Showing posts with label file sharing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label file sharing. Show all posts

April 24, 2012

Book: The Case for Copyright Reform

Pirate MEP Christian Engström and Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge just presented their book The Case for Copyright Reform in the European Parlament.


On the web page www.copyrightreform.eu you can find it for free in various electronic formats (PDF, ePub, OD etc.). If you are on a mobile phone, you might want to go to the mobile-friendly minimalistic HTML-file, to start reading on your browser at once.

And if you are sitting by your computer, and have Flash installed, you can read it right here, right now:


Do you prefer a book on paper? Order it at Lulu (ww) or Books on Demand (Scandinavia).

December 20, 2011

Dan Bull vs. SOPA



TorrentFreak: File-Sharing Darling Dan Bull Publishes Anti-SOPA Rap

[Direct link: Youtube]

June 10, 2010

A New, Simple and Reasonable Copyright

Today's copyright laws are not suited for today's information society. We see some culture being locked in, orphan works and a huge part of our cultural heritige in company safes (where people nor can enjoy it or make money on it).

Positions in the discussion on copyright seems to be in gridlock. But, is it really that impossible to set up a legal framework that works reasonably well?

Below, I will outline one model. It is mainly based on Pirate Party policy - but with some personal add-ons. What makes this model attractive is not just that it would solve 90 per cent of the problems we see with today's copyright. Even more exiting is that it works well with people all over the political field; from right to left; from individualists to collectivists. And even better: It is simple and understandable...

i) If someone wants copyright protection, he or she will have to apply for it. (If people need to apply for welfare cheques, it is quite reasonable that people who wants society to protect their business and their products also will have to do so.)

ii) Works that are not acitively protected will become "public domain" - and could freely be e.g. shared, copied and sampled by others. It should, however, not be allowed to "kidnap" other peoples works in the public domain by copyright protecting them.

iii) The copyright protection time is five years, from the day the creator of a work has applied for it. (In today's world, normally the commercial lifespan is not longer than that.)

iv) The copyright protection time can be prolonged with five years at a time, for those who would like to do so. (But I´m pretty shure most works will become public domain after five years.) Prolonging the protection time must be done actively, with a new application.

v) The copyright protection for a work is transferable from the artist / author. It can be sold, inherited or given away to others. This way, it is possible for the artist to focus on creating - and leaving marketing and day to day business to experts. (One could also consider the possibility that the artist can lease the right to commercial use of his/her protected work to others.)

vi) With this system applied on an EU-level we would avoid the problems with 27 different licenses in the otherways single market. A data base could provide updated information on on the status of all works that once have been registered. (So that you e.g. can see if a piece of music is free to use or still under copyright protection.)

This is not a perfect model. But it might solve most problems. It is more reasonable than today's system. And I think most people would understand and accept it.

Starting at this point, it would also be simpler to handle the issue of file sharing of copyright protected works. (Witch I, by the way, think should be permitted if it is done without commercial intent. But that is an other discussion, that will go on regardless. And with higher stakes with today's system.) The point is that lots and lots of works in the public domain would be a goldmine for people who wants to enjoy free culture. The public domain would expand fast, as most copyright holders would probably allow their work to be public domain after five or ten years, when the commercial lifespan is over.

The model above would also stimulate new business models - even those that do not assume copyright protection at all. (See Chris Anderssons book Free, for plenty of examples and ideas.)

[This blog post in Swedish]

June 7, 2010

Elections i The Netherlands: Judge in copyright case scandal

Wednesday The Netherlands will elect a new Parliament. And it looks like the Dutch Pirate Party has a resonable chance to win a seat or two.

And now, a few days before the election, there is an emerging scandal concerning Pirate-related issues. It is about a judge that ruled that the publication of P2P file namnes in a forum, FTD, is copyright infringement.

Now, it turns out – this judge has been educating copy right holders in how to fight filesharers. And he has done it together with the lawyer representing the complaintifs in the FTD-trial!

This shuold get international attention. It might very well be the Pirate ticket to the Dutch Parliament.

(Read about the court case against FTD at the Torrent Freak site.)

[In Swedish]

May 12, 2010

How do the Artists get Paid? Part 2.


Rasmus Fleischer in the European Parliament, May 12, 2010 from Henrik Alexandersson on Vimeo.

In the never ending discussion "How do the Artists get Paid?" today we turn to Rasmus Fleischer – caught on tape just before addressing the European Parliaments Workinggroup on Copyright.

[Also on Youtube] [CC0]

Lecture: How do the Artists get Paid?

Here you can find documentation from the seminar "How can Europes Creators get a Fair Deal in the Digital World?" in the European Parliament.

Read, see and listen to Professor Roger Wallis and Dr Lars-Erik Eriksson:

Sound file (MP3, 28,7 MB)
PowerPoint-slides
HR pictures, CC0 (JPEG, ZIP, 32,8 MB)
Video at Vimeo
Bambuser stream

Enjoy!

Realated: Christian Engström

January 8, 2010

This IS the Market, Stupid!

Working with Pirate MEP Christian Engström in the European Parliament, I often come in contact with advocates for Intellectual Property – e.g. lobbyists from the film, music and book industry. And one thing almost always strikes me...

They don't seem to have a clue about what's really going on.

They don’t seem to realize that we now live in an information society with hyper distribution. And if some of them might have some sort of a clue after all, it seems they think the Pirate Party or Christian himself invented the internet, free flow of information and file sharing. (We sometimes respond to that, saying “No, that was someone much more clever”. But they really don’t seem to catch the subtle humor, nor the message.)

What the Pirate Party does, is “just” to point out what policies are reasonable in our new society.

Billions of people are online. Al of them can, at least in theory, connect with each other. And there are often a surprisingly sort distance (or few links) between person B and person Q. A thought, an idea or an application can spread over the world in just a few days. All kinds of data that are on my computer could be transfered to yours. Or to that that of a bike repair man in Chile. If it is good and interesting enough.

Some entrepreneurs have got the message. They start net applications, they set up web stores (that often are more successful the more specialised they are), they start their own media channels and they start projects where people cooperate. In most cases it can be done with very little money. And if they choose, they can address a global market.

The IP-lobbyists from the entertainment industry, on the other hand… They refuse to see or to accept the real world as it is. They are upset, because people don’t want to go downtown to a store to buy their products engraved to plastic discs anymore. They go bananas if someone shares the information he or she has bought with someone else. They curse the Internet. They want so supervise, filter and control the flow of information. They want to cut people of from the net. They have no problem making the world a worse place for everybody else – e.g. all the entrepreneurs, scientists, students, activists, artists, blogers and ordinary people that every day spontaneously fills the Internet with life and creativity.

The IP-lobby does not make any real effort to accept, embrace and make use of our new reality and of the information society. They could, if they wanted. And they could make a lot of money doing so. But so far, they seem unable and unwilling to think outside the box.

Sometimes it’s almost amazing. We met with a person from the book publishing sector. That person told us, with a stiff upper lip, that the amount and the multitude of information on the Internet is a problem – as no one can handle the selection process, deciding what should be published and not. So… von oben.

An online information society with a multitude of information and hyper distribution is the new market. And in many ways it is a much more free market than the old one. You should accept it – or get out of the way.

And let’s face it. Some products, business models, concepts and stuff will end up in the trash can – as they don’t fit our modern society. And they should end up in the trash – making open space for things that are new, profitable, focused on the future, viable and blooming.

No one can tell what tomorrows business concepts will look like. But you don't need to worry. We'll find out, eventually. The market will solve that. On its’ own. There will always be talanted people developing new stuff for new markets. You might call it capitalism, spontaneous order, progress, the invisible hand, dynamic effects or what ever you like. But it will be there.

Trust the Force!

[This blog post in Swedish]

November 12, 2009

ACTA: Do they really want to risk their brands?

There is a lot of buzz about ACTA. This international trade agreement was ment to stop counterfeit handbags, jeans, watches and other goods. I have no objections to that.

Then the film- and music industry got envolved. File sharing became an issue. And suddenly there are leaks suggesting that ACTA will contain copyright focused measures related to the internet.

Apparently there are discussions about disconnecting filesharers from the internet, internet cable operators having to inspect and filter traffic etc. – in these secret negosiations.

Rumors even suggests that customs officers will have to inspect laptops, smartphones and MP3-players in the hunt for copyright protected material. All of this is simply bad, as it is in conflict with citizens rights and an open internet for all.

Now, this should be food for thought for all the companies whos' products originally was going to be protected by ACTA – before it expanded to filesharing and copyright related issues.

Do the owners of Nike, Boss, Diesel, Camel, Swatch and all other trendy brands really want to be associated with internet censorship, limitations of freedom of information and measures that infringes on peoples privacy?

Imagine the harm that will be done to brands like Adidas, Marlboro and Prada if they where to be considered responsible for hunting down a generation of young people on the internet!

If I where in their shoes – I would use all my influense to get all references to file sharing, internet filtering etc. out of the ACTA trade agreement. Anti counterfeit, yes! Hunting file sharers, no!

November 10, 2009

Brands and counterfeit vs. file sharing

In the EU, the word "piracy" is often used both for counterfeit goods and for file sharing. Naturally, this is a deliberate way to confuse the discussion.

The Pirate Party has no problems with brands, as they give consumers important information. And we are against counterfeit of goods. Counterfeit infringes on the brand. And counterfeit goods are usually poorer and sometimes plain dangerous. People have the right to know what goods they are buying and who the producer is.

The Pirate Party is also pro non commercial file sharing between private individuals.

From our standpoint, everything becomes strange and wrong when the EU tries to confuse counterfeit with file sharing. E.g. in a communication from the EU Commission, practically all the text is about counterfeit - but still everything boils down to measures to prevent file sharing. The Commission ought to know better.

Swedish Pirate MEP, Christian Engström, spent this morning in the European Parliaments committee on legal affairs to try to get people to grasp this.

This is also an important distinction when it comes to the ACTA trade agreement - that also tries to bundle counterfeit with file sharing.

[In Swedish]

November 5, 2009

EU Telecoms Package: We might have won...

Press Release from the Swedish Pirate Party

EU negotiations on Telecoms Package completed

Earlier this night there was an agreement in the negotiations on the EU Telecoms Package.

First of all, it is notable that the European Parliament delegation stod up and managed to maintain support for the principle that Member States should not be allowed to disconnect people from the internet without prior judicial procedure. This is more than most people expected when the meetings began Wednesday evening.

"It is a plesant surprise that the European Parliament stod firm on this principle. This is a direct result of the hard work by thousands upon thousands of Internet users. They have contacted their politicians, networked on blogs and raised media attention on this issue. Without them, there would have been no progress on this in political circles" Cristian Engström, Swedish Pirate MEP, says.

Until the very last minutes of the negotiations in the EP delegation, there was a discussion about Member States possibility to cut people of from the Internet without prior judicial procedure. This will only be possible in situations of extreme national emergency (European Convention, article 15). There hould be no possibility to use this legal framework to disconnect e.g. file sharers from the net.

If a Member State wants to cut citizens of from the net in other cases (like in France), this must be under strict rules respecting citizens rights. The judicial procedure shall be prior to the measures taken. It should respect the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy. This must be done with respect for general principles of Community law, including effective judicial protection, due process and the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned. All measures must respect the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

"I think it would have been very difficult to get a text with a wider protection of citizens rights. It is possible that the text now at hand is more far reaching in this respect than any other that have been discussed. But still, I must stress that we think it is wrong for governments to cut people of from the Internet at all" Christian Engström concludes.

The European Parliament will confirm this agreement in a vote at its' November session.

More information:

The final text is to be found on Christian Engströms blog.

There you can also find the different proposals and posts about the negotiation process this autumn.

More information:

Christian Engström (PP), MEP, The Swedish Pirate Party
+46 706 633 780

Rick Falkvinge (PP), leader of the Swedish Pirate Party
+46 708 303 600

Henrik Alexandersson at MEP Engströms office in the EP
+32 484 088 770 (mobile) or +32 228 47368

[In Swedish]

(Please excuse any misspellings and / or half-baked language, as this is translated at 4.30 in the morning from a material that is partly in legal English written by people from many different countries.)

November 3, 2009

EU Telecoms Package: Flying a kite

On Pirate MEP Christan Engströms blog - you will find an sketch for a text to the Conciliation Committee. It´s just an idea. Please give feedback.

Can it be that simple?

EU Telecoms Package: The week ahead

Tomorrow evening (Wednesday) there will be a new round of negotiations on the EU Telecoms Package. First there will be a meeting with the European Parliaments delegation to the Conciliation Committee. Later on, we will probably have a full Conciliation Committee meeting (27 from the EP + 27 from the Council + Commissioner Reding + Swedish Minister of Infra Structure, Åsa Torstensson).

I have a feeling they want to wrap things up tomorrow. But there is no reason to stress this through or to take desissions without proper analysis. According to the rules we have until the end of December for this process.

Our (Swedish Pirate Party and the Green Grp.) position is that the core values of  the famous amendment 138 shall be kept. (Not allowing Member States to cut people off from the Internet with less than prior ruling in a Court of Law.)

For every suggestion or compromise presented, we must ask: Will it open up for Hadopi laws (like in France) or Mendelson-measures (like the ones proposed in the UK)? If they do, we cannot accept them,

And a central point is the fight about the word "prior" - that the Council seems to refuse to accept.

The Councils lates proposal for a compromise (that is a bit dogy and that not include the word "prior") can be read on Pirate MEP Christian Engströms blog. Please do and give him feedback.

(Here in the EP interest from the media is rapidly increasing. Wednesday will be hysterical. The meetings will start at 7 p.m. and might continue into the night. I and Christian will try to keep you updated as much and as soon as possible.)

[In Swedish]

October 28, 2009

Rumors about the EU Telecoms Package

Reports in international media suggest that the European Parliament have backed down from the famous amendment 138 to the EU Telecoms Package. (The one demanding prior ruling by a court of law if any member state starts disconnecting people from the internet.)

This is not my picture of what is going on. Yes, the EP delegation to the Conciliation Committé on the EU Telecoms package did support a rather messy compromise text on its´ last meeting. It included "prior", but was vague on what kind of judicial instance to use and had other elements that where both promising and sneaky.

(The Swedish Pirate Party, the Greens and the leftist group did not clear this text. First of all, we did not get it in writing and where supposed to decide upon it after a oral review. This is not a serious way of law making. We are also suspicious when it comes to several elements in the text. So we have stated that we expect the delegation to uphold the essence of 138.)

And, as we suspected, this text crashed and burned in the Trialogue meeting with the leaders of the EP delegation and the Council. (E.g. did the Council take "prior" away and at the same time it suggested more reasons for suspending people from the net.) I find this very hard for the EP delegation to swallow.

Now, we are waiting for the Council to elaborate on the preliminary compromise text from the Trialogue, above. But we know that there have been disagreement on this in Coreper (the body that prepares dosiers for the European Council).

But there is, as you can se, no agreement on anything at the moment.

The Council do not accept the EP proposal. The EP delegation will not be able to accept the preliminary Council proposal. There is disagreement in Coreper. And in the EP the Pirates, the Greens and the left sticks to 138 for as long as possible. At least until we get something that is better.

This means that it is far to early to say anything about anything. If something at all have changed, I would say that the level of disagreement has rised.

Wednesday next week the EP delegation will meet again in the afternoon. And in the evening there will be a full Conciliation Committé meeting (EP and Council). This is the first CC meeting. And until then, we have nothing like an agreement. No common ground. And I doubt that we will afterwards.

This far, all we have is disagreement betwen the institutions, in the Council and in the EP delegation.


But it is quite clar that someone is trying to spin this. In a press release the Swedish EU Presidency, earlier this week, described the talks as "open and creative"...

[In Swedish]

October 26, 2009

It´s not just about filesharing...


A note on the European Councils draft compromise proposal from last weeks trialogue about the EU Telecoms Package. It discusses cutting of users from the Internet (and other measures) in these terms...

"...authorising the measures to be taken and to adopt urgent measures in order to assure national security, defence, public security and the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences."

Interesting. So, this fight is not just about filesharing anymore.

Disconnection from the network (and other "measures") can be applyed to a long series of cases. Remember that legality is different, in different EU countries. And that there are a few strange laws. The EU Framework Decision on Racism e.g. says that one may not deny genocide. (It does not, however, apply to all genocides. Just some.) In France it is especially illegal to challenge official historical records on the Turkish genocide of Armenians. In many countries, gambling sites are prohibited. In some places information about medicine is prohibited. In Lithuania, one can not write positive things about gays. The laws about pornography varies between countries. The rules governing the advertising of alcohol and tobacco are also different. And many things that are on public record in countries like Sweden is illegal to publish in other places.

Feel free to fill in with more examples in the comment field. I just listed a few from the top of my head.

Internet might become seriously regulated. People might be disconnected from the Internet for many different reasons. And what other "measures" the Member States and EU have in plan, one can only imagine.

Add to that the European arrest warrant, which allows for pepole to be extradited to other countries for acts that are not criminal in their home country. So what happens if a Swede start a French blog, questioning the Turkish genocide of Armenians? If a Spaniard starts a gay porn site that turns to a Lithuanian audience?

(A few years ago Swedish online gambling company Unibet's CEO Petter Nylander was arrested in Holland, when he was on his way to England - and called for extradition to France. Among other things he was accused of having sponsored a French bike race, which is in violation of French gambling laws.)

And if the "mesures" mentioned are to be deployed, it also mean that the possibility to be anonymous on the net will have to be removed.

So, it is not just filesharers who should defend amendment 138 to the EU Telecoms Package - stating that governments can not decide to cut people of from the Internet (or other similar measures) without a prior ruling by judicial authority.

Not unexpected, in the European Councils draft compromise proposal, quoted above, the word "prior" is deleted...

[In Swedish]

October 15, 2008

The Democratic Deficit revisited

A few weeks ago the European Parliament voted on the Telecoms Package.

At the last minute the EP managed to stop parts (created by the copyright lobby) of the package aimed to filter the internet and to close down internet access (without judicial process) for people engaged in e.g. file sharing. So far, so good.

Now, it turns out, the European Commission seems to have removed all references to this EP-decision in its working papers – preparing the Telecoms Package for a second reading in the EP or an OK in the Council. This we where not supposed to know. But the document leaked out...

It is not to bold to guess that this is the work of the French EU presidency and its friends in the copyright lobby. They simply will not take no for an answer. Not even a clear no from the EP.

(Personally, I am pro copyright. But I will not accept mass survilance, limitations in citizens rights or give up the freedom of the internet. And I think it is a really bad idea to use laws to save an outdated business model.)

Read more and find the relevant links at icmpecho.com.»

April 10, 2008

EP: No Internet Ban

Today the European Parliament voted about banning people envolved in File Sharing from the Internet.

Yesterday, the French government made an last minute appeal to the Parliament to accept such a ban. (It is no doubt something they would like to introduce in France. And in the EU, during the French Presidency.)

But with 314 votes to 298, the European Parliament decided with MEP Fjellners motion not to ban people from the Internet.

April 8, 2008

MEP: Don't ban people from the Internet!

The Bono Report presented to the European Parliament suggests that people engaged in activities like file sharing should be banned from the Internet. (One can wonder how that is going to be enforced.)

The idea of banning people from the Internet is supported by French President Sarkozy, among others.

But in the European Parliament, there is resistance against this ill thought out proposal. Among others, Swedish MEP Christopher Fjellener (EPP-ED) is putting up a fight. In a Motion for Resolution he writes...

"Calls on the Commission and the Member States to recognise that the Internet is a vast platform for cultural expression, access to knowledge, and democratic participation in European creativity, bringing generations together through the information society; calls on the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to avoid adopting measures conflicting with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness, such as the interruption of Internet access."

Shortly we will know what the EP decides.