I don't get your point. Poor technical skills is not the problem here. Being an experienced blogger would do nothing to help you realize that online statements are not covered by norwegian laws on criminal incitement.
From what I gather the norwegian law requires the following to be true for the relevant rule in this case to apply:
The incitement to crime is perpetrated by:
1) the publishing of something in print,
2) or witnessed by a large number of people,
3) or under such circumstances that it could easily be observed from a public place and is observed by someone there or in the vincinity.
The court found the first to be the only one possibly applicable since the two others must be done in a public place. But the norwegian law defines "print" as writings, reproductions and the like where the copies have been reproduced using mechanical or chemical means. So none of the conditions apply.
Furthermore, according to the European Convention on Human Rights all restrictions to fundamental human rights must be clearly expressed in law, so the court had very little maneuverability in this case.
Whether the blog was password protected or not was not relevant in the case, so I would guess it's an open blog.
Slightly OT: I reported an error in that earlier post about Sunde. Since no correction was issued I wonder if you perhaps didn't see my comment. I won't labour the point - just thought I'd highlight it once more just in case you missed it the first time.
"The fact that the lead prosecutor was hired by the entertainment industry while he was still prosecuting the case, remains an astounding point that should have resulted in a clear mistrial."
He was a police man, interrogator and lead investigator. But I don't think he was a prosecutor (that would be Håkan Rosvall in this case). At least he wasn't a prosecutor in the way the word is used in Sweden (prosecutors here work for the Swedish Office of Public Prosecutions).
To be fair though I think Falkvinge's translation may be slightly off here: "Jim Keyzer has heard the people selling the advertising, who collected half of the money made on The Pirate Bay, and didn’t once think of prosecuting them for making money off of financing this service."
The exact word Sunde used was actually "accusing" - not "prosecuting". I don't think this small mistake should cast any doubt over the overall translation though. I'm sure Falkvinge did a good job.
I wonder if the pro-ACTA campaign had been granted permission to use the image like this.
Btw. although the situation is different the total lack of common sense here kind of reminds me of when the U.S. denied an iranian human rigths activist and receiver of the Nobel Peace Prize her right to publish her memoirs.
Regarding secret ballots there's some info about this on the FFII blog. According to the rules a fifth of the members (not clear if this refers to committee members or members of parliament) can request a secret ballot before the voting begins.
Frankly I find it somewhat hard to believe that members of the European Parliament would dare to go the secret route at this stage, but if that were to happen I wonder if it's public information who made those requests for a secret ballot. In any case, one could probably found out roughly how people voted anyway by simply asking who supported a rejection of ACTA (the position most easily defendable in public). The ACTA supporters would then be the rest.
It's not "my assumption". I'm just describing the official motivation for this kind of system. That some political measures don't make any sense is hardly news. I'm simply describing how we make that message come across more clearly.
I agree with you that non-rivalry of works is the basic state.
Availability of free works "undermines the market" ?
Christian Engström has an interesting quote from a mail that he received in 2009 from the Director General of GESAC, which is an umbrella organization for collecting societies. The dicussion there is just about orphan (hostage?) works, so imagine how strongly GESAC must feel about an increase of the general availability of free works:
"What possible justification can there be for allowing a work to be used free of charge on the pretext that its author has not yet been identified? Not to mention that making such a distinction would be apt to undermine the market by encouraging users to use only orphan or purportedly orphan works in order to avoid paying remuneration. [emphasis added]
In fact this inspired me to write a blog post very similar to Sanchez's with the title "Protective tariffs against the history".
"NO rightsholder on earth is entitled to ANY compensation when I rip my bought CD to MP3 on my USB stick. So yes, it's a piracy tax."
And yet the laws in many countries give them that right.
My point is that if we say "hey, the official justification for this system is not true, so let's pretend the system is meant to compensate for illegal copying", then we're playing into the hands of those who'd love such a system. It's better to say, "let's assume just for a moment that the official justification for this system is true, then it still doesn't work at all and is poorly designed, so (if not for other reasons already) let's get rid of it". If people are compensated for illegal copying, then that is not an indication that the system works - it's an indication of the opposite.
"Why not call these people out as conmen and charlatans, rather than bitching about the tax name?"
My "bitching" about buying into how these "conmens and charlatans" want to describe the world was meant to make it easier to call them out...
You could compare it to how comparisons of copyright and property are often used to mislead people.
I wonder if it's really wise to call this a piracy tax. After all, isn't the official motivation for this tax the same in Germany as in Sweden, i.e. a way of "compensating" copyright holders for copyright exemptions that allow certain private copying?
I'm sure the copyright industry would love to have rules that say that they should be compensated for piracy too (not just legal private copying), but should we really legitimize that viewpoint by naming the tax like you did? Isn't it much better to educate people and tell them that the tax isn't used for what it's supposed to and that there is little scientific evidence pointing to a need for a tax on empty storage media.
In fact in many cases there is no need to compensate for private copying since it is something that can be factored into the sales price instead. The market would do a much better job at determining the right value of the private copying exemptions than political committees.
Very interesting example of how metaphors affects our thinking and perception of matters. I hope people will take the time to read the whole paper.
I do think however that a much simpler solution, assuming that it was politically viable in the short term, would be to simply drastically reduce the copyright term (something which the author herself seems to agree with).
I'm a bit divided. I'm all for the free market, but the more volontary filtering there is the easier it will be for courts and politicians in the longer run to argue for the introduction of mandatory filters for other things than porn - pointing to the existing filtering solutions as examples of how this can be done at a relatively low cost and that it's already accepted and widely used.
Well, I don't think they are that naïve. They might not expect that the letter in itself will have any effect. The contrast between the contents of the letter and the nonresponsive and dismissive attitude of the government however could serve to create a public opinion against secrecy. So in essence they set something that's bigger than just the letter in motion.
Not directly related to this blog post, but just a general reflection:
isn't "three strikes" a bit of a misnomer when it's actually more of a "three allegation" system? Shouldn't we be more careful with adopting a language that implicitly seem to assume that someone can be guilty of something before being tried?