Pirate cops bust LITTLE GIRL, take her Winnie-the-Pooh laptop In their zeal to excise the cancer of copyright-infringing downloads, a Finnish anti-piracy group sent police to the home of a nine-year-old girl, where the coppers confiscated her Winnie-the-Pooh laptop. The Pooh-impounding plods were unleashed upon the young lass by the Finnish Copyright Information and Anti-Piracy Centre ( …
This post has been deleted by its author
I doubt it. My guess is that he absolutely hates this sort of thing because it is something that really *is* capable of convincing the general public that intellectual property rights are inherently evil and must be abolished.
If you wake up in 2020 and discover that inventors and artists can no longer make a living selling their talent and that your international rivals can steal whatever they like from your employer's product line, blame the record companies.
"...Germany just made anonymous filesharing illegal."
I can't find the link now but after the last batch of Ip laws were passed in Germany, a spokesman from the German federal police made a statement to the effect that they didn't have sufficient resources to chase copyright infringers as they had more important things to worry about, such as terrorism. He implied that they would only chase infringement of a commercial nature.
Yes that is true. The problem here in Germany is that a few windy Lawyers have taken it upon themselves to send out threatening letters with totally out of proportional demands to pay certain certain sums of money. I have a friend who apparently tried to download a film (for 6 min´s) at the same time as uploading it & stating their IP adress as evidence. The fact that the IP adress was wrong (& the line was only 1.2 s so therefore absolutely unable to do such a thing!) they should also sign a form to say they would not do a anything like that again ( DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING LIKE THAT!!!!) was for the Lawyers irrelevant. So now my friend has taken the correspondence to their Lawyer. He just laughed & said wait & see if they are prepared to go to court, as it would be thrownout before it got before a judge!!!!!
What has happen to this poor girl is so heavyhanded that the Father should & must go to a Lawyer & also press charges against these shameless idiots!!!!!!
The fact that the Artist is not bothered enough to help this girl says also a lot about her morals!! I hope she looses a lot of fans& income.
"The artist" can't do much. She can make legally-irrelevant statements in her choice of forums, but as far as actually altering the course of the prosecution is concerned - nope.
About all she could, in theory, do is to pay for the kid's defence and maybe buy her a new laptop. But bear in mind that "big in Finland" does not automatically mean "multi-millionnaire". It's a small market. Would you be willing to pay that kind of money to help a complete stranger? If so, there are probably more deserving cases for your charity.
For the future, of course - when her contract is up for renegotiation, she could hold out for some level of legal control over enforcement of copyrights in her works. But that wouldn't help this family.
First, it should be "marks" (ie plural) not "mark" .
Secondly, where is your justification for claiming that the commentator was going for nine exclamation marks. This is a serious journal and it is much more likely that a reader would use the conventional format of one exclamation mark to signify surprise and incredulity.
Thirdly, I've got bored with being literal - one up to Winkypop and one up to Michael H.F. Wilkinson.
I actually welcome this development.
Because, when this 9 year old grows up, she will vote in a government that takes a sensible and balanced view of copyright protection in the digital age.
The deadbeats who are enforcing this kind of stupidity are in the process of sawing off the branch they are sitting on. I don't think the rising generation will wear this.
The Tramp: that is what I'll be when the 9 year old is old enough to vote (Osborne is after my pension)
This post has been deleted by its author
There is a slight omission in this story. The original finnish story says the 9 year old girl was trying to find snippets of songs that are usually released for people to listen to before buying the record eg legal content released by the recording company.
Second omission is when the TTVK big guy put his leg deep in his mouht claiming that nobody can download illegal content by accident, not even a 9 year old.
1) She was nine years old. She probably just googled the song, saw a link and tried to download it. She may not even have realized it was wrong.
2) It was ONE FUCKING TRACK. Which she didn't even succeed in downloading.
3) The original amount asked for was ridiculously excessive. The father probably didn't take it seriously.
3) So, as a result, the police arrive in force, armed with and confiscate a nine-year-old girl's laptop.
And you don't see anything wrong with that??
This is on a par with a nine-year-old kid being arrested for stealing a few sweets from the Pic-and-Mix at Wilkinsons.
"This is on a par with a nine-year-old kid being arrested for stealing a few sweets from the Pic-and-Mix at Wilkinsons."
Given she didn't even download the song & her Dad bought it for her the following day - it's actually more akin to trying to pick up a sweet and finding her hands too small. Tells Daddy who buys her the sweet. Then getting arrested for stealing - totally bizarre.
"No material made available for further copying"
Especially this one. There is a very strong case to be made against some publishing other people's intellectual property onliine. Merely downloading it without making it available to someone else is on an order of magnitude a lesser infringement (and that's even before considering in this specific case that teh download failed)
It seems that the courts and police involved put innocence second, guilt first, and imply attemp is comparable to malicious intent, conspiracy, and will to infringe perpetually.
What of people who downloaded years aro, but cannot afford the haul they made, but try to keep from being hacked and who do not share online, and who share what is in the public libraries.
Even though there is no physical theft, i can see that people and distributors want to get paid, but, if the price is to high, some people will take copies, wich is not the same as hittin a store an running off. And, som people will take the moral high ground and just quietly never pursue the music or movies. That is akin to resistance. In both cases the artists and distributors miss out, the only or main subtlety being quasi-theft and and generic deprivation. Maybe, willful deprivation rises to a crime? Maybe FOAD as a response to advertising will rise to the level of "developing an increased likelihood of IP theft and must be monitored, accused even, to bring back into the fold" some day?
And, why do cops not get told from national government to not seize property for non-violent, low-level, per-person low-cost events? They could have used legal means to examine her, her home's, and one or two friend's or random 2 or 3 friends' home or school IP logs for indications of repeated, reticent behavior.
Besides, exposing a LIMITED, non-recurring number of people, especially if foreigners, offers an increased chance of purchasing followership. It is a form of coerced advertising, not in their budget, but advertising nonetheless. Maybe, counterfeit goods deterrence will allow trademark enforcers to grab random people and demand proof of purchase and receipts to aid in verifying the purchase location iis authorized to exist?
I'm certainly not excusing the tactics employed by the enforcers, but:
She visits ThePirateBay and is presented with a list of links to d/l the track/album. Aren't they all magnet links nowadays? If so, Winnie the Laptop needs some s/w installed to recognise that link and translate that into a torrent download (ditto if it was an actual .torrent file).
So, either:
a) she didn't have the software (why would a 9-y-o install u-torrent, for example?) in which case the enforcers are monitoring the clicks on ThePirateBay (and I thought they were all cloudy, now, so you couldn't do that).
Or:
b) she did have the software, which may raise eyebrows, but aborts the download before it completes - perhaps due to ISP throttling of P2P? Enforcers are, in this case, monitoring IP addresses in a swarm.
Am I missing something, or is her laptop not as pure as the driven snow (regardless of who installed the software)?
She is likely not even aware that what she did was illegal - many adults aren't that sure. Equally, how do they prove that the father had any knowledge that the child attempted this?
This is a ridiculous act of 'summary justice', only matched by the brutal, ham fisted handling by the police.
Would the same gestapo tactics be employed for other minor deeds by a child? Doubtful. And as for the attempt to get the father to sign an NDA over the settlement, I too would apply FOAD as well and post the damn thing and the full story with as many news agencies as possible.
9 year old child? This is a young criminal and we all know what happens to young criminals - they grow old and are going to commit serious crimes. Before you realise she'll be raping your wife, robing your children, terrorising your country or even pirating some software. Lock her up!
This post has been deleted by its author
Agree, but not with the "brutal, ham fisted handling by the police.". I don't think they like to do silly things like that.
What worries me is that they apparently have to do it anyway. In Finland the team is normally a man and a woman, mostly very well behaving, always armed. Arms are used so seldom that I think there is a high risk of them shooting themselves in the leg if they had to use them.
A rotten thing to have happened, not pleased.
You keep referring to copying as "theft".
Theft has a very specific definition in law: it means, dishonestly taking someone else's property with intent permanently to deprive them of it.
So, please tell me what the thing is that person A had before person B copied a piece of music, that they no longer have afterwards? Because if there is no deprivation, then there is no theft.
"So if I take your car but give after few days no theft happened right"
But then we just come back to the old question: if I made an identical copy of your car without actually taking it away from you, is that theft?
But then we just come back to the old question: if I made an identical copy of your car without actually taking it away from you, is that theft?
If it was a truely identical copy, you might well owe the car manufacturer a bunch of patent royalties!
No. Not from the consumer, who may have no moral qualms. But, music and film warnings try to coerce or compel consumers ot library borrowers to act as IP integrity or security agents. The danger is it puts unreasonable burden upon people. What if a visitor or snooping landlord, maintenance worker, or ven computer repair tech swipes tagged and flagged music ad redistributes it. Woe/woes be unto the over trusting or to the naieve.
So, the agents, manufacturers, and IP rights holders in the car and its parts, however, might take issue with the cloning of their car. Even states's motor vehicle and transportation safety agencies wold have a say from the safety perspective if you intend to operate said vehicle on public (and in some cases, private) roads.
But, if someone stea, umm, makes unauthorized copies of my art or designs, it is probably not enough for me or my representatives to show possession. I in advance should build in first-owner watermarking to thwart or even encourage future value increase or to dissuade the first consumer from parting ways with it. First sales doctrine laws may allow downstream giving away of some classes of property without any escrow or tracking procedures required. But, if i mire my paper and digital art with certain codes (purchase, possession, ownership, upgrade, etc privileges), am i compelled to pass on discount an bulk purchase or upgrade benefits to someone with whom I have never entered a relationship or with whom I cannot verify a proper hand off (without copying) has been effected? Is possession supposed to pass as rightful ownershipmto my disadvantage? If so, then laws toward music sharing should be revisited and updated. But, in the USA and many other countries, possession may be 9/10 of the law. Unfortunately, that can apply to proper, unbroken chain of custody possession of family heirlooms all the way to illegal possession of (controlled or even non-controlled) narcotics, designer merchandise, and even photos of celebs.
But, all i can hope for, at this point, is that code-embedding into my paper and digital art proves UNAUTHORIZED COPYING, not unauthorized possession. With music, such is possible, too, but again, people give stuff away, for nor profit motive, or swap property for non-criminal-intent reasons. And, this is where jackbooted warnings and blatantly commercial misuse of the FBI logo is applied as a bandaid for a tournequit or snow plow might be in an avalanche.
What else I could hope for is building a good relationship to encourage repeat purchases and loyalty for as long as possible. It might be years, or it might be a one-off sale. But, whom I grant discounts, ugrade access, or extensions should be my call. And, none are deserved without a basis, the basis being legit first acquisition. It should be my right to OPTIONALLY, case-by-case decide if, when, and to what extent I vary the terms so long as meanspirited discrimination is not in the equation.
Th music and movies industries need to evolve, or die a painful death, evolving meaning equitable coexistence, not boundless price greed and wielding of police badges by proxy.
Correct if you take his car to have wee hurl aroond and intend to dump it later then you have no stolen it. Take and drive away is the short hand version from the Road Traffic Act. In Scotland it prior to the statues to deal with it, it would have been libelled at common law as Clandestine Possession.
It you nick the motor with no intention of dumping it and strip it down into bits and flog them off, them yes it is theft. Make as many copies as you like, you may have committed a civil offence but you certainly have not stolen it.
No it isn't.
Theft is still the act of taking something without the owner's permission with the INTENT to PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE them of the benefits of the item. Intent is a vital part of criminal law. Intent is the difference between negligence, manslaughter, and murder.
Copyright infringment is not theft. Nor a criminal offence for that matter. Still wrong, but still not theft, no matter how blue your face gets, and how many times you say it.
Infringement is what is being discussed here. So please skip the emotional daily mail crap. It isn't the law's fault infringement is not as emotive a word as stealing.
And actually, you are accidentally correct. According to UK law at least, you described taking and driving away. Not theft of a car. Because the intent to deprive is next to impossible to prove.
Take a car, and bring it back, not theft. Not legal either, so you will still be up in front of the beak, but not for theft.
Would you care to compare and contrast to line jumpers in a theme/amusement park, when, say, the line jumper actually breeches admissions, and calculatingly does so off peak, reasoning that no one in line is made to wait unduly long since the roller coaster is never more than half full at that time of day?
What about fare evaders of buses? For example, in San Fransideshow, drivers are not fare enforcers. They generally have no desire to be mugged, threatened, or delay the bus more than a few minutes arguing with hostile evaders. So, they have become numbed, and in SF, probably up to 40% of the bus driv..., umm operators will just waggle or loll as people board (some because they never gave a damn, some because they were worn out by union politics, and some precisely because when they confronted or inconvenienced some fare evaders, they received a serious ass mugging), and only look at transfers and fare deposits if compelled to. Ultimately, this could be extrapolated to affect people in numerous states since at SOME point, federal money is part of SFMTA's operating budget. But, technically, out of state police cannot arrest or cite a driver out of jurisdiction just because an overzealous officer chooses to fly to SF to help resolve national budget woes.
Personally, i would call it theft if someone took my car (if I still had one) whether in the middle of the night whilemi slep, or whether at gunpoint. Just because i cannot PROVE the taker will not bring it back does not mean it will not be crashed into something, hit by another vehicle, demolished in some way, or used in the commission of a crime which could falsely snd inconveniently implucate me, forcing me to clear my name of something in which i had no involvement. But, i am sure thst those verse in law will handily whip out or point to the legal or codified terminology.
Right. Well, it depends.
In Brazil:
If (and only IF) You take my car without permission, and I find out WHILE You have it, then I can put the cops after You for stealing.
BUT
If (and only IF) You take my car, use it a few days and return it BEFORE I find out... then it is not theft. Yes, the law will want a few words with You - but not for stealing. I don't remember what was, but had something to do with "compensation due to wear and tear" and another little things.
At least, was this way about 18 years ago - when I was helping a girlfriend, who was at law school. I remember this very point, because I raised this very question: "What would happen if..."
Which legal jurisdiction do you live in? Please quote the specific legislation that defines the act of theft in your jurisdiction.
If what you say is actually true (which I do not believe) then you cannot live in the UK.
The Theft Act 1968 s.1 says "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."
Happened to me once. Left my 850 cc Mini Traveller outside, in a nearby work carpark on a Friday morning. Left work, car gone.
(They were easy to steal, screwdriver in the ignition switch - dash-mounted, no steering lock, push the slidy windows open, press starter button on the floor.)
Reported, natch. Walked back to work on Monday, it was back, almost in the same place. Not only that, it had a full tank of petrol. I guess someone needed it in a hurry.
I didn't pursue the case any further.
So, please tell me what the thing is that person A had before person B copied a piece of music, that they no longer have afterwards? Because if there is no deprivation, then there is no theft.
Having been on the other side of people 'borrowing' IP before - a couple of times conversations have gone something like:
Them: Can we use a photograph you've taken on our website?
Me: If you pay for it.
Them: We don't actually have a budget for photography.
Me: Well, you can't use it then.
only to find they've gone and used it anyway, I'd say the deprivation would be of the revenue that would have been due had the IP been acquired correctly.
Having said that, I do think that the reaction of the CIAPC/police was rather heavy handed and that a more appropriate 'punishment' for a 9*-year old, assuming this hasn't been a regular occurence, would have been to have her attend online-safety and responsibility classes.
* torrentfreak says the attempted download actually happened in 2011, so the kid was probably only 8 years old when it happened.
> I'd say the deprivation would be of the revenue
Yes, but that's a false dichotomy.
No-one is claiming that copyright infringement is permissible.
What we're saying is that it isn't Theft. Theft is a well-defined offence, and copyright is also a well-defined offence - but a different one.
So whilst copyright infringement might mean you don't get some putative licensing fee, to describe it as theft simply demonstrates an ignorance of what that word means. That still doesn't make infringement right, but it doesn't make it Theft either.
Vic.
Precisely, an understanding of what the words mean promotes understanding of what the "perpetrator" has done wrong and how society should act where an "offence" has been committed (I am not in this in any way supporting the way those tossers are enforcing current law or the way in which a nine-year old child has been treated, I am addressing a more general principle). A classic example are those who still log on to howl "convicted monopolist" on threads concerning MS. They do not understand the law (the charge of being a monopolist does not exist under US or UK law) and, even worse, they reveal that they do not understand what Redmond's (serious) offences were. If they do not understand what "anti-trust violation" means they contribute to confusion and shifting the focus away from what any example of "BigCorp" you may care to name are actually trying to get away with. In this area of life (as in many others) words are important as is understanding what they actually mean.
She did take someone else's (intellectual) property. If it was done with provable intent to evade paying the license fee, then it was theft. Composers and performers, and perhaps even the horrible multinational companies to whom they sell their copyrights, do have a right to earn a living (and if composers couldn't sell their copyrights, how would they then earn a living? )
Of course it wasn't theft on other grounds. Firstly, a 9-year-old can't reasonably be expected to understand such fine points of the law. What's the age of criminal responsibility in Finland? It's 10 in the UK. Secondly, how can someone know that what is delivered when one clicks a link is delivery of stolen goods? That's as daft as saying you're a thief if you un-knowingly buy a packet of crisps from a shop run by a man who nicked a big box of them from Tesco. It's the person who knowingly posted the link to stolen intellectual property that is the thief.
No, by definition "theft" is an act that is fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE to do to any form of intellectual property.
IP can only be infringed.
Words are important - you'd find it rather strange if somebody said you were flying a book or eating a bicycle. Saying that copyright infringement is theft makes about as much sense.
"No, by definition "theft" is an act that is fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE to do to any form of intellectual property."
Lemme fix that for ya!
"No, by my definition "theft" is an act that is fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE to do to any form of intellectual property."
What makes your definition so fucking special?
""No, by definition "theft" is an act that is fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE to do to any form of intellectual property."
Lemme fix that for ya!
"No, by my definition "theft" is an act that is fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE to do to any form of intellectual property."
What makes your definition so fucking special?"
Probably because it coincides with that in dictionaries and the law?
As a side matter, composers and performers need to learn to extricate themselves from the toll gate agencies that often fleece them.
It is dizzyingly ironic that the very people purportedly being protected from musice misappropriatin or nonpayment are often the LAST to see a pittance unless they play gigs outside the industry, or unless they are truly and well represented, and very wealthy enough and popular enough.
But, nowadays, we in Tier 1 or 2 nations are conditioned to expect shops and street vendors to have a tax certificate, operating permit, sales license, and health permit, among other documents that must be prominently displayed or shown upon demand bye any customer, not just relevant authority. So, while we cannot download a packet of crisps, the industey ARE inculcating (poorly or not) that there is no free ride, no burying of hrad in the sand. But, what we need for consumer insulation fro jackbooted enforcers is a revamped labeling and distribution system that clearly puts musicc into "save zones" and are off limits to the thugs over reaching their remit or bounds. There have been cases of businesses playing non represented, free, artist-produced and distributed music STILL being fined and dragged int a court.
Also, i believe schools nowadays do some small bit in civics and citizenship responsibility. I am prett sure that just as soda and junk food and extortionist interest credit cards permeate high schools and universities (where allowed), music labels get their messages across in those environs.
I will say that those who refuse to or cannot pay for music need to be careful to avoid being collared, but, really, hardly anyone intellectually can claim innocence. The burden upon us is to research the titles, document our acquisition means, and avoid torrents, honeypots, and the like. Otherwise, it is no less than dancing in a legal minefield. Oh, and parents can bw held liable for their kids' acts. So, i presume the licencing thugs in Finland will finsgle or somehow prove the father was lax, and they will probably get close to the $600, and insult him by getting the judge to pay court and police time costs. That is what they do to get their message across, as vile and destructive as it is.
If only ALL artists would re form and reassemble under new distribution schemes, if only they negotiated smarter, and got their OWN weasel clauses that negate label shenanigans. But, they are starry-eyed, like drug addicts, looking for that pinnacle moment, consequences be damned.
As opposed to the freeloaders who don't pay them a penny? At least record labels actually pay something. That's a lot better than sod all, which appears to be the only alternative proffered by many.
It's also depressing how often people conflate the implementation of a concept with the concept itself.
Yes, the media conglomerates can be very heavy-handed: they're old, crusty, conservative and uncomfortable with 'change'. This is normal. It's not nice, granted, but it's perfectly predictable behaviour. Most CEOs tend to be on the old side and, therefore, less interested in disrupting their nice, clean, venerable – and increasingly outdated – business models. These are people who still call in their secretaries to take dictation rather than messing about with those newfangled 'computer' things.
What we're seeing is poor implementation of IP protection. Nobody is seeing this from an engineering or IP creator's perspective: the legislators are seeing it only through the lenses of those who have built empires leveraging IP to make money off it – the middle-men. I have nothing against middle-men per se, but they do need to offer genuine value-add services to justify themselves. Many are starting to come round to this, but a lot more of the old guard are still trying to milk the old business model for all its worth.
Legislators tend to favour the wealthy with laws that help increase that wealth–they know what side their bread is buttered. Again: this is perfectly normal and utterly predictable. The original article barely counts as "news".
If you don't like this, kick the buggers out. That's what elections are for.
And don't whine that "they're all the same" either. You have just as much right to stand for election as any of them. That "somebody" you insist should "do something" to protect your high-minded principles? Look in a mirror: that somebody is YOU. It's your fight. Nut up and do it yourself. IT-literate politicians and lawmakers aren't going to magically appear out of thin air.
But remember this: if the concept of Intellectual Property is such a bad idea, why do people keep gibbering endlessly on about FOSS on these forums? The various GPLs would be utterly worthless without IP legislation to back them up. And without those licenses, the entire "Software Libre" movement would collapse into irrelevance overnight.
"(and if composers couldn't sell their copyrights, how would they then earn a living? )"
By doing something else besides composing!
Look, I'd like it if Severn Trent paid me for what I flush into their sewers, but it ain't going to happen; so I went out and got a proper job instead.
Now, the question which nobody has answered: What don't you have after the copy is made, that you did have before it was made?
The only way to 'steal' someone's intellectual property would be if that IP were in a physical form, such as an original master recording of a performance, and you were to steal that. In other words, if you were to permanently deprive an artist of the rights to their work by tricking them into signing a contract which allowed you to rent copies of their work to third parites, whilst keeping all the money for yourself.
Hey, that sounds like a good business model. I wonder if anyone has come up with it before?
Anyone who downvoted this post (Orlowksi, I'm thinking of you) is simply wrong.
Read the Theft Act and the definition is very clear right at the beginning of the Act and is pretty much exactly as this post says. Copying something cannot be theft in English Law.
This post has been deleted by its author
"They" did not admit that at all. The father acknowledged that his 9 year old daughter had attempted to download a track and failed. He purchased the track for his daughter the next day. :-
- downloading copyrighted material is not theft, in the same way that theft is not murder (different laws);
- the track was not downloaded, so no copyright infringement occurred;
- the age of criminal responsibility in Finland is 15. As the child is 9 years old, she could not be charged with any crime, even if her download had been successful;
- collective punishment is forbidden by the ECHR - the family cannot be punished for the action of one member.
In the words of Greenday...
Sieg Heil to the president Gasman
Bombs away is your punishment
Pulverise the Eiffel towers
Who criticise your government
Bang bang goes the broken glass and
Kill all the fags that don't agree
Trials by fire, setting fire
Is not a way that's meant for me
Just cause (hey, hey, hey), just cause, because we're outlaws yeah!
I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives
I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives
This is our lives on holiday
My reply to this comes from one verse in a song by the more mature and stunningly brilliant Porcupine Tree's Steve Wilson, the track Sound of Muzak, a plea to stop debasing music as simply a commodity:
"The music of rebellion makes you want to rage.
But it's made by millionaires who are nearly twice your age."
OMG! You've just STOLEN those LYRICS! You THIEF! You have deprived EVERYONE of EVER hearing them again, and you've stolen thousands and thousands of pounds from Green Day (Sorry, their production company) and made them very sad indeed! You KNOCK-OFF NIGEL THIEVEING SCUMBAG!
Expect a stiff letter demanding recompense from the Copyright Inquisition forthwith, and if you don't pay up without question immediately then you can expect armed police kicking your door down in the small hours of the morning to ruin your life and scare your children into corporate obedience!
There should be a mafia that shakes THEM down. Would it be illegal to PRAY thata these fucking piratical companies fall victim to mobsters? Demanding hundreds of dollars for an ATTEMPTED download, and THEN having the GALL assert a non-disclosure. Contemptible fracks. No matter WHAT country, those types are a contemptible spawn of humans. The whole point of monitoring should be to taint or flag the largest-draw songs, and then to go after recidevist redistributors of pirated songs, not onesy-twosey types
Sigh...
Everyone, make sure your Amarok app is not trying to talk to the wiki servers... I know of someone who had a firewall running, but noticed in an IDS/monitoring app that amarok was calling out even though the setttings to deny that were off. INT WTF?
Alsa no, in the UK lots pf public bodies, particularly in the NHS use gagging clauses as part of the conditions of settlement when silencing whistleblowers, despite orders from a secretary of state to cease. I'd expect there to be quite a few in other sectors, both state and private, but due to their very nature we'll never really know.
It's a pity that one cannot just beat these shit heads up.
In the mix of "Hollywood Accounting" - losing 110 million on a movie that grossed 340 million, and cost 55 million to make...
And the scammy "everything" - to do with anything about all of this....
Buy a fucking piano and learn to read and write music and make some albums, get gigs and entertain real people in real venues.
Most of the AFACT RIAAA etc., etc., etc., are just fucking lying crooks anyway.
More dirty money in those "business models" than anything else that comes to mind.
Sounds like it to me, and is standard practice for these kind of people...
She hadn't even managed to download the song! so no infringement had occurred...
I hope they fight this in court and win damages! We need a precedent in the EU to use against the media barons... Even the artist in question is trying to distance herself from this..
Hmm that's a healthy lesson to teach kids. "Sure kids it's OK to go out and knock off other people's creative work so long as you're careful and don't get caught!".
Simply hiding your ilicit activities from them is not the answer, fighting back, getting the facts in the open and demanding what the hell these thugs think they're doing to citizens who stay on the right side of the law 99.9% of the time with the occasional slip-up. It simply needs a small slap on the wrist to correct ( say a nominal payment of £5 for loss of earnings and admin on the legal letters ), not a bloody huge legal "crowbar to the back of the skull" of the family of a 9 year old girl!
I wasn't trying to suggest that piracy is good, but that learning that people can track what you're viewing, who you're talking to, and what you're saying is a very important lesson. This applies to ill thought out comments on Facebook or political criticism on another forum, both of which are real issues which can severely impact a young person's life and happiness.
When people can search your house on the grounds you tried and failed to download £1-worth of music in Finland - a relatively liberal country - the implications for less enlightened regimes comes sharply into focus.
For the record I think piracy is wrong. I also think that enabling something is a long, long way from doing it.
Online anonymity done properly either involves hacking networked equipment belonging to others or being very slow. Not suitable for downloads, as those hacked for this purpose risk getting blamed or brave souls who operate Tor exit nodes do. Better to stay on the right side of the law and keep Tor for political activism which really needs online anonymity.
On this one, given that politician's careers depend upon this, much better that millions of kids learn how to use their votes once they are old enough to ensure candidates which have a clue on the copyright issue do better than those who have sold out to the maximalists in the hope of getting good old fashioned press coverage in exchange for a bad reputation online. I'm all in favour of bringing down the voting age to 16 - too many older voters in my generation are still mainly influenced by old media which belongs to the maximalist side.
Well I'll go ahead and invoke Godwin at this point. It was just this sort of indoctrination of a false morality and rules under fear of certain retribution in children that directly resulted in a mass backlash against the state and the rise of fascism all over Europe in the mid twentieth century. I say the Finns are setting themselves up for a fall if they persist in this.
On a technical note: WTF? She didn't download it, so they weren't tracking the torrent presumably. piratebay.se is all SSL. How they do that then? Forged SSL certs? Aren't there robust laws against that?
There's a lot of intellectual property in a choccy bar, maybe they should start suing on the grounds of IP infringement lol. Not the actual chocolate bar manufacturer's, but a shady cabal of chocolate bar resellers who claim to act in the public interest and do everything in secret.
Probably the NDA is so they can selectively slam the shit out of some people and demand less from others, either at a whim or based on other metrics or demographics infor they pay to find out about the vict... Umm, target. This way, when they go to court, or even arbitration, knowing that the NDA is in force means they can get away with being inconsistent since there will be no public infor for people to crowd share.
But, if the NDA were not respected, then the next vict.. Umm, target who happens to know can in turn strong arm the henchmen prior to trial or arbitration, or just take it to a judge, who migth demand they show the judge their income stream, proof of consistent application of fines/setttlement amounts, and so on. The NDA probably just helps them avoid having their own asses ripped to shreds in open courts that determine greed and vulturism.
It's far better that there be rumors that goons are bloodying the noses of random people and shake them down successfully if they so much as twitch, as to have a public spredsheet which shows that a bunch of greedy clowns are making away with a few quid in so-and-so-many cases and are getting told to fark off in so-and-so-many cases with no followup.
Only if the plaintiff can show that the parents were negligent and did not exercise reasonable control over the child. The court will likely find that in this era it is unreasonable to expect parents to sit and watch a kid surfing the internet every hour of every day.
The court will also have a duty to wider society. It is not in society's best interest to lock up people for downloading tunes any more than it was in my day when we all used to tape the top 40 off the radio.
On the other hand, the kid is systematically downloading songs and making a CD for sale to her friends, than thats clearly another matter. It is this kind of activity that the law is in place to prevent.
So we are now saying that for thinking about committing a crime people have to pay large amounts of money!?!?! that is a very scary prospect and I hope they appeal on the European Human rights, lets face it they stopped a known radical from being deported surely they will stop a little girl being done for thought crimes
Torrents...you start giving out the smallest chunk of data you have downloaded to anyone else who wants it.
So if you download a torrent that the original uploader never uploaded more than 99% of, you are uploading that 99% of "failed download" to everyone else.
To these legal people, sharing parts of the content is enough to claim infringment.
So she clicks on a torrent to download a copy of the song... and doesnt have a bit torrent client on her Pooh laptop...
Is she still sharing out 99% of the "failed download" with anyone else?
I am willing to bet that she didnt have a copy of any bit torrent client and therefore was physically unable to share the torrent.
If she is unable to share anything, then it was an attempt to download that failed and therefore is not an infringement.
I am pretty sure that in Finland the Age of Crimial Responsiility is 15 so I don't see how this could happen. Presumably if the girl refused to give up the "laptop of very little MIPS" they couldn't have arrested her. Perhaps Finnish law transfers the Criminal Reponsibiity to the parent under some circumstances? Any Finns on the forums?
Yes, I'm a Finn, and the age is 15 years. And also the funds for the police are cut down year by year to fight REAL crime (like MC gangs, dirty contractors on building business etc.). As fas as I know, the responsibility is not transferred to parents (I asked a layer couple years ago when then 3y son hit neighbour car with his bike, and I was asked for money).
But as a taxpayer it warms my heart to see that they still has resources to send TWO non uniforms to mission important like this...http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/graphics/icons/comment/black_helicopters_32.png
"Do the police seriously have nothing better to do then chase up copyright claims?"
She was using downloading using a torrent. Unfortunately this means that she was also uploading at the same time.
The uploading (distribution) turns it from a civil offence to a criminal offence.
When Santa brings her a new laptop perhaps he'll be kind enough to also give her a usenet account (with SSL access) and a copy of "Proxies for Kids".
@AC 14:08
Nope.
She was attempting to download using a torrent.
1) The fact that it's described as an attempt which was followed up by buying it legitimately the next day says it failed, and
2) Until they've released some quite detailed logs showing otherwise, there's no proof she uploaded anything. (Who's to say her torrent client wasn't configured for leech mode - ie downloads will be slow as hell but the uploading aspect is effectively negiligible?)
Either we're missing details from the story here or Finland has a keen interest in joining the Top Three in the Big Book Of Bastards category for Disproportionate Responses, Subsection: Copyright Infringement.
The police were doing what the law requires them to. The law says attempted infringement is also punishable. See Lex Karpela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Karpela) - thanks to the EU directive, in turn probably lobbied into effect by Hollywood and the global music industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Karpela
If someone is to blame, it's the industry associations in Finland, Europe and worldwide.
As stated in the article, she was searching for the song and stumbling across the Pirate Bay whilst using her Pooh laptop, she probably doesn't have a clue what Bittorrent is or even what a bittorrent client is, hence the failure to get a copy of the tune.
There are some clues which help paint a picture here, she was 9yrs old with a Winnie the Pooh Laptop and was downloading some pop artist popular with young girls, this doesn't smack of a serial copyright infringing pirate (although in this day an age all of that could be completely wrong).
Please let there be an international out pour of disgust at the Finnish Police and their copyright mafia.
the Finnish police dared to intervene personally in this parlous situation, instead of sending in the Reg's «executive editor». That would no doubt have scared the poor girl so severely that she'd never dare even think of «illegally» downloading a music file again....
Henri
We're public guardians bold yet wary
And of ourselves we take good care
To risk our precious lives we're chary
When danger threatens we're not there
But when we see a helpless woman
Or little boys who do no harm…
We run them in, we run them in
We run them in, we run them in
To show them we're the beaux gendarmes
a) that the young lass hit some site where one could conceivably download offending material is not being questioned - and, being 9 years old and a fan of a pop artist will tend to lead young ones down odd paths.
b) I would guess that the offence would (in any case) be booked against the subscriber of the broadband account, thus her parent(s)/guardian(s). I will for the purposes of the argument ONLY moot the fact that any offence actually was committed. ( the law typically being an ass, its possible that the attempt itself is an offence. )
c) the fee is ridiculous. But that is to be expected - the folks running this scam want it to be prohibitive to get caught.
d) - The NDA is what revolts me the most. It takes the penalty (the fine) from being a fine to being extortion. Period. "We caught you doing this, cough up this money and NEVER tell anyone about this."
If they are going to permit this **AND** use local law enforcement to do so, WE as citizens (where ever this occurs ) should damned well KNOW that our law enforcement tax dollars are going to support the corporate flunky agencies. Here's my question.
What portion of the COST of law enforcement participation in this corporate income enhancement is being funded by the corporate entity that is getting paid?
If you are naive enough to believe a nine year old isn't using drugs, learning sex or pirating, you must live under a rock.
The police did their job, nothing more or less. Copyright holders are forced by law to act on piracy so hating them is ignorant and futile. Sooner or later those who believe they are above the law are going to get a knock on the door and the judicial system is going to make it very clear to them that they are not above the law and that they will be held acountable for their crimes.
f you are naive enough to believe a music executive isn't using drugs, learning sex or pirating, you must live under a rock.
The police did their job, nothing more or less. Copyright holders are forced by law to act on piracy so hating them is ignorant and futile. Sooner or later those who believe they are above the law are going to get a knock on the door and the judicial system is going to make it very clear to them that they are not above the law and that they will be held accountable for their crimes
"If you are naive enough to believe a nine year old isn't using drugs, learning sex or pirating, you must live under a rock."
I live in a house made of rocks, does that count?
In some places, children are still children and aren't getting doped up, banged up (either sense of the phrase), or engaging in wholescale wilful piracy (I don't count listening to copyright material on YouTube etc as I reckon the fine points of copyright infringement would probably be lost on the under-10s). I wouldn't consider myself naïve, I just consider myself lucky I don't live wherever it is that you live...
I notice that no-one has bothered to think that this story is complete balls?
It's reported from torrent freak, who are hardly an impartial source and basic common sense (what's the age of criminal responsibility in Finland?) suggests it's to be taken with a pinch of salt. However everyone seems to be believing that the nasty police came round to the girl's house and arrested her, but that they didn't even speak to her parents or, more likely, arrest them, what with the broadband and laptop being in their name.
Try a tiny little bit of critical thinking, for pity's sake.
Sadly the story is true. It is all over all Finnish news media, with interviews from named police personnel involved with the case. You'd think they would deny it happened if it wasn't true, eh?
Torrentfreak has also reported on TPB-related news from Finland in the past. I've read a few of their stories and they have been remarkably thorough and well written.
Well, when it gets to the point where state broadcaster's news services are reporting on it, it's reasonable to assume that either:
a) there's some sort of factual basis for the story, or
b) someone at said broadcaster will soon be making an embarassed apology for publishing something without doing any fact-checking.
I notice you're not actually giving any compelling evidence against the story being true, other than your own personal "smells like bollocks" sense, which is hardly an objective metric.
So from now until forever, there is going to be a brown box in the evidence room of the Finnish police station with a Pooh laptop in it? I can see it now.... years in the future, the Finnish "Cold Case" squad cracks open the box and finds the laptop. On it, are pictures of a 9 year-old girl. "What!" they exclaim, "this must be an unsolved child pornography case!" After a long investigation, to their shock and dismay, they find that the laptop contains the fingerprints of a retired Finnish policeman. He is charged and arrested for possession and distribution of child porn, thrown into the slammer, where he becomes the unwilling wife of the tossed salad man, and eventually dies in prison of AIDS."
</end of daydream>
Whomever released this story to the media is exploiting this child to promote their negative views on enforcement of copyright laws. They should know by now that it's futile as all civilized countries enforce copyright laws so it's time to get real. Feel free to pirate but expect to be held accountable for your actions as this girl and her parents are being held accountable for their actions.
Copyright law in EU are based on the EU copyright directive. This copyright directive was subject to heavy lobbying (bribes) by the music and movie industry. It holds manner of all stupid restrictions on breaking encryption etc.
I am not even sure it holds up to EU treaties. But nobody has so far put it to the test in ECJ that handle this type of matters inside EU. So this EU copyright directive goes on unchallenged in EU.
However. Many countries have chosen to implement it as laws. But ignore action part of it. Sadly. That country is not Finland. How did go crazy in enforcing this directive to the letter and way be on it in reality. Germany has also gone way past this directive mandate in terms of enforcing this law. That are based to service the MPAA and RIAA needs. Not the artist them self. How often get paid less and late due to the music companies willingness to cheat them out when and where they can do so.
More on this in links below.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060428/036245.shtml
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120718brein
It sounds reminiscent of the solicitors in the UK who were sending out false accusations of illegal downloading and offering to drop proceedings on payment of a large "administration" fee. At least the UK police did not seem to get involved in the scam and I don't think any cases ever went to court because they feared the precedent of a losing a case.
Understand your rights.
I am not a lawyer, but having seen off some "minor legal claims" in my time, my observations are here:
If its a matter of a few hundred pounds/dollars,
Any solicitor's latter demanding anything really isnt worth the paper its printed on.
They have to take you to small claims court and get a judgment compelling you to pay up.
Small claims court is there for such matters and its expensive for them (in time and fees) to get you there. Once there, they have to show your are liable for some tort or other (which is tricky). You will not have to pay their costs. Just yours. Nobody who knows their rights falls for it.
So these scumbags just play a numbers game. They figure if they send out 100 letters and just one person falls for it, then they have broken even. Everything else is gravy. Its a shakedown on a grand scale.
All that said, there are some very disturbing elements to this.
The first is how the MPAA et al are slowly succeeding in co-opting the machinery of the state to protect intellectual property rights. The police exist to control activities that, if left unchecked, would threaten the security of our society. Things like murder, rape, arson, GBH, robbery etc.
Leaving aside the debate about rights of artists to make a living, the police are NOT there to ensure record companies and artists get paid, any more than they are there to help me if I sell my services to a company that doesn't pay up.
The second is the idea that a solicitor can use the threat of police action if payment isnt forthcoming. If a crime has been committed, a citizen has a duty to report it to police because its a criminal matter. If a tort has been committed the citizen has recourse to civil court for relief.
Whenever the citizen demands payment in order to NOT go to the police, that's blackmail pure and simple - a far more serious offence than downloading content.
This is why we have a separation of civil and criminal law. The commingling of the two in this case is deeply, deeply troubling. "We think you downloaded something, pay us $$$ or the police will raid your home"? What the F**K is that all about.
> Small claims court is there for such matters and its expensive for them (in time and fees) to get you there.
It's not *that* expensive. You can fill out the claim online in a maatter of moments. There is a fee to be paid, but that is added to the judgement should the plaintiff prevail.
There is some expense in actually going to court - as always, it is better not to if possible.
> Once there, they have to show your are liable for some tort or other (which is tricky).
I disagree. If there is any case whatsoever, it's easy enough to show that a debt is owing. Small Claims Court Judges are sharp cookies, and they are predominantly interested in settling the issue - they expect those appearing in front of them to be untrained in the Law, and IME are especially accomodating. They don't get sidetracked, they just get on with working out who owes what to whom, and issuing a judgement accordingly.
> You will not have to pay their costs. Just yours
That's not true. In the event of a loss, the defendant is liable for the debt claimed (or part of it, should the judge award a partial), and for the court fees that the plaintiff has already paid. Additionally, the winning side can ask for - and might be awarded[1] - costs for appearing in court. These latter costs are currently capped at the princely sum of £50 per day.
> Nobody who knows their rights falls for it.
That depends on whether or not the plaintiff is just trying it on. Every time I have started Small Claims proceedings, the defendant has assumed exactly that. Each of them has later been surprised. I've only actually had to apply for a judgement on one occasion - most people settle once they realise you're serious. A CCJ against a trading company can really make a mess of things...
Vic.
[1] I was awarded costs the last time I went to court. And I'd only gone in as a witness for the defendant. He and I got £100 each for the two days we'd spent in court. Not exactly a great rate of earnings, but we did put an end to the efforts of the lying cheating git that filed the case. Which was nice.
Isn't she too young to be held responsible?
Whatever, I will never buy anything from idiotTunes, and in the light of this fascism I shall not bother buying any more so called music. Except bargain bin CDs from time to time maybe.
I think that copyright as is is well past its sell by date. I was a signed musician at one time - the record company and management took all of the money from the sale of recordings, I only ever got paid for live performances - and that is he way it should be - the recordings are advertising, no more, and the sooner the recording industry disappears in its current form the better for the world at large.
My knowledge of Finnish Law is pretty limited but if this were in the UK then yes she would be below the age of ciminal responsibility. However, what this means is that she could not be convicted. It doesn't mean that the police wouldn't or couldn't investigate the alleged crime.
Maybe where you live you hang at dawn everyone you don't like. Dunno.
Here, in the civilised world, theft and unauthorised use of other's properties are two different crimes. Both are crimes only if the thing is of non-negligible value, etc. Of course, so called intellectual property has its own laws. And, of course, downloading for personal use is legal here.
The whole point of this story is to generate ire for copyright enforcement, which is wasted energy as the laws are not wrong and the police were just doing their job. Cybercrime is much more of a social problem than a lot of people want to accept.
This situation could have been totally avoided. Yes the girl pirated and she probably knew she was pirating. Yes her father is a moron for not teaching her better and for not responding to the infringment notice he received. This should be a valuable lesson for both of them. Using the child to create negative sentiment toward copyright laws or the authorities who enforce copyright laws, is futile.
"Cybercrime" and "piracy" are business managers bulls. The industry loves this, spins this and controls this all over the world.
They could shut down every single torrent site and sharing site in 24/48 hours all over the world if they really want to.
They never do that. With no controlled "piracy" they know hardware sales would drop and they would lose money. It's the industry itself that releases 90% of "pirated" copies on the 'net, as well as hacks, cracks and custom roms for smartphones and consoles.
They want people to believe that little computer wiz kids are doing all of that, and genius university students and other bulls. Unfortunately they succeeded into putting these false silly myths in the minds of worldwide population. The truth is far different.
"This right to bear arms is becoming more and more attractive."
And whom would you shoot at? My understanding of the article is that the bastards that need to taste the bitterness of lead sent the police to go do their dirty work, who according to the "it might have been better if you'd paid" comment appear to have been more than happy to be complicit in this matter. Shooting at them is like taking down the Pawns and ignoring the King, not a terribly useful strategy. Plus, they probably shoot back, so for the sake of a nine-year-old's failed attempt to download a song (that was subsequently legally purchased), there'll be a bunch of dead or seriously injured people, maybe one of them looking at a lot of prison time, so potentially either way the girl loses her father. Of course, this is assuming he actually starts blowing away the cops. He might just want a big gun so he can brandish it and go "grrr", at which point the police must surely assume he is a justifiable threat and unholster their own weapons. If he is dumb enough to do anything other than put the gun down, he risks being shot. He will probably be arrested. In this less gory scenario, the girl loses her father. I'm sure there are some who might consider this just results for piracy...
Are you still certain the right to bear arms is attractive? I can't see it does anything other than make a shitty situation worse.
1) This is really bad, if it were my child i'd sue the whole bunch of bullies involved for inflicting unnecessary emotional distress on a minor.
2) The child, her immediate family and everyone they know will probably think the forces involved are evil and trust them less than they used to.
3) The so-called pop star sounds like a shithead, then again the top 2% don't care about the people who actually make the world go round and line their bulging pockets with artificially inflated prices & taxes
4) I'm really happy with my encrypted VPN supplier, only $9 a month to stop the corrupt government spying on me - which they will try eventually
... but only directly to the head of the organisation making the demands, only at that front door of that persons home address and only in front of live steaming free to view video. Oh and the artist should also be there as they are complicit by accepting money from these corrupt practises.
But still how come one has the feeling that any mugging or worse has less importance than a stupid thing like this, and how should children (and others) know when, among all the OK stuff, you are allowed and pushed to download there is suddenly something causing your death. Recently a teenager is supposed to pay 400.000 Euros for something similar. Absolute madness.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
