
Why do America have Adverse Possession laws?
Because people didn’t respect the English laws of ownership that the American government tried to impose.
There are ways the population can force change when it wants too and there is no other issue on the world today that so many people agree on and that is copyright is just nonsense.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
every act of breaking the law lowers the moral sense of it being wrong to break the law
It seemed like you begging me to quote Ayn Rand, so here (don’t blame me, you asked for it!):
Evil men trying to increase their power aside, strict copyright laws *are* lowering the respect for the law in general. You have entire generations infringing copyrights from a young age (including mine. I’m a home taper from way back “I’m thirty-seven! I’m not old!”). When it is nearly impossible to interact with today’s world without infringing, then yes. People lose respect for the law. Hell, I’ve infringed three times just replying to you.
So, is it easier to change a law that most people break anyway, or to change the hearts of millions of people to meakly obey? Kind of reminds me of the x-files where Mulder made a wish for world peace — and everyone on the planet disappeared. Maybe if we had reasonable copyright laws reasonable people would follow them.
Re: Re: Re:
>> But the opposite (not every illegal download is a lost share, SO illegal file-sharing causes *no* damage) is just as unfounded.
Actually, several scientific studies show that filesharing not only causes no damage, but actually boosts consumption.
>> It is the exclusivity of the right that is eroded: every act of file-sharing lowers the moral sense of it being wrong and erodes the concept of IP rights itself.
Have you ever considered the possibility that IP rights may be morally wrong? That things that stifle, control and exclude has no place in human cultural development?
>> [P]lease spare me the ‘evil’ law scenarios: copyright is not in contradiction to human rights.
There is also no human right that says you have to get paid for something you do once again and again for the duration of your life plus 75 years. I find that morally wrong.
Same with the right to sue someone out of their homes and into eternal poverty for sharing two dozen mp3s. Thats right there in the “evil” department. No human rights violations needed.
So yeah. But no.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
See my comments about economic arguments in the IP-debate above.
>> There is also no human right that says you have to get paid for something you do once again and again for the duration of your life plus 75 years. I find that morally wrong.
Correct, it is not a human right: it is only a law the majority of the population had enacted as legislation at some point in history. You can definitely change that (although international treaties have made it a little more work).
As for your opinion, I can definitely understand that you would think that, but I don’t see it that way. If I write one good song/painting/book in my youth, beg, crawl and dance to finally get it published, but it only becomes a hit only many decades later, how do I profit from the book sales without IP? If you answer “by getting a profit sharing agreement in place”, I swear, I *will* laugh! 😉
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Correct, it is not a human right: it is only a law the majority of the population had enacted as legislation at some point in history.”
When did the majority of the population vote to enact IP legislation? Did lawmakers all run on a platform of “if you vote for me, I will create a new, made up property of the mind so you, my constituents, can be legally harassed and shaken down for sharing things you like”.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Err, is there a non-majority legislative body in the US I do not know about…? European here, so forgive me if I got that wrong, but I thought the USA were a representative democracy.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“I thought we were an autonomous colective.” “You’re fooling yourself. We’re living in a dictatorship.”
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Lazy examiners lying in stacks of irrelevant prior art distributing patents according to low standards of inventive step is no basis for a system of exclusive rights…? 🙂
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Yes, and like all politicians, they represent whomever gives them the most money, which is not their constituency is most, if not all, cases.
We, The People, did not push to enact copyright, the industry did that. If we were truly being represented, copyright would be reigned in. (No, I’m not an abolitionist.)
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The United States is not a simple representative democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. There is no majority rule.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You don’t, copyright is an incentive not a sure thing.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Wait, what?
Your argument is that the media industry is fucked up and abusive, and thats why we need strong IP rights?
Because thats what I get from the “beg, crawl, dance and not get a profit sharing agreement” part.
As for your “how will I profit” question – the same way you would if something of yours went viral on youtube.
Its basically the same scenario as your IP-less book becoming a hit – millions of fans and not a dime per view.
If you can’t profit in that scenario, you probably dont deserve to.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“As for your opinion, I can definitely understand that you would think that, but I don’t see it that way. If I write one good song/painting/book in my youth, beg, crawl and dance to finally get it published, but it only becomes a hit only many decades later, how do I profit from the book sales without IP? “
Uhm… That has actually happened. Edgar Allen Poe pretty much died penniless. Pablo Picasso, same story. Not everyone will benefit through copyright law. Hell, not everyone will reach the upper peaks of society. That doesn’t mean that I should have the right to sue because my expression of an idea is similar to another, forcing only one person to benefit by taking away someone else’s right to the idea…
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Tell you what lets make a draft of legislation abolishing copyrights and put to a public vote to see what happens 🙂
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Correct, it is not a human right: it is only a law the majority of the population had enacted as legislation at some point in history.”
This could not be more wrong, and I’m sure you realise this. The majority of the population did NOT ask for this, the industry middlemen did, and they are the greatest beneficiaries of it. NOT creators, NOT consumers.
“You can definitely change that (although international treaties have made it a little more work).”
You have a fantasyland view of the people’s ability to change these laws for their benefit. Nearly every attempt to change copyright laws in favour of rightsholders has succeeded. Nearly every attempt to change copyright laws in favour of the public has failed.
“If I write one good song/painting/book in my youth, beg, crawl and dance to finally get it published, but it only becomes a hit only many decades later, how do I profit from the book sales without IP?”
You don’t, tough luck. The chances of a work only becoming successful decades later are very slim, so that potential income source does not deserve to be protected with laws that are detrimental to society in so many other ways.
Re: Re: Re:
you have still not answeared my main point so please answear this question, Is it fair that you, your children and in the case of print your grandchildren should be able to not do a days work because what you wrote / recorded several decades ago. Surely a percentage of sales would be a better fairer system.
As to not breaking the law lets look a here in the UK in 1964
Back in 1964 a young manager had a band he wanted to record. They made a demo and the manager took that demo to every record company in the town all two of them, actually EMI and DECCA there was a third but they only reprinted music tracks from the USA. Yes I am telling a British story. The two companies turned him down so he recorded the band and produced the tracks himself. So now he had a band and a record company. The next step was to get the music played on the radio. The BBC said we don?t play that kind of music. Radio Luxembourg (the only commercial station) just laughed and said look at the schedule. Which went something like Decca show EMI show. So our young manager decided I have a record label a artist and hundreds of records to sell and no radio station will play them only thing to do now is start my own radio station. He did the artist was Georgie Fame the manager was Ronan O’Reilly the radio station was Radio Caroline. Broadcasting from a ship at sea outside the government control outside the reach of record companies trying to get copyright.
Because of this piece of history the near monopoly of two record companies was smashed. Many different labels emerged some failed some still going. Because of this piece of history Britain has hundreds of radio stations. All this is true Do you really want to return to the days pre 1964 because in my opinion we will if the likes of the RIAA / MPAA get their way with copyright law.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Extra credit for a wonderful example!
The Radio Caroline history website confirms my suspicions: “Radio Nord and the owners of Radio Veronica an efficiently run Dutch offshore radio station. Radio law in the Netherlands was as restrictive as in the UK. In Holland as in Britain the law of the land only extended as far as territorial waters, three miles out from the coast. Beyond that lay international waters where there was no law other than that defined by the flag states of ships. A ship registered to Panama for example, whilst in international waters recognised Panamanian law. If the law of the flag state had no objection to international marine broadcasting then the ship could make broadcasts which were not illegal and could not be stopped. Even Veronica was using precedent created by earlier marine broadcasts made off the Danish and Swedish coasts.”
So… they weren’t breaking any laws, were they? They were using the law and established precedent: that’s legal and just bloody clever, mate!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Thing is, they had to get “bloody clever” to even get their music to the listeners, due to monopolies and copyright laws.
Which is kind of the opposite of why copyright laws were made.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Agreed but it was against the spirit of both British and Dutch law to broadcast into the country when the government said no.
It broke monopolies and changed both radio and the music industry. What is happening now is the same it should be changing business models and bringing more choice. It is many artistes now prefer to not use a label but their web site or itunes etc..
we have to get as cleaver.
Just some older record labels want to turn the clock back to pre internet and I believe pre 1964.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Not until 1967, after that they were illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Broadcasting_Offences_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio_in_the_United_Kingdom
Quote:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio
Quote:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_radio_in_the_United_Kingdom
According to Wikipedia there are 150 pirate stations in the U.K.
Isn’t piracy wonderful?
It gives more choices, it creates jobs and empower people who wouldn’t normally have a voice inside society.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
yes agreed again though ofcom is now licensing some of them.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
They were not illegal in 1967 it was working for advertising on supplying that was illegal not the ships. which was proved time after time.
and yes the law only applied to the UK (at that time). many people broke the law to keep the stations on air.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
and speaking of the USA border stations!
Re: Re: Re:
+1 Insightful for wanting to have a reasoned debate. Stick around! We need more people like you!
living in a democracy and a rule of law also means you have to obey even the laws that you do not agree with
Not true. Everyone chooses for themselves what laws they will and won’t follow. You can’t do otherwise.
copyright is not in contradiction to human rights
I disagree. Copyright is a violation of property rights, which is at the very heart of all human rights.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t follow this line of reasoning and it’s new to me. Care to explain?
I’m familiar with the idea that “All property is theft” but I don’t think that’s what this is about. ?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
At a guess, I would say it’s the ‘I bought it, it’s mine’ argument. I purchased the music, I’ll do what I want with it. IP law is the only ‘property’ law in which a purchase is not really a purchase.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I have a piece of paper. I own it. It’s my property.
You have a piece of paper. You own it. It’s your property.
If I write something on my piece of paper, then tell men with guns to hurt you if you write the same thing on your piece of paper, that’s a violation of the property rights you have in your piece of paper.
Additionally, property rights are necessarily at the center of all human rights because you own yourself. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:
But if your in the USA its not a Democracy, its a Republic…(sorry pet irritation)
And IP rights are artificial rights, not a fundamental right.
You keep going repeating a moral argument, but for that argument to hold any weight (in my eyes) the copyright side would need to hold the moral high ground. And i am sorry but the actions for the IP Industries biggest names (MPAA, RIAA, Writers Guild) detract from that… They use slurs and false information to try and justify themselves, and the people the represent, but each and every time they are shown to be CROOKS, CORRUPT, and with out any MORAL compass whats so ever (except if its try to screw the public or the artists). Every time that happens, it erodes the argument for the IP Side and brings people to the other side…
I like your comments, they are not full of the venom so often found from the PRO-IP crowd, and you do try and have a conversation… so bravo… if others start to act like you we can find some place in between to agree… Unfortunately I do not see that happening anytime soon.
Re: Re:
The other half, it would seem, is in another language. Punctuation and grammar are your friend.
Re: Re: Re:
second word off
Re: Re:
“Don’t know what happened to my post above 1/2 of it missing.”
That has happened to me too.
The backlash of sending average people to prison would be very interesting.
particularly when you take into account that when the music industry is fined for illegal use of songs to which they have no right, the fine is about 12% of what the ordinary person is fined, $175 as opposed to $2250. the harm to an artist by the industry itself can be far greater than by any file sharer!
Almost 50 posts
Almost 50 posts and, once again, not a single mention of the OTHER side of why copyrights exist: TO BENEFIT THE PUBLIC AND BE TURNED OVER TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AFTER A SHORT TIME.
Why do you pro-copyright cheerleaders ALWAYS miss this point? It’s in the freaking constitution and is a REQUIREMENT for copyright to exist AT ALL.
Yet, whenever these discussion turn up, the ONLY focus is on restriction and payment, and the ever-increasing level of enforcement and expanding the lengths of time so that now, NOTHING EVER ENTERS THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, in direct contravention of the very clause that grants you these rights (and yes, its a GRANTED right, not an inherent right.) In 2010 and so far in 2011, not a SINGLE work has entered the public domain. This is far more egregious and harmful than any “piracy” or arguments about “but how will an artist make any money without copyright??”
Re: Almost 50 posts
Excellent point!
It actually is the same for all IP rights: share your creation with the rest of humanity instead of keeping it for yourself and we’ll give you a temporary bonus right. After that, it is for everyone to use as they want. That is the basic deal underlying all creative IP (so that excludes trade names and trade marks, which serve a different purpose).
Re: Re: Almost 50 posts
I am very interested in how you can bring together what you said above (agreeing that copyright exists as a temporary incentive for the creation of things to benefit the public) with a previous quote from you:
“If I write one good song/painting/book in my youth, beg, crawl and dance to finally get it published, but it only becomes a hit only many decades later, how do I profit from the book sales without IP?”
Re: Re: Re: Almost 50 posts
“I am very interested in how you can bring together what you said above (agreeing that copyright exists as a temporary incentive for the creation of things to benefit the public) with a previous quote from you:”
Was this directed at me or Miratus? Because I never made any such quote, and never would, unless it was sarcastic. I already know the answer to that question, and already am doing it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Almost 50 posts
Miratus said that, I’d love to hear his answer. His “temporary bonus right” stretches the meaning of the word temporary well beyond it’s dictionary definition.
Re: Re: Re:3 Almost 50 posts
I did say that and I stand by both points: I do not know what dictionary you use, but ‘temporary’ in my view means ‘finite in time’. How long an IP right should last is certainly debatable, although I think most IP rights have pretty okay durations here in Europe.
My only criticism is for software-related patents and copyrights… 20 years and 70 years after the developers death seem excessive. Still, with the economic lifespan of most software being measured in only a few years, the point is probably moot.
BTW, I *like* the argument that patents also stimulate innovation by providing incentives to work around previous patents, but it wrecks another pro-patent argument, namely that patents’ public disclosure frees up R&D resources elsewhere so that not everybody has to invent the new ‘wheel’ for themselves. So yeah, but no.
Re: Re: Re:4 Almost 50 posts
” My only criticism is for software-related patents and copyrights… 20 years and 70 years after the developers death seem excessive.”
On this we definitely agree. The time extensions to copyright are probably the most egregious part of the whole system. Most people would consider temporary to mean a short time, but it would be silly to apply that definition to copyright now. They now last far, far longer than they originally did, and those time extensions do not benefit society at all. Even lifetime copyrights would be ridiculous, but beyond death? Why should society pay a creator?s heirs for contributing nothing?
BTW, it?s great to have a civilised debate with a copyright supporter. It?s a pleasant change around here!
Re: Re: Re:5 Almost 50 posts
I agree with JMT, very nice discussion going here. Please hang around Miratus.
Alternative means of income
Well, you can’t really win this argument of whether piracy is good or bad, but I would offer that many artists have decided to ignore the issue and concentrate on other means of income.
For example, Katy Perry will probably make more money selling T-shirts at her concerts than she will get from her record company in royalties. And from her concerts alone she will probably rake in about $50 million, so who cares about lost income from piracy? It doesn’t matter to the artist.
A good example from history is Mark Twain. Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer were pirated so greatly that Twain only saw royalties from his British publisher. But when Twain went broke (from his bad investments, not from a lack of writing income), he went on a world speaking tour and raked in the equivalent of millions of dollars (which he promptly spent).
You’ve probably heard the overused statement of creating your own brand, but this is where things are heading. A writer can make money being invited to speaking engagements. Also, there’s been some experimentation with inserting paid “advertisements” within stories (such as if your detective drives an old, but dependable Toyota Corona with 300,000 miles on it or orders Cuty Shark at a bar). There’s also opportunities to license merchandise, such as buttons or posters – things that can’t be easily pirated over the Internet. You just have to be a bit creative, which some people have embraced.