And in Sweden in particular, you yourself can go bankrupt by suing someone: in a civil case (copyright infringement is a civil matter, as opposed to criminal) the loser pays _all_ attorneys/lawyers involved. On top of that, if you have had to get any expert witnesses the loser will have to pay them as well. Granted, while the case is under progress in court, both parties pay their own costs, but the loser is forced to pay the winner when the matter is settled.

There has been some discussion about having a similar system in Sweden. However, the finer details made it clear that while it would be legal to download via BT, it would still be illegal to upload, so you could still be dragged to court for doing something you are paying to be allowed to do. I didn't see any mention of whether or not the Canadian version would allow people to upload as well. Does anybody know?

And let's face it: if you are only allowed to download there is no point is paying the fee since you can be busted for having uploaded the files via BitTorrent.

True: I have got the details wrong, but to me it looks like I can't get anywhere without registering my work. It appears I need a lawyer to get payed for the use of my picture, and without registering it I can only get payed what I would have charged had I been asked before hand. IE I cannot get payed for the extra expense of having a lawyer. To me that adds up to making a loss by looking after my rights. By registering the work I seem to be able to get a whole lot more than I would have charged had I been asked before hand.

I might try the DMCA-route, I haven't thought of that possibiliy before.

From my strictly personal point of view, this list is of little importance (actually no importance at all). At least until the US cleans up it's act.

Let me explain: at the moment US copyright laws demand that you register your work with some federal agency (or similar), if you want to have a decent chance of getting any money should someone inside the USA infringe on your copyright. This is all fine and well. EXCEPT for people who live and work outside the USA! I see no reason why I, neither living nor working in USA, should have to pay the USA money to get the same level of protection for my work that inhabitants of the USA get for free in my country.

Just to prove my point: use Google to search for a picture with the description "footprints in the snow". Add "site:wordpress.com" to narrow the search. One of the pictures in the result is mine (currently picture number six on page two). Now change the search to "footprints snow mentor". You will get another result, but one with my picture on it, in a cropped version (currently number one in the results). This is not hosted on any server where I have put it, and it is used as decoration on a website used to advertise the services sold by an individual (or small company). The way the law seems to work I cannot get this particular individual to either stop using my image or pay me for its use. (I have contacted Apple, who seem to own the server the offending webpage is located on, with little result).

Therefore, as long as the USA expects foreign residents to pay for the protection afforded for free to "americans" in other countries, the USA is not credible in matters of copyright infringement.

Note to readers: although I use myself as an example here, I very much doubt I am the only one in similar circumstances. Further: I have nothing against Google indexing my websites, no matter where they are hosted. I have nothing against Google making and serving thumbnails of my pictures. It is when my pictures are used to advertise the products/services of other people/companies I think I should be payed.

I find the article very light on details, other than very general things. Could it be because most of the "issues" the users have with the Linux systems and programs is that they look different than what they were used to? If this is the case, I wonder what they do when they buy a new car, do they retake their driving licence?

I was into a store in Canada, and was asked a bunch of questions about my satisfaction with the store, and one along the lines of "How likely are you to visit an XXX-store again?". Quite honestly I answered "Highly unlikely, in fact it's quite possible this will be my only visit ever to an XXX-store". I got a surprised look from the clerk (I had indicated I was quite satisfied with the store), and felt I should explain: I have several thousand kilometres between home and the closes XXX-store.

On topic: what's the problem with memorising a ZIP-code to somewhere other than where you live? Granted, you shouldn't have to, but if you feel the store is asking for info they don't actually need, just lie to them. When enough people lie to them, they will stop asking for this info, as it doesn't get them anything usefull.

In a company the size of MS and Intel there must be somebody who can see it. That's not the problem. The problem is convincing your boss that doing something that will severely damage another branch of the company is a good thing. If I were an executive and wanted to advance in my career, I would find it very hard to take that step.

There is a book about this problem: "The innovators dilemma". (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Innovators-Dilemma-Technologies-Cause-Great/dp/0875845851/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295358384&sr=8-1).

Shortening the entire book into one sentence, it says that when something new (tablets) comes along, the leaders in the old business (PCs) often have problems adapting to the new market.

I agree with you: JA has done what I think he can be expected to do to help the authorities. When first the case arose, according to Swedish media at least, he stayed in Sweden a number of days (maybe a few weeks) until he got official word he could leave the country. Once he left the country, they couldn't wait to get their hands on him...

As far as I am concerned, someone in the prosecutors office needs to loose their job, and they needed to loose it yesterday!. At least one person, maybe more.

Please notice, though, that I live in Sweden, and this may have warped my view on the matter.



As a funny side note, I can pass on an anecdote from our legal system. Sometimes they do actually do "the right thing", as they did with Ioan Ursut, a Rumanian (?) criminal in Swedish prison. When he had two weeks (!) left of his 10-year sentence, he was pardoned. The media started asking questions about this, and the truth eventually came out: he was wanted by Italy, on bank-robbery charges. If IU had served all his ten years the Swedish law requires that the autorities actually let him go. By giving him a pardon just short of full term, they could keep him locked up till they cleared up the paperwork needed to extradite him to Italy...

I don't really think it is the case, but just maybe this idea stems from a percieved "need" of raising a generation or two of hard-core hackers, people who will be able to circumvent pretty much any type of security that can be thrown at them. For when they learn to circumvent a porn filter, why should they not take steps to ensure their communication is unreadalbe by anyone except the intended recipient?

The court can decide to have the "doors closed". This means only the court itself and the people involved in the case see the evidence. Any witnesses called will hear/see nothing other than their own evidence. Further, the court decision can be stamped "Secret" in parts or in its entirety. If things are really sensitive, you will never find out there has even been a trial....

I believe that one of the most often used reasons to close the doors and/or label the court decision secret is to protect the victim of the crime. This means that if JA is found guilty, the rest of the world might never get to examine the evidence, since it has been withheld to protect the interests of the victims.

Yes, I live in Sweden, but no, I am not a lawyer.

Let's see if I get this right: the guys make a little over 4M dollars, get fined 10K dollars and can "keep" the rest because they have already spent it? If this is true, I'm in the wrong business!

Don't worry, eventually the metric system will take over the USA, inch by inch.

I may be a bit off here, but I will guess that this move, if it becomes a reality for most, it will have the effect of teaching students how to use encrypted file-sharing protocols. The reason is simple: as a student you don't have much moeny, but plenty of time and lots of friends with the right knowledge. Add it all up and it can really only be one thing...

Have the politicians learnt nothing from the mistakes committed by others? Or does the European parliament have, as a requirement for being elected, an IQ under 75?

Not long ago Sweden enacted some laws designed to make it easier to find and identify file sharers. While I see nothing wrong with this in principle (let's face it: most file sharers share stuff they shouldn't...), the discussion before the laws were enacted made it abundantly clear that the people weren't going to take this without counter-action. So now the situation is that a lot of the traffic that we would like to stop is encrypted, and the law enforcement cannot find out what it is.

If this Italian idiot manages to get enough support for his stupid ideas, all he will accomplish is teaching the citiens of Europe how to encrypt their traffic, to use proxies outside Europe and in general make life for the authorities miserable! If my internet traffic is to be analyed or stored by the authorities, I am going to do something to foil them. And if I find a reasonably priced proxy in (just as an example) Russia, nothing the European Parliament decides will affect my proxy!