Swedish Officials Complained To US That Hollywood-Pushed IPRED 'Anti-Piracy' Law Did More Harm Than Good

from the nicely-done,-us dept

Back in May, we had reported that Swedish police were complaining about the IPRED "anti-piracy" law, noting that all it had really done was driven up the use of encryption, which had made their job more difficult. Separate from that, of course, have been numerous studies showing that the amount of file sharing in Sweden, after an initial dip, quickly surpassed what it had been before and continued to rise. Of course, this was all pretty predictable before IPRED went into effect, but thanks to Wikileaks, not only do we know that the US was heavily involved in pushing efforts like IPRED through, but that Swedish officials made these concerns known to the US, and it appears that the US didn't really care. The specific cable highlighted the concerns of Swedish officials:
Swedish Police Enforcement officials are complaining that implementation of the IPRED has made it more difficult to solve crimes. Swedish Internet Service Providers are saving user information related to IP-numbers for a shorter period of time following the IPRED legislation.

Also, as previously reported (Ref A) the IPRED legislation might be doing little to stop the problem of illegal file-sharing as internet users now are using services which allow them to hide their IP-addresses.
That same cable, by the way, also mentions how Larry Lessig spoke to the Swedish Parliament, and also reported on the latest (at the time) of the Pirate Bay trial.

Separately, I just realized that the cable comes from the US Ambassador to Sweden, Matthew Barzun, who actually probably has a decent grasp on many of these issues, as before he became a diplomat, he worked for many years as an executive at CNET. That said, it's still somewhat disappointing that the US did seem so instrumental in pushing these laws, that even the Swedes don't seem to like, which aren't helping, and are having other unintended consequences. What's really troubling is that the US still seems to support these types of laws elsewhere, even though they're likely to have the same results. Is keeping Hollywood happy really so important?

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2010 @ 8:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The Guardian is the only site to go to for Wikileaks coverage. They have an inside edge. Assange has given them way more time, connections, and personal interviews. They are always "first" with the new leak, which suggests they are getting fed the information ahead of time.

    Assange pretty much gripes about anyone who says anything bad about him (tabloid schmucks, anyone?), but he always ends up going back to those same media organization to continue to build up the Cult of Assange.

    After all, without them, he wouldn't have a 7 figure book deal. None of the other Wikileaks people do.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.