Foliehatten av för Sveriges marionettregering

Statsminister Reinfeldt får beröm av husse

Wikileaks-telegrammet Stockholm 09-141 bekräftar det som Piratpartiet har sagt hela tiden.

Ipred, datalagringen och polismetodutredningen är alla delar av en helhet för att införa övervakning på nätet riktad mot bagatellbrott och vanliga medborgare. Ett av huvudsyftena är att komma åt fildelare. Initiativet till lagstiftningen kommer från USA’s regering, via den amerikanska ambassaden.

På ett sätt innehåller telegrammet ingenting nytt. Vi har ju, som sagt, påstått precis det här hela tiden. Oscar Swartz skrev det i Marschen mot Bodströmsamhället i juni 2006. Piratpartiet har påpekat det i mängder av pressmeddelanden de senaste fem åren. Bloggare med större eller mindre anknytning till Piratpartiet har skrivit om det i oräkneliga blogginlägg under samma tid.

Men även om telegrammet rent sakligt inte innehåller något nytt, är det ändå en stor förändring att få det vi sagt bekräftat i svart på vitt. Även om vi haft goda argument för det vi påstått även tidigare, har det ändå hela tiden känts på gränsen till foliehattsvarning, alltså att man har kunnat undra om vi ryckts med i konspirationsteorier och tappat kontakten med verkligheten.

Nu behöver vi inte undra längre. Telegrammet från amerikanska ambassaden bekräftar att det var precis som vi sa, och att vi inte var ute och cyklade när vi påstod att regeringen och statsförvaltningen dansar direkt efter USA’s pipa när det gäller övervakning och jakten på fildelare. Vi kan ta av oss foliehatten, och slänga bort den permanent. Vi var inte konspirationspsykotiker.

Jag tycker det känns som när man avslutat en dataspelsbana och gjort ”Save Game”. Nu går vi upp en nivå. Vi lämnar bakom oss striderna om huruvida USA låg bakom razzian mot The Pirate Bay och införandet av Ipred, datalagringen och FRA. Det gjorde de. Den svenska regeringen agerade på direkta uppmaningar från USA, enligt en i förväg uppgjord agenda. Det är bekräftat nu.

Vi vet med säkerhet att justitieminister Beatrice Ask ljuger när hon påstår att datalagringen bara ska vara till för att sätta dit terrorister och grova brottslingar. Det är lögn. I planen som diskuteras i telegrammet framgår att syftet är att komma åt bagatellbrott och fildelning.

Vi vet med säkerhet att förre försvarsminister Mikael Odenberg ljög när han sa att FRA inte skulle övervaka svenskar, och inte skulle ge polisen tillgång till informationen. Planen från USA, som den svenska regeringen var med på att genomföra i det fördolda, var hela tiden att både polisen och USA skulle få fri tillgång till alla uppgifter.

Vi vet med säkerhet att statsminister Fredrik Reinfeldt ljög när han i valrörelsen 2006 sa att han ”inte ville jaga en hel ungdomsgeneration”. Det ville han visst. Han ville bara bli vald först.

Det jag undrar är om det här kommer förändra den svenska politiska debatten. Om svaret blir nej, kommer jag ha mycket svårt att ta den debatten på allvar. Då blir det som att lyssna på barn som kivas om ratten i lekrummet på Ålandsfärjan, och tror att det har någon betydelse vad de kommer fram till.

– Tyck vad ni vill, det är ändå inte från det här rummet som skeppet styrs, tänker man som uttråkad vuxen.

Ska debatten bli meningsfull måste den utgå från det bekräftade sakläget. I allt som rör friheten på nätet är Sverige en lydstat, som styrs av en marionettregering.

Det är mycket möjligt att USA låter den svenska regeringen fatta självständiga beslut i andra frågor. Det vet vi ingenting om. Men det är USA sa som bestämmer i allt som har att göra med fildelning, övervakning och informationsfrihet.

USA kräver insyn i alla svenskars privatliv och hårdare tag mot fildelare. Den svenska regeringen levererar, och prickar av punkter på en lista som USA har gjort upp.

Den här verkligheten måste vi låta sjunka in i medvetandet nu. Det kanske tar ett tag. Fastän jag själv har varit övertygad sedan åtminstone 2006 om att det var så här det förhöll sig i Sverige, känner jag ändå att det är en stor omställning som det tar tid att smälta att få det bekräftat.

Men om vi inte vill leka låtsaslekar är det den här verkligheten vi måste förhålla oss till från och med nu. Och det börjar bli ganska bråttom.

…………

Andra som skriver om 09STOCKHOLM141 och Sveriges osjälvständighet: Rick Falkvinge, Rick Falkvinge, Rickard Olsson, Blogge, Fredriks blogg, Netzpolitik.org (på tyska)

Uppdatering: Nyheter24 skriver, och Rick Falkvinge igen

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

Hela telegrammet #09STOCKHOLM141 för referens (med tillagda emfaser):

194710
3/2/2009 13:57
09STOCKHOLM141
Embassy Stockholm
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
08STATE45106|09STATE8410
VZCZCXRO6778OO RUEHAG RUEHAST
RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLARUEHLN RUEHLZ
RUEHNP RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHSM #0141/01 0611357
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 021357Z MAR 09FM AM
EMBASSY STOCKHOLM
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 4176
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 STOCKHOLM 000141
STATE FOR EEB/TPP/IPE:TIMOTHY R MCGOWAN STATE
PLEASE PASS TO USTR FOR JENNIFER CHOE GROVES
SENSITIVE SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KIPR, ECON, ETRD, PGOV, SW
SUBJECT: SPECIAL 301 FOR SWEDEN: POST RECOMMENDATION REF:
A) STATE 8410 B) 08 STATE 45106

1. (SBU) Summary. Embassy Stockholm recommends that Sweden
continues to be placed in the Special 301 Initiative, and
not be on the Watch List for 2009. We are aware of the differing
recommendations of the International Intellectual Property
Alliance (IIPA) and PhRMA. Post recommendation is based on:

— The progress made by the Government of Sweden (GOS) in five
out of the six items identified in the Special 301 Initiative
Action plan we communicated to the GOS last year and

— The sensitive domestic politics that the GOS needs to manage
in order to step up internet piracy enforcement in Sweden. The
GOS struggles, with good intentions, against a very negative
media climate and against a vocal youth movement. For example,
we want to highlight the risk that negative media attention on
the file sharing issue gives the Pirate Party a boost in the EU
Parliamentary elections in June 2009.

2. (SBU) This cable reviews the progress Sweden has made on the
Special 301 Initiative Action plan which we presented to the GOS
at the conclusion of the Special 301 review 2008 (Ref B). Post
continues to engage very constructively with the GOS, and has
good access and a good working relationship with key senior and
working level GOS officials. The actions taken since last year’s
review strengthen the legislative framework and provide better
enforcement tools for combating piracy. The Pirate Bay trial is
currently being heard in the district court in Stockholm. The
last day of the trial is March 4, and the verdict can be expected
on or about March 25.

3. (SBU) Embassy Stockholm believes it would be counter-
productive to watch list Sweden at this point. Likely negative
political and media reaction to a watch listing must be taken
into account. The Justice Ministry, with primary responsibility
for this issue, is fully on board and well aware of what is at
stake. It is currently battling with the Ministry of Enterprise,
Energy, and Communication about the next appropriate steps to
curb internet piracy. Now that the Enforcement Directive
implementation will finally enter into force on April 1, and
there will soon be a first District court decision in the
Pirate Bay case — the Justice Ministry will turn its attention
to other key issues, primarily the ISP liability issue and extra
resources to investigative capabilities. The GOS (led by the
Justice Ministry) has to conduct a delicate balancing act,
advancing this issue shortly before Sweden assumes the
Presidency of the EU, in the early days of the Obama
administration, and in the budding election campaign for the EU
Parliamentary elections.

End summary. Background.
————————

4. (U) The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA)
has, in its yearly Special 301 submission to USTR, identified
widespread internet piracy and difficulties in achieving
effective enforcement against criminal copyright infringement
as problems in Sweden, and has requested that Sweden be placed
on the Special 301 Watch List for 2009. Sweden was not placed
on the Watch list in 2008, despite industry’s demands, but was
rather placed in the relatively recent, middle step, named
Special 301 Initiative. As part of the Initiative, post
conveyed a Special 301 Action plan to the GOS, covering six
items where the USG hoped to see progress during 2008.

Review of progress on action plan
———————————

5. (U) The Special 301 Initiative Action plan 2008 contained
recommendations in six specific areas. The GOS has acted, in
various degrees, in five of those areas. A review of progress
in the six areas follows in paras 6-11:

6. (SBU) Industry consultations/ISP liability: The GOS held
a series of industry consultations in the summer/fall of 2008,
with the explicit aim to discuss a voluntary industry
agreement involving ISPs and right-holders organizations.
Industry contacts reported that the ISP’s were not willing
(they claim they are not able) to take on any action on a
voluntary basis. The first round of consultations was
concluded without results during the fall of 2008. The Justice
Ministry is currently working internally in the GOS to get
acceptance for a second round with a clear incentive for
progress, i.e. threatening with legislation in the absence
of a voluntary agreement. There is some resistance in the
Center party led Ministry of Enterprise, Energy, and
Communications, and negotiations are on-going at senior
GOS-levels.

7. (U) Injunctive relief: The one item without any progress
is STOCKHOLM 00000141 002 OF 003 Action plan item 2,
Injunctive relief. The GOS maintains that there are adequate
provisions currently on the books in Sweden, and does not
intend to introduce new legislation. (Note that industry
claims to the contrary were supported by the recommendations
of the Renfors Commission, a government study commissioned
to look into the file sharing issue. The GOS has declared
that it will not further implement Renfors’ recommendations.
End note.)

8. (U) Implementation of the Enforcement Directive: The bill
was approved by Parliament on February 25, and the new
provisions will enter into force on April 1, 2009. The
political sensitivities made the final handling of the Bill
very delicate for the Alliance government. Much of the debate
and negotiations have been done in public, and there has been
tremendous pressure put on individual MPs. The passage of the
implementing legislation is therefore a much greater victory
for the GOS than it might appear. Major changes, compared to
the original proposal, are:

— the law will not be retroactive, i.e. only for copyright
infringements committed after the law has entered into force
can a court order that the identity behind an IP-number be
handed out.

— The court will make a proportionality assessment, i.e.
weigh the need of the rights-holder to get access to the
personal identity against integrity aspects of the person
behind the IP number. The law now stipulates that a certain
scale of infringement will be needed for the court to decide
that the information should be handed out. Normally, that
would be the case when the infringement consists of up-
loading a single film or musical piece — since that
typically incurs significant damage to the rights-holder.
The same judgment will be made for a significant scale of
down-loading copyright protected material. The law
establishes that if the infringement is the down-loading of
only a few pieces, then normally the court’s assessment
should be that the integrity interest must take precedence
and the information must not be handed out.

— The law includes provisions that the GOS intends to
observe and assess how the law is used, to ensure that the
law is indeed used to go after significant cases of
copyright infringements. This monitoring will commence
immediately once the law has entered into force.

9. (U) Granting police and prosecutors the right to
identities behind IP numbers of individuals potentially
implicated in copyright crimes of lower dignity, i.e. fines
rather than prison sentences: The Justice Ministry has
also worked towards the goal of changing legislation so
that police and prosecutors can get access to information
about identities behind IP numbers in cases where the crime
could lead to a fine (rather than a prison sentence). The
usual Swedish term for this type of crime (punishable by
fine, not prison) is crime of lower dignity. At present,
law enforcement officials are only allowed to get such
information if the infringement could lead to a prison
sentence. The GOS has agreed to change the legislation, and
it was made part of a study commissioned to propose the
steps needed to implement such a change. The proposed
changes were recently separated out from the rest of the
study, and were reported in advance to Justice Minister Ask
late January 2009. Although the slow legislative process is
disappointing, the GOS has already agreed on the necessary
changes that will strengthen the investigative tools of
enforcement officials.

10. (SBU) Police and prosecutors: There are now
two full-time prosecutors dedicated to IPR/copyright
issues. Police officers have been trained, but we
understand that they are not allowed to devote attention
to IPR/copyright issues. They are back in their regular
line of duty in their districts, where there are conflicting
priorities. We have understood that the prosecutors have
alerted that this is a problem for their work – they are
stuck with a backlog of old errands and without the support
of investigative officers. The prosecutors ask for
investigative officers that are exclusively devoted to IPR
issues, today there are no such investigative capacities.
The Justice Ministry has repeatedly asked the Head of the
Swedish Police for information about how he plans to come
to terms with the investigation deficiencies. Although the
GOS recognizes the needs, the budget bill for next year
will likely not contain significant increases for law
enforcement, given the harsh economic conditions. This is
an area where post can work with the GOS and industry to
highlight the significant impact additional resources in
this area might have.

11. (SBU) Public education: In the fall of 2008, the GOS
released a new information material, primarily aimed for
youth, which will be broadly distributed in Swedish
schools. Justice Minister Ask’s staffers are currently
considering the pros and cons of engaging Cabinet members
in the public debate. Given all the negative attention
around the Enforcement directive and the Pirate Bay trial,
the determination thus far has been to keep a low profile.
The GOS recognizes that there is a real risk that the
window of opportunity was lost already several years ago
— when leading politicians didn’t take the debate. How
to engage at this point is a delicate matter.

Pirate Bay
———-

12. (U) After the raid on Pirate Bay on May 31, 2006, the
issue of internet piracy was fiercely debated in Sweden.
Press coverage was largely, and still is, unfavorable to the
positions taken by rights-holders and the USG. The Pirate
Bay raid was portrayed as the GOS caving to USG pressure.
The delicate situation made it difficult, if not counter-
productive, for the Embassy to play a public role on IPR
issues. Behind the scenes, the Embassy has worked well
with all stakeholders. After 18 months of investigation,
the prosecutor filed indictments against four individuals
for contribution to copyright infringement because of their
activities administrating the Pirate Bay bit torrent
webpage. The case is currently being heard in the district
court in Stockholm, and the trial is scheduled to be
completed on March 4. The sentence is expected on or about
March 25, i.e. before the conclusion of the Special 301
review process. However, we fully expect that any outcome
will be appealed to a higher court, which means that the
final verdict will not be known for several years.

PhRMA’s drug pricing issue
————————–

13. (U) PhRMA has also requested that Sweden be put on the
Special 301 Watch List. The request is based on the GOS
decision to de-regulate the pharmacy market in Sweden and
the alleged plans to reduce prices of patented
pharmaceuticals on the Swedish market with the aim to
finance the redesign. The price cut is believed to be as
high as 10 percent.

14. (U) According to the Swedish Ministry of Health and
Social Affairs, the GOS does not plan to impose a general
price cut on patented pharmaceuticals, but rather has the
intention of maintaining a model for a value based pricing
system. TLV, the Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency,
a central government agency, has been assigned to suggest
principles for pharmacy mark-up and to suggest how the
profitability in the pharmacy market will be assessed
and followed up. TLV will present its proposals to the
GOS on April 1 this year.

15. (U) As of March 2 there is no decision, nor anything
in writing, that confirms that the GOS is actually
proposing a 10 percent general price cut on patented
pharmaceuticals. Therefore the Embassy does not recommend
that Sweden be put on the 2009 Special 301 Watch List as
concerns the de-regulation of the Swedish pharmacies.
However, should the GOS as a result of the April 1 TLV
report reach a decision to impose a general 10 percent
price cut on patented pharmaceuticals, the Embassy will
engage in high-level advocacy with the GOS on the issue
again.

Minoritetsbordläggning av datalagringen

V och MP vill minoritetsbordlägga datalagringen

Vänsterpartiet och Miljöpartiet har idag kommit överens om att kräva minoritetsbordläggning av Datalagringsdirektivet, skriver de i ett pressmeddelande:

– Det vore oacceptabelt att införa ett direktiv med så långtgående inskränkningar av integriteten och de mänskliga rättigheterna. Nu ger vi istället regeringen chansen att få direktivet prövat i Europadomstolen. Detta är något regeringen borde ha gjort för länge sedan, säger Jens Holm (V), riksdagsledamot och ersättare i Justitieutskottet.

– Vi har ett ansvar som politiker att värna demokratin, så det här beslutet är viktigt. Vi vill att regeringen agerar för att driva ärendet till Europarådets domstol, avslutar Maria Ferm (MP), ledamot i Justitieutskottet.

Det här är bra gjort, och kan vara ett första steg på vägen mot att stoppa datalagringen i Sverige. Den stora debatten om FRA 2008 kom igång efter att FRA-lagen varit minoritetsbordlagt i ett år. Nu kan vi få samma chans med datalagringen.

EU ska utvärdera datalagringsdirektivet som ligger till grund för den svenska lagen. Utvärderingen skulle egentligen redan ha varit klar, men förhoppningsvis kommer den snart i alla fall. Datalagringsdirektivet är inte bara kontroversiellt i länder som Tyskland och Rumänien, där deras författningsdomstolar har sagt att direktivet inte ska införas.

En annan kritik är att det har implementerats på helt olika sätt i de olika medlemsstaterna. Syftet med direktivet var att få en harmonisering av reglerna för hela den inre marknaden, men effekten har blivit den precis motsatta.

Det finns alltså all anledning att påminna kommissionen om att den är skyldig att presentera utvärderingen, och det finns all anledning att vänta med att införa något tills utvärderingen är gjord.

Men problemet är förstås att statsminister Reinfeldt och den svenska regeringen går helt i USA:s ledband. Det framgår om inte annat av det #cablegate-telegram som dök upp häromdagen. För ministrarna i regeringen är det viktigare att storebror USA tycker de är duktiga än att de inväntar utvärderingar från EU.

Därför kommer det att bli politisk strid om datalagringen. Det är ett utmärkt första steg att V och MP får propositionen minoritetsbordlagd.

…………

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

Pirate Party mentioned in #cablegate cable

The Swedish government shared its concerns about the success of the Pirate Party with the US ambassador

In discussions with the US ambassador in September 2009, Sweden’s deputy prime minister Maud Olofsson said that the Pirate Party’s success in the European elections showed that young people don’t trust the government, according to a #cablegate cable.

”Spot on!” says I.

The relevant parts of the cable look like this:

Tuesday, 08 September 2009, 05:22
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 STOCKHOLM 000569
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
EO 12958 N/A
TAGS ENRG, EUN, ECON, EIND, KGHG, SENV, SW
SUBJECT: SWEDISH DEPUTY PM URGES SENIOR USG VISITS TO SWEDEN DURING EU PRESIDENCY; WANTS TO LAUNCH U.S.-EU ALERNATIVE ENERGY PARTNERSHIP AT U.S.-EU SUMMIT

[…]

Bridging the Gap on Illegal File Sharing

——

19. (SBU) The Ambassador concluded the meeting by raising intellectual property rights, since Olofsson’s party (the Center Party) is the one member of the ruling coalition least supportive of U.S. efforts to improve Sweden’s efforts against illegal file sharing. Olofsson said there are discussions within the government about putting more legislation in place against file sharing. While legislation is needed, and Sweden follows European level legislation, she argued that a solution should not only be left to politicians via legislation. The problem was a market failure, the lack of a product that people could easily access at a reasonable price. Many young people, she said, think that all file sharing is free. It is hard to change their perception of the rules. Olofsson said she wanted artists and creative people to be paid for their ideas, but we need to create a market solution that is easy for people to follow.

20. (SBU) The U.S. side countered that as knowledge-based economies, both the U.S. and Sweden have a lot to loose from illegal file sharing. We need to make this public debate about the artists being stolen from.

21. (SBU) Olofsson noted that Nokia and Ericsson have introduced new services to share products while paying the artists, which is good. We need to find a way to pay artists property, not just to pass legislation, she repeated.

22. (SBU) Olofsson said we need to understand how young people see the problem. We should talk about what is happening now, not just pass legislation, she stressed. She pointed to the success of Sweden’s Pirate Party in the European Parliamentary elections as an example of that young people ”do not trust us.” She said the Pirate Party attracted voters from both the right and the left, and the Pirate Party MEP now has two advisors, one with a background in the Left Party, and one from a neo-liberal party.

——

If it is any help to intelligence analysts on the other side of the Atlantic, I can confirm that the Pirate Party is indeed neutral on left-right issues. Instead, we focus all our energies on working for intellectual property reform, and trying to protect the fundamental rights in the age of the Internet.

For this reason we are very concerned about many actions taken by the US administration lately, such as the attempt to curtail freedom of speech by harassing the Wikileaks organisation by judicial and extra-judicial means.

Erik and Henrik (with their respective backgrounds in the Left Party and the neo-liberal party) send their regards from the other side of the desk where I am writing this, and wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

…………

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

Series: US embassy cables: the documents

Previous | Next | Index

US embassy cables: Pirate party success shows young people don’t trust us, says Swedish government

• • Share 203
  • 
  • 

• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 December 2010 15.22 GMT
• Article history

Tuesday, 08 September 2009, 05:22
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 STOCKHOLM 000569
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
EO 12958 N/A
TAGS ENRG, EUN, ECON, EIND, KGHG, SENV, SW
SUBJECT: SWEDISH DEPUTY PM URGES SENIOR USG VISITS TO SWEDEN DURING

Question to Commissioner Malmström on Wikileaks and Swift

Can EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmström guarantee that Swift data is not used by the US to identify Wikileaks donors?

A couple of months ago the EU concluded and agreement with the US called the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, or TFTP. It means that data about Europeans’ banking transactions will be transfered in bulk to the US government from the Swift bank data system.

”The European Commission has negotiated on behalf of the European Union an agreement that will increase the security of European citizens while at the same time fully respecting their rights to privacy and data protection”, said Cecilia Malmström, Commissioner for Home Affairs.

The Pirate Party and many other civil liberties organisations were critical of the agreement, since it means that data about private citizens who are not suspected of any crime is being handed out to the US police and security services. We pointed out that once the data has been transferred, EU authorities no longer have any control over how it is used.

The recent events around the Wikileaks whistle-blower site have highlighted the concerns we had when the Swift agreement was signed.

We have seen how the US government has put pressure on Mastercard, Visa, and Paypal to stop doing business with Wikileaks, and to confiscate Wikileaks’ assets. This has been done completely outside the law, before any charges of any crime have even been brought against Wikileaks.

Against this background, how do we know that the US does not use the Swift data to identify people in Europe who have donated money to Wikileaks?

As a member of the European Parliament, I have the right to ask questions to the Commission according Rule 117 of the Rules of Procedure. I have just submitted the following question:

What provisions are there in the recently concluded TFTP agreement to ensure that the US government will not use Swift data to track Europeans who donate money to Wikileaks, and how can the Commission guarantee the enforcement of these provisions?

The answer from the Commissioner Malmström should appear here and be due in six weeks. With the holiday season coming up, this probably means some time in February.

But I have no doubt that Wikileaks will still be in the headlines then as well.

…………

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

Copyright law vs. consumer rights

Professor Dusollier presented a report on copyright law and consumer rights to the European Parliament's Working Group on Copyright

Severine Dusollier is a professor at the University of Namur, and director of the Research Centre in IT Law, CRID. Last week she was in the European Parliament and presented her report The relations between copyright law and consumers’ rights from a European perspective to the parliament’s Working Group on Copyright.

It is a very good report, that highlights how the expansion of copyright law in the last two decades has weakened the interests of consumers, and has created new areas of legal uncertainty that affect ordinary consumers.

The report analyses the current relations between copyright law and consumers’ rights in the European Union, in particular whether consumers’ interests are taken into account by EU and Member States copyright legislation. It also proposes recommendations to better integrate consumers’ concerns in future revision of copyright law at EU level.

There are of course areas where I would want to go further than Prof. Dusollier proposes in her report, but apart from that, I essentially agree with what she writes.

I copy the entire executive summary from the report here:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

Consumers are normally not concerned by copyright. Indeed, copyright is about exploitation of works, i.e. making available the works to a potential public, through direct communication or distribution of copies. Conversely, the end-use of a work, its acquisition and consumption (its reading, viewing or playing) has traditionally not been covered by copyright control and enforcement.

Until recently, consumers’ interests were thus equal to that of the general public, save for the private copy, that was the only copyright exception tailored to their needs. Their concerns aimed at ensuring a balanced copyright regime that could secure access to knowledge and culture.

The digital evolution has however brought the consumer within the copyright realm. The main reason thereof is the extension of the reproduction right over temporary acts of copying that potentially covers any use of a work in a digital format. Contrary to over-thecounter sales, the provision of digital content on-line is generally made under end-user licensing agreements that define strictly what the consumer can do with its acquisition. The end-user being increasingly governed by copyright rules and licensing contracts, European copyright framework had to cater to the needs and expectations of consumers.

Chapter 1 – The consumer as a member of the public

As a member of the public, consumers have a strong interest in an effective and limited copyright protection, ensuring the access to a vast range of digital content and guaranteeing their fundamental rights to expression and access to information and culture. A first obstacle in the provision of digital content to consumers has been recently put forward by scholarship and the European Commission: the territorial application of copyright appears to hamper the development of cross-border provision of digital services to the frustration of consumers. The lack of harmonisation of copyright regime in the European Union, and particularly of its exceptions, can also be explained by the territoriality governing copyright. Incomplete harmonisation makes unequal he European consumers confronted to some uses of copyrighted works but also prevents some valuable services (e.g. distance learning) from developing across the borders.

This would add to the increasing expectation of consumers for an extensive access to information, culture and content, perceived as a basic right in the digital information society. Though the right of access to information can certainly not be claimed as such to get a free access to copyright works, it justifies to achieve a balance, within copyright regime, between owners and users rights, between protection of creation and limitations to that protection. To the extent the digital development has induced a strengthening of the rights of copyright owners, their impact of consumers’, and more generally on public’s access to culture and knowledge should be systematically accessed and the balance restored when needed.

Copyright exceptions play a key role in that balance, particularly in the field of education, research and access to culture. The European acquis communautaire provides exceptions for libraries, museums, educational institutions, and people with disabilities to that effect. However, their transposition into national laws of the Member States is optional and has led to diverging scope and conditions. The fragmentation of copyright exceptions in the Internal market is prejudicial for the consumer who does not enjoy an equal access to culture depending on its place of residence. This is particularly worrisome for consumers with special needs who have to depend on different modalities to get an access to works adapted to their specific disabilities.

Consumers’ rights would be better accommodated by copyright exceptions whose transposition in Member States would be mandatory and uniform.

Consumers have also taken the opportunity given by digital technologies to manipulate and adapt copyrighted works to their own creation. So-called user-created content takes a major part in web 2.0. but still lacks a clear copyright regime, specially concerning the possible exemption of such derived amateur creation from copyright enforcement or, conversely, concerning a possible attenuation of copyright clearance rules. Consumers wait for some certainty in that regard.

Chapter 2 – Consumers as end-users

Digital technology gives copyright owners an increasing possibility to charge for every use of their works or to restrict and control the consumption and final use of the works by consumers. Copyright laws have been adapted somewhat to accommodate this new means of enforcement, restricting the private copy or its conditions, submitting some exceptions to the condition of a prior lawful use, or encouraging and protecting the recourse to technological means of protection. That places consumers in a weakened position and gives a renewed importance to his rights and interests to counteract such expansion of copyright control.

Private copy

A primary concern of the consumer lies in the private copying. Generally recognised as an exception in most (but not all) copyright laws, the reproduction for personal use has gained some impetus in the digital environment due to the ease of its making and the unprecedented quality of the copies obtained. Private copying also occurs more frequently to enable the consumer to enjoy the digital content he acquires. Indeed, most often, the consumer literally “makes” the tangible embodiment of the work he downloads and subsequent copies might be increasingly necessary to allow for using the work in different platforms, applications and formats, as each digital use might technically require a further copy. This has changed the scope and justification of the private copy. One consequence of that shift might be that, when compensating the copyright owners for the harm suffered from the making of private copying (the levies system), such copies, required by the digital format and whose harm is minimal or even non-existent, should not imply compensation. As such device-shifting or format-shifting are fundamental expectations of consumers of digital content, such copying should not be restricted in any way by copyright owners.

As private copying now encompass copies that are technically required for consumers to be able to enjoy digital content, it should be further harmonised within the European Union and gives all European consumers the same scope and level of certainty.

Certainty of the private copy can be endangered by a too broad application of the threestep test. This provision, included in the Information Society directive, limits the enactment of copyright exceptions to (1) certain special cases (2) which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and (3) do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holders. National courts have sometimes applied the three-step test to the private copy when in practice, it seemed that the admissibility of making a digital copy would harm the normal exploitation of the work. It is difficult to understand how a single act of copying would counter the normal exploitation of a work, and submitting the exception to that further condition would create legal uncertainty for the consumer, particularly since the criteria of the test have never been defined in the European legislation or case law.

The three-step test should be limited to a tool for lawmakers when adapting copyright exceptions and incidentally to courts to interpret the exact scope of an unclear legal provision, but it should not add supplementary conditions to copyright exceptions. Another source for uncertainty for the consumer is the requirement, existing in some Member States, of a lawful source for the private copy: the copy would be exempted under an exception only if it is made from a non counterfeited work. That requirement aims particularly to prevent the application of the private copy exception in illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing when users download works whose communication in such networks have not been authorised by copyright owners. The situation of the lawful source for the private copy, as well as for other exceptions, should be clarified. Conditioning each exception to the evidence of such source would constitute too great a burden for the consumer who might not have, in most cases, have the means to prove that the copy she has used in conformity of an exception was itself authorised. Other means could be found to fight piracy in peer-to-peer networks.

Claims of consumers to acknowledge their genuine right to a private copy have been asserted before some national courts to no avail so far. Answers to the legal nature of the private copy are not easy and will differ from a Member State to another depending on their legal traditions. The intervention of the European lawmaker does not seem necessary on that point. Rather, the effective benefit of the private copy, particularly against attempts of copyright owners to restrain it by contract or technological locks, should trigger legal mechanisms to safeguard the exception in favour of the consumers, as will be developed below.

A last point regarding the private copy exception relates to the levies system, designed in many countries to compensate the copyright and related rights owners for that use of their works and performances. Despite many recent attempts, the levies have not been harmonised, which unnecessarily fragments the Internal Market for reproductive technologies and devices and makes consumers unequal. A recent decision of the European Court of Justice justifies the collection of levies on any equipment sold to natural persons, whatever the purpose they will make thereof, but also implicitly calls for more harmonisation in that field. To cater to the concerns of consumers, the levies system should at the minimum assess the damage suffered by the copyright owners by the private copying to calculate an adequate compensation. Some private copying rendered necessary by digital technologies might be considered as being de minimis and lead to no compensation.

The lawful user

The expansion of contracts governing provision of digital content has added a condition to the benefit some copyright exceptions, particularly to software and databases: in some cases, only the lawful user of a work is entitled to exercise copyright exceptions. That condition of the lawful user, that also conditions the enforceability of exceptions against technological measures in the Information Society directive, can unduly restrain the rights of consumers depending on its definition. When defined as the sole licensee of the work, the lawful user will not apply to all consumers acquiring digital goods, who will then be deprived of some fundamental privileges of use. A better definition would be to link the lawful use with the lawful possession of a copyrighted work, even though it would require some evidence of that legitimacy from the consumer.

The definition given by the Information Society to the lawful use is the broadest as it encompasses all uses authorised by the rightholder or not restricted by law. The notion of the lawful user should be restricted to limited situations as it potentially reduces the benefit of copyright exceptions for consumers and should be uniformly defined by the European copyright regime.

Mandatory nature of copyright exceptions

The emergence of electronic licensing binding any consumer of a copyrighted work has also prompted a new issue related to the copyright exceptions: are those mandatory or can they be contracted out ? In the Software and Database directives, the European lawmaker has answered by making some exceptions of an imperative nature. Surprisingly in the Information Society directive, no provisions prevent copyright exceptions from being overridden by contract, and some elements of the directive even suggests the prevalence of contract over the exceptions. In the online provision of informational goods, nonnegotiated and standard form contracts increasingly bind the consumers and grants limited rights of use, disrespectfully of copyright exceptions.

A better protection of consumers’ interests would require declaring copyright exceptions non-overridable, as in some Member States, or at least those exceptions conveying fundamental rights or public interests. Even the private copy should be made mandatory, as it has become a legitimate expectation of the consumers.

The rule of exhaustion and its digital application

The principle of exhaustion permits the further distribution or sale of tangible copies of a copyrighted work, once the distribution of such copies has been made within the European Union with the consent of the rightholders. It is not applicable to digital products provided online which creates a divergence that might not be understood by the consumer. A digital exhaustion could however be applied online, provided that the consumer effectively transfers the good and deletes any subsisting copy. It should be provided that the rule of exhaustion is of a mandatory nature and cannot be contracted out.

The consumer and the technological measures of protection

The deployment of technological measures of protection (TPM) to protect digital works against unauthorised access and use has further restricted the rights of consumers. The Information Society directive has provided for a mandate for Member States to make some copyright exceptions enforceable against TPM, but this solution is rather limited and difficult to apply. The private copy exception is only covered by this mechanism if the Member States wish so, and the provision of works made available on-line on demand does not need to comply with copyright exceptions.

TPM are also likely to raise issues of playability and interoperability for consumers, as they might interfere with the normal use of devices used by the consumer or not be compatible with them. Member States have provided fragmented answers to such issues, sometimes mandating a proper information on the application and effect of TPM by content providers. Consumers’ interests would be better protected if European copyright regulatory framework specifically address such issues and encourage digital content providers to develop consumer-friendly TPM, complying with copyright exceptions, and notably the needs of disabled consumers, privacy and legitimate expectations of consumers related to transparency, security, playability and interoperability.

Download the report The relations between copyright law and consumers’ rights from a European perspective (pdf)

…………

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

Wikileaks på SVT2 söndag 20.00

Dokument Inifrån om Wikileaks söndag 20.00

Missa inte Dokument Inifrån ikväll söndag den 12 december på SVT2 20.00:

SVT2
20.00 Dokument inifrån: Wikileaks
– med läckan som vapen. Dokumentär. Wikileaks utmanar generaler, bankdirektörer och politiker. Men attackerna har bara börjat. Bakom världshistoriens största läckor finns en radikal ideologi. Möt aktivisterna som är besatta av gränslös frihet på nätet. Text-TV textat 299. Bredbild. Även 14/12 i SVT1.

Jag har lagt till en ny kategori ”Wikileaks” på den här bloggen, och märkt upp gamla inlägg. Läs intervjun med mig och Julian Assange från juni i år, när han var i EU-parlamentet och talade.

…………

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

Länkdump om Wikileaks

Kopierat från Lakes Lakonismer

Markus ”Lake” Berglund har skrivit ett inlägg med länkar om Wikileaks. Jag håller helt med om det hans skriver, så jag kopierar hela inlägget här, mycket för att jag själv ska vara säker på att kunna hitta länkarna lätt. (Bloggen är ett väldigt bra anteckningsblock.)

Lake skriver:

Här kommer en jäkla massa bra, läsvärda länkar om Wikileaks. Jag har tyvärr inte tid att skriva en egen, längre analys om Wikileaks, men min hållning är glasklar – Wikileaks fyller en viktig funktion för att vi medborgare ska kunna granska våra makthavare, och även om vissa enskilda individer drabbas negativt av publiceringarna, så är alternativet så mycket värre – en stängd, sluten stat. Speciellt med tanke på alla den kontroll och övervakning som våra makthavare bygger upp över oss. Då behövs det kraftfulla och modiga medier och journalister som kan avslöja missförhållanden.

Mymlan i Metro – Bara en diktatur kan förbjuda Wikileaks

Medievärlden – Obegripligt att journalister vill tysta Wikileaks

Publicistklubben – Det fria ordet behöver läckor

Journalistförbundet fördömer försöken att tysta Wikileaks

Sagor från livbåten – Kampen om WikiLeaks är kampen om vår demokrati

Polisstaten – CableGate

Pezter – Vi behöver Wikileaks samt Wikileaks = Demokrati

Henrik Alexandersson – Wikileaks är ett demokrativerktyg samt Demokratisk kärnröta

Ola Berg – Vem som ska skärskåda vem

COPYRIOT – Wikileaks drivkraft: fundamentalistisk journalism

Henrik Tornberg – Wikileaks öde hänger ihop med pressfrihetens framtid

Sveriges Radio P1 har många bra inslag:

Medierna, P1 Morgon – krönika, debatt, Studio Ett – debatt, hackarna/crackarna, Godmorgon världen, Ekot.

Magnus Kolsjö – I Kina känner ingen till Wikileaks

Blogge – Konsekvenser av Wikileaks samt Assange måste skyddas från Sverige

Joakim Jardenberg – Om Wikileaks och hotet mot vårt fria internet

Micco på Mindpark – Tredje världskriget, eller en storm i ett vattenglas?

Jens O – Vem är förvånad över Sveriges agerande

Hans Engnell – Rädslans politik

Magnus Andersson – Om Wikileaks

Carl Schlyter på Politikerbloggen – “Företag tar sig rätten att agera åklagare och polis”

Aftonbladet har flera vassa krönikor:
Peter Kadhammar, Wolfgang Hansson, Eva Franchell, debatt av Marcin de Kaminski.

Marcin de Kaminski skriver också på Svt Debatt – Bra att regeringar försöker stänga ner Wikileaks

Zac har hittat ett lysande citat av Hillary Clinton – Wikileaks åker upp och ner…

”We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their rights of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship. (…) Both the American people and nations that censor the internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote internet freedom. We want to put these tools in the hands of people who will use them to advance democracy and human rights…”

Svenska Dagbladet har tagit in många debattartiklar. Bland annat av:
Statsvetaren Hans Agné, Karl Sigfrid (M) och Mary X Jensen samt IT-experten Per Ström.

Dagens Nyheter publicerar istället en hel del skrivet av egna journalister:
Ola Larsmo ställer frågan – Hur ska vi kunna kritisera bristen på yttrandefrihet i Kina eller Iran om vi inte försvarar Wikileaks?

Fredrik Strage – Wikileaks är alltså farligare än Ku Klux Klan

Jag avslutar med en översatt debattartikel, också skriven i DN, av mottagaren av Nobells Fredspris, kinesen Liu Xiaobo, som hävdar att – ”Kampen för det fria ordet lever på nätet”.

Och det har han ju helt rätt i, om vi kan bevara ett fritt och öppet internet…

Uppdatering: Jag har lagt till en ny kategori ”Wikileaks” på den här bloggen, och märkt upp gamla inlägg. Läs intervjun med mig och Julian Assange från juni i år, när han var i EU-parlamentet och talade.

…………

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

Mutual recognition of orphan works

Legislation is needed to solve the orphan works problem

An orphan work is a work that is still in copyright, but where the rights owner is not known or cannot be found. It can be a book, a song, a film, or a photo, or any other kind of work that falls under the copyright legislation.

Orphan works present a big problem for anybody who would want to use them. If you just go ahead without getting a permission, you run the risk that the rights holder suddenly turns up and sues you for a large amount. As we all know, courts can be quite prepared to set the damages for even minor copyright infringements to pretty astronomical figures. In many cases, this is simply not an acceptable risk.

But since there is no known rights holder that you can ask for a license, there is nothing you can do about it. No matter how valuable you think it would be to share that work with the world, there is no way to do it without breaking the law and exposing yourself to a great financial risk. The orphan works are effectively locked away by the copyright system.

This is not a small or marginal problem. A large part of our common cultural heritage from the 20th century falls into this category. About 75% of the books that Google want to digitize as part of their Google Books initiative are out of print, but still under copyright.

Even if it is theoretically possible to find the rights holders for many of these books by making a thorough investigation in each individual case, it simply becomes unfeasible when you want to do mass digitization.

And Google Books is not the only project to digitize works and make them available, even if it is the one that has attracted the most attention lately. There is an EU project called Europeana with a similar goal, as well as the open initiative Project Gutenberg. All of these are being held back by the problem of orphan (or semi-orphan) works.

Unless we do something, most of our common cultural heritage from the 20th century risks getting lost in a black hole before it becomes legal to save it for posterity. The Commission wants to address this problem, and solve it as quickly as possible. This a very good thing, and an initiative that we should support.

The cleanest solution would be to shorten the protection time from today’s life + 70 years to something that is more in line with the commercial realities of the cultural sector. Unfortunately, this is almost impossible to do quickly, since it would require re-negotiating the Berne Convention and other international treaties.

This means that in practice, there are essentially three possible solutions to the problem:

1. Do nothing, and accept that most works from the 20th century cannot be digitized,
2. Extended collective licensing, or
3. Recognition of orphan works after a diligent search.

If we rule out option 1 as being unacceptable, the choice stands between extended collective licensing and a system based on the recognition of orphan works after a diligent serach.

Extended Collective Licensing

Extended collective licensing means that you legislate to the effect that for works where the rights holder cannot be found, management of the copyright is taken over by a collecting society, who will then be able to negotiate and collect money for the use of the work. I the (real) rights holder turns up at a later date, the collecting society will pay the money to him. If no rights holder turns up and makes the claim, the collecting society will keep the money and distribute it to its members.

In a completely unsurprising manner, this is the solution favored by the collecting societies. Since, after all, most of the rights holders will never appear, the collecting societies can look forward to quite a lot of money that will never be claimed by anybody.

The collecting societies have managed to convince the Nordic Public Service Broadcasters that collective licenses are the way forward. Public service broadcasters in Europe have a rich archive of 2.2 million television programmes and 10.5 million radio programmes from the early days of broadcasting to the present, the Nordic PSB wrote in a letter to members of the European Parliament in 2009.

Each production in the archives may involve up to a hundred rights holders. Finding and signing contracts with each one is difficult. Doing it for the whole archive is virtually impossible. Most of this common cultural heritage is currently locked away in the archives, because of the cost and difficulty involved in clearing the rights.

It is true that a system based on extended collective licensing would solve the problem for the public service broadcasters, and for other big commercial players. By paying money to the collecting societies, the broadcasters get protection from future lawsuits from the actual rights holders, in case any of them should appear. This would remove the legal uncertainty that is currently preventing the broadcasters from making their historic material available to the public.

But if collective licensing would solve the problem for public broadcasters and other big commercial players, it would would be very harmful to all forms of non-commercial culture production.

Take, for instance, a blogger who wants to put an old photograph taken by an amateur on his blog, to illustrate an article. If the rights owner is unknown (which is true for most older pictures that were created during the 20th century), it may technically be in breach of copyright to republish the photograph. In practice, however, the risk that a rights owner should appear and sue the blogger is almost negligible.

But if the collecting societies were given the rights to everything that has been created where the real rights holder is unknown, it would suddenly become highly risky to republish any picture unless you know exactly who the rights owner is and can prove it.

The collecting societies have a history of enforcing any rights they are given in a quite aggressive way, and there would be nothing to stop the from threatening anybody who republishes anything with a law suit unless they pay up.

The burden of proof would shift from the situation today, where anybody who wants to sue somebody for copyright infringement first has to prove that he actually owns the rights, to the reverse situation, where the collecting societies would have to prove nothing, since they would automatically own everything that cannot be shown to belong to a known rights holder.

A solution for orphan works based on collective licensing might be acceptable to big commercial players, but it would seriously harm the participation culture of the Web 2.0, as well as all other forms of non-commercial cultural production.

There is also the problem that the collecting societies still operate on a national level, so even if you pay one collecting society in the most relevant country, you still cannot distribute the material on the European level. This means that the objectives of Europe’s Digital Agenda cannot be fulfilled in this way.

The collecting societies have so far been unable to provide a one-stop-shop for the rights that they already have to works that are not orphan. This is a big problem in itself, and one of the major factors inhibiting the Internal Digital market. Locking up the orphan works in the same logjam would be a step in the wrong direction.

It is understandable that the collecting societies want to grab as many rights as they can, in order to collect as much money as possible for themselves and their members. That is, after all, their whole purpose.

But it is very hard to justify why they should be allowed to take over the rights to works that neither they nor any of their members have had any part in creating.

If the author of an orphan work would have wanted a collecting society to manage his rights, all he would have had to do was to register with the collecting society. The reason why he chose not to do this could be that he just did not bother, and never thought about it. But in many cases it is a deliberate decision by the author because he wanted the work to be freely available and part of our common cultural heritage.

To still confiscate those rights and give them to a collecting society anyway would not be respectful of the wish of the author, even if the collecting societies would like it they benefit from it.

Recognition of orphan works after diligent search

The alternative way to handle the orphan works is to introduce legislation that says that after a diligent search for the rights holder, a work can be declared orphan by some institution. This affords legal certainty to anybody who wants to make available or use a work where the rights holder can be found.

There are several different technical solutions to how to achieve this, that vary in their details. A statutory exception on the European level would be one possibility, but there are others as well. In order to be meaningful and fulfill the objectives of the Digital Agenda, the solution must be on the European level, so that the works can be disseminated at least throughout the internal market.

The European Commission is about to present a proposal on orphan works in the print sector. It will be based on rules for mutual recognition of orphan status by the Member States.

Once a diligent search has been carried out in the country where the work was first published, it shall be deemed orphan within all of Europe if no rights holder was found in the diligent search. The searches are to be carried out by public libraries and similar institutions, and saved as documentation of the orphan status. This provides legal certainty.

Each Member State will be required to set up a system where they specify a number of publicly available databases that should be searched before a work published in that country can be given orphan status.

This is a good model, so it is a proposal we should support. In order to be as useful as possible, it would be desirable to have as many different kinds of works included in the original proposal, preferably all.

For books and printed materials, the rules should be designed so that all players who have so far shown an interest in digitizing the material, are allowed to contribute to the effort. This would include not only public libraries and institutions, but also non-commercial volunteer projects like Project Gutenberg, and commercial players such as Google. Since public libraries have limited resources, the risk is that digitization of the European cultural heritage will take a very long time if they are the only ones allowed to contribute.

When designing the rules for commercial players to contribute, it is important to make sure that no new rights should be created by the act of digitizing the material, in order to avoid the risk of a private monopoly being created.

It is also important that the procedures prescribed by the Member States for doing the diligent search are not to onerous on the institution that wants to establish the orphan status of a work. When doing mass digitization today, the rights clearance is often more expensive than the actual digitization.

Depending on the definition of “orphan works” and depending on the practical meaning of “diligent search”, the percentage of expected orphan works among in-copyright works and the costs to prove that they really are orphan works will vary greatly, the head of the German National Library points out.

A solution like this is what that the public libraries prefer. It would provide legal certainty for digitization projects, and would solve the orphan works problem for libraries like Europeana.

…………

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik

Medborgarlön är effektivt för samhället

Medborgarlön är tryggare för medborgarna, billigare för staten och effektivare för samhället

Medborgarlön har kommit upp i den politiska diskussionen. Jag gillar idén. Det är ett sätt att röja upp i snårskogen av myndigheter som ställer till byråkrati för dem som behöver hjälp, och ta bort den osäkerhet och förnedring som den som söker socialbidrag idag kan utsättas för.

I praktiken har vi redan medborgarlön införd i Sverige. Ingen svälter ihjäl av rent ekonomiska skäl. Samhället delar redan ut resurser så att alla i slutändan kan både äta och bo, vare sig de bidrar till produktionen eller inte.

Men det är väldigt många byråkrater och blanketter och beslut som kan överklagas från det att man har oturen att förlora jobbet, tills det till slut dimper ner en utbetalning som gör att man trots allt överlever. Med medborgarlön blir det både tryggare och värdigare för den som behöver hjälp, och betydligt billigare för staten.

Liberaldemokraterna kommer enligt uppgift driva frågan om medborgarlön kombinerat med plattskatt. Det innebär att alla har medborgarlönen i botten, och sedan betalar samma procentsats från första kronan som de tjänar på att jobba.

Det här skulle förenkla skattesystemet något enormt, samtidigt som det blir raka och enkla regler som är lika för alla, och som alla kan förstå.

Rent nationalekonomiskt är ett sådant system mycket intressant, eftersom det upphäver ineffektiviteten som uppstår på grund av ”den järnhårda lönelagen”.

Den järnhårda lönelagen säger att lönen för ett arbete måste vara så att det räcker till mat och hyra för arbetaren (för annars dör han och kan inte fortsätta arbeta). Därför går det idag inte att anställa en arbetslös person för att hjälpa till med någon uppgift som inte är så viktig att det går att motivera en riktig lön för, men som ändå vore värt en del pengar för någon att få gjort. Det är en samhällsekonomisk ineffektivitet när vi har arbetslöshet.

Det blir en möjlighet för arbetslösa att komma in på arbetsmarknaden utan att man behöver införa en massa nya krångliga regler om lärlingssystem. Systemet fungerar också utmärkt för personer med nedsatt arbetsförmåga, som kanske kan och vill jobba lite grand, men som inte orkar arbeta så mycket att de kan försörja sig på det.

Med medborgarlön och plattskatt kan vi överbrygga en del av klyftan mellan dem som har jobb och dem som inte har det. Vi får en bättre fungerande arbetsmarknad där det blir lättare att ta sig in, samtidigt som den som behöver hjälp får det på ett värdigt och rättvist sätt.

Piratpartiet har ingen uppfattning i frågan om medborgarlön, i vart fall inte ännu. Men själv tycker jag det är en riktigt bra idé.

…………

Andra om medborgarlön: Magnihasa, Tommie Gran, Klara Tovhult mfl, Emil Isberg, Torbjörn Jerlerup, Mikael Ståldal

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik

Vansinnesdomen mot The Pirate Bay

Hovrättens dom mot The Pirate Bay meddelades idag

Pressmeddelande från Piratpartiet:

Piratpartiet besviket över domen

Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij och Carl Lundström fälldes idag i Svea Hovrätt för att ha drivit The Pirate Bay, som är en sökmotor för torrentfiler och ett av Sveriges mest kända varumärken.

– Det här var en politisk rättegång från början och den måste lösas politiskt, säger Rick Falkvinge, partiledare för Piratpartiet. Allmänheten har tappat all tilltro till rättsväsendet i dessa frågor och det är sorgligt att man ändå fortsätter att bedriva särintressesjustis.

Skadeståndet från tingsrätten höjs till 46 miljoner. Fängelsestraffet minskas något och blir för Neij tio månader, Sunde åtta månader och Lundström fyra månader.

– Man kan jämföra detta med att skadeståndet för en våldtäkt är 75000 kronor, säger Falkvinge. Upphovsrätten har glidit så långt ifrån det allmänna rättsmedvetandet att den inte kan överleva utan drastiska reformer. I en sådan reform finns det ingen plats för dagens upphovsrättsindustri.

Piratpartiet bildades på grund av politikernas oförmåga att anpassa lagstiftningen till dagens IT-samhälle, menar Falkvinge:

– I slutändan är det här politikernas fel, säger Falkvinge. De har misslyckats med att anpassa lagstiftningen till nästa generations samhälle och jobb, och nu är det vi medborgare som får betala priset när särintressen regerar. Vi måste byta ut dagens politiker.

Tilläggas kan att det bara finns en sak som vi kan vara alldeles säkra på. Oavsett domen kommer fildelningen kommer fortsätta öka på samma sätt som tidigare. Det kan varken jurister eller politiker ändra på.

Andra som skriver om domen:

Svea Hovrätt: Själva domen (pdf).

Aftonbladet: Fängelse för männen bakom The Pirate Bay
Aftonbladet: Domens betydelse överdriven
Expressen: Pirate Bay lever gott
Expressen TV: ”Tyvärr så fungerar inte det svenska rättsväsendet”
SvD: Tre pirater döms till fängelse i hovrätten
SvD: ”Domen får minimal effekt på fildelningen”
SvD: Det finns orimliga förväntningar
DN: Sänkta fängelsestraff för Pirate Bay
DN: Försvaret överklagar domen
Sveriges Radio: Sänkta fängelsestraff för Pirate Bay
SVT: Fällande domar i Pirate Bay-målet

Piratpartiet: Piratpartiet besviket över domen
Piratpartiet: Pirate Party disappointed with verdict

Anna Troberg hos SvD: Pyrrhus-seger för upphovsrättsindustrin
Anna Troberg hos Newsmill: Upphovsrättsindustrin kan inte vinna
Anna Troberg: Fällande dom i Pirate Bay-målet
Opassande: Spectrial, blyinfattade telefoner och Bechdel-testet
Henrik Alexandersson: TPB: Intressant
Copyriot: Inför en halvviktig dom i Svea hovrätt
Skivad Lime: Upprepat
Anders S Lindbäck: Westman: ThePirateBay-dömda kan frikännas
Emil Isberg: Sammanfattning av #spectral
Tommy K Johansson: Pirate Bay: ”Det är en vansinnesdom!”
Röda Malmö: Piraterna seglar vidare
Sysadminbloggen: Jag bor i en förbannad bananrepublik!
Piratpartisten: Fällande dom i Pirate Bay-rättegången
Integritet och frihet: Spectrial del 2 är över, och skiten har träffat fläkten!
Sanningen som jag ser den: Ödesdag för internet?
Ravenna: Godtyckligt skadestånd i The Pirate Bay-fallet
Daniel Westman hos DN: Ansvarsfrihet Pirate Bays hopp i hovrätten

Mathias Klang hos DN: ”Vi vill se en upphovsrätt i takt med tiden”
Rick Falkvinge hos Aftonbladet: En tondöv dom i hovrätten

…………

Photo Christian Engström, free for publication CC0

Tags: piratpartiet, eu, politik, informationspolitik