They might be just right. The people who are resposible for the misinformation are actually IFPI member ÄKT and ministry of culture. Both of them are claiming that the new law doesnt make you a criminal if you copy the music you have bought to mp3 players. Lyhty (creative workers union) made a press statement and soon Ministy of culture followed. The 'good' people at ministry of culture commented the law in several interviews.
First Jorma Walden said that it is forbidden to copy your CDs to mp3 if you have to circumvent technical protection measure. He continues "If you can accidently open the work in Windows with a Word or with other program, protection isn't too strong"
Walden continues: "There are services where you can buy your music in digital form. Markets could provide products where the music is copyable to portable players. This is a new way of getting music."
Isnt CD a way to buy music in digital form? The format and copyright law allow you to copy the music to private use. Nothing new about it. I guess there is nothing new that music is being sold several times to consumers.
After two days the message was some what different. Marko Rajamäki lawyer responsible for ministry's copyright PR sent very mixed signals: "We have to take into account that the circumvention for private use is not punished. The message of the law is that it is not allowed." Confused? You are not the only one.
Helsingin Sanomat the biggest news paper made a big story of the whole farce. Ministy of cultures head copyright huncho Jukka Liedes continued to with the 'great pr' strategy: "It only forbidden to circumvent the protection in order to copy the product. No punishment would follow for individuals. Rights owner could still demand a compensation for the copying if she would know about it."
Jukka Liedes and his team gave up and acknowledged that the law has remedies against private copying. There is a fine in § 56e set for the person responsible for circumventing the protection measure.
I dont even want to start with the FUD that the IFPI lobby has spreaded. At least two letter were sent to the members of parliament saying that artists are for DRM. Both were sent with out the knowledge of at least some of the artists.
Update: Monday 26.9.2005 Waldén is commenting the new law again. This time he says in Digitoday that "As far as I could see copying to private use done within §12 is not copyright violation." Yes. He is right the private copying section 12§ remained unchanged. Waldén refused to comment why ministry of culture hasnt removed their press release that has the wrong interpretation of the law from their website.
Seems that Digitoday is starting to see the comedy in the process. Their story had picture of a monkey with a text: "Copyright law has a lot to think about." I don't know if it was just an accident but the name of one of the officials was in bold under the picture.
One of the claims that have been made is that the new law doesn't really affect the rights of consumers. This is not true. In fact it can nearly kill the fair use rights. Letting the author decide what the consumer can do with the product destroy the balance that fair use and first sale doctrines and their European equivalents bring to copyright system.
The claim that you could still rip your cd to mp3 format is bs. How could you make a copy with your computer if the computer wont even play the blody disc? Finding a player and a program is rather hard if the distribution of such programs is illegal not mentioning that circumventing the technical protection that the right owner has decided to put on a record is also illegal and punishable. Even the ministry of culture staff had to admit that the law has effect on ripping your own stuff to your mp3 player.
No we are not. The consumer agancy has said that the law is against the EU's treaties and that the consumer side has not been taken into account in the law. EFFI has represented consumers
against the huge list of copyright oragnizations lobbies.
academic experts that testified at parliament hearing said that the law
is rotten. Professor of law and technology Jukka Kemppinen
[disclaimer my boss] has said that: "There are only three or four
lawyers in this country who might understand this law." Last parliament
sent the law back to ministry of culture with a letter saying that the
law is unreadable and with a list of changes. What happened? The letter
was soon forgotten and the ill revised law was brought back to
At the same time the right owner organizations have been sending CDs
and DVDs to the parliament members. They have also been sending letters
like this with out the approval
of the signatories. Members of parliament have also received a letter
from Elvis the composers association. The letter was signed by
several of their members last spring. The letter was digged out of the
archives and and re-sent to lobby for the
strict protection of DRM. It is unclear if any of the signatories even
knew that the letter was used last week. Many of the artist who were listed as signatories have publicly spoken against the new law since the original signing.
Unfortunately the music lobby in Finland is united. It is hard to
say that they represent the artist interest or the record companies.
The lobby seems to think: "If some is good the more must be better. -In
fact we want it all."
Unfortunately some of the more humane views of music industry is suppresed by the allmost fundamental lobby machine. Ahti Vänttinen
the chairman of Finnish musicians association said that their
organization is not opposing consumers right to make copies to their
Still it seems like the lobby is standing in one front. The reason
for it has been the tacticts of record industry and their IFPI.fi
organization. They are aggressive and use Goebbels strategy (if you
tell lies long enough, people will believe they are the truth). In the
panels I have attended they shout their oppinions, use fear as tactic,
have no respect for other people oppinions or academic research,
falsify the facts and they dont generally listen any arguments. This
far they have managed to get away with it in the press. Things have
International Federation of phonogrphic industry IFPI has published an open letter demanding that the copyright proposition must be passed immedeately in Finland.
Key points from the letter: 1. You are late we were on time (lobbying). 2. Unlike the spams sent to parliament suggest, the new law doesn't stop you copying your records to mp3 players. 3. Small group of people have spread misinformation 4. DRM prevents digital cloning of CDs and Internet piracy. 5. New technologies enable rewarding the buyer of record. We can add extras like photos and videos. 6. With out this law the creative people are risking their living.
I will spend the next few post to comment the points.
Sara Nunez (she is hot!) is listed as one of the signers of the IFPI lobbying letter. Apparently IFPI didn't ask her approval. She is pretty pissed off about the incident and commenting it on her site:
"I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ASSHOLE PUT MY NAME DOWN ON THIS LIST OF SIGNATORIES FOR THIS OPEN LETTER BUT I NEVER AGREED TO THIS, I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROPOSED COPYRIGHT LAW AND I WILL CALL THEM UP TOMORROW AND DEMAND THEY TAKE MY NAME OFF AND MAKE AN APOLOGY!!!! In fact, one of my songs, "Message 2 Da Industry" ATTACKS the idea of limiting people's usage in this way! As far as I'm concerned, this is BULLSHIT and illegal to use my name without my authorization! THANKS!"
Just over 10 years ago Brian was graduate student at Berkeley and worked as tech support monkey. He had lot of time and used that for exploring the roots of Internet. He had FTP account and e-mail addres. He ran a Gopher server and heard of a new protocol HTTP and signed to IETF mail list.
First of the non academic websites was Wired magazine website done by Brian. "A lot of people were happy that the site had pink text over purple background and black text over grey background."
Software company might provide a software that could meet 80 percent of our needs but 20 percent were not met. Apache was a fork of the NCSA server that was distributed with open source license. 1998 60 percent of the web was runnign Apache. This created even more interest for the software development.
The decision to use non free software foundation license We like simple license. We felt that this would leed to biggest developer base that could participate to the development.
How would we feel if a company would implement our product to their product? Most of the people were pretty happy about it. It related to our work in IETF. We were affraid that a company would own a browser and server and could eventually control Internet. The best way to avoid this would be to have open protocoll (HTTP) and a server that would faithfully implement the protocoll. "Having Microsoft to implement our server to their product would have been a mark of success. We were happy creating websites." Bases of collaboration Not a collaboration of the companies. Not a vote per dollar. Companies can have power if they join the mailing lists and contribute good code. "It doesnt matter if there is a company who has invested 500.000$ in developer time."
The ownership of IP was moved to ASF that was started as a buffer against individual liabily for infringement. Ownership isn't transferred but the ASF gets a right to license the rights.
1100 developers have a right to make changes to the code them selves. Apache has no paid staff. Companies come to apache and tell that they need some features that nobody else would develop to the apache. They want to influence the direction that the most popular server of Internet is going.
Decision making Every one gets a vote and a decision is made if a change gets three votes and no vetos. The person who makes a veto has to explain why the change should not be accepted.
Linux is a flight control model. Linus Torvalds sits in the middle receiving patches and making a decision what gets accepted to the kernel. He has leutenants to help him. Anyone not happy with the decisions made by Linus can make a fork of the kernel.
Apache had to cancel one of their projects because the environment was hostile to new developers. "Developer motivation is one of the most scarce resource to open source projects."
Can the success of Apache be duplicated? Apache worked because it was not under one corporation. Having devopers to feel that they are part of tribe is good for motivation. Brians company collab.net is helping their clients to build communities around their projects. Brian's advice for companies using open source production methods: Open source projects work the best if you don't make any promises to clients. Don't be hostile to commercial projects. Make it possible for people to make money out of the open source software.
Hackers create software for hackers? I dont think that in future hackers will suddently create user friendly software. There is a place for companies that can do that.
Joe Hall: Samuelson clinic together with sims will launch soon a webservice that allows developers to decide what license to choose.
Hostility of open source community agains closed source companies? Internet is a great soap box. The people who have the most extreme opinnions usually get their voices heard. People like Stalmann is known to be sometimes rude to people. He has made a religion out of free software ideology. Brian said he is more in favor of having a balance.
Copyright law has received much attention in Finnish press for past 3 days. The new Finnish copyright law is in its final stage in parliament. What started over 10 years ago in WIPO has lead to an evil law and citizens are protesting against it. Members of parliament are reported to receive over 600 e-mail a day about the new law and its flaws.
Citizens sending mail are terrorist The X-minister of culture Kaarina Dromberg who was responsible for the first version of the law has said that the members of parliament are victims of e-mail terrorism. (see the update below) The current minister of culture x-miss Finland Tanja Karpela has said that there are certain forces behind the e-mail flood. She is right. The e-mails were send by worried normal citizens. The ones that voted the members to the parliament. The ones that have enjoyed freedoms of consuming copyrighted material. The citizens that are affected deeply by the new law that takes those rights away.
The leader of left wing party Suvi Anne Siimes said in her Blog that the citizens and members of parliament are late. The law has gone through committees where there was a chance to make changes. Member of Parliament Jyrki Kasvi notices that "If a member of parliament isn't a member of the committee they have only one chance to influence the law".
Law in different committees The law has had mixed response from different committees. The constitutional committee said that consumers have right to make private copies of works that are they have legally bought. The culture committee didn't care. They didn't care to listen to the expert study by Marja Leena Mansala who said that citizen should have a right to bring couple (less than 10) Cd's to country with out showing where they bought them and their legality. Best of all the study was commissioned by minister of culture. The new law treats citizens as criminals from the beginning. It is up to you to show that you have a right to bring a CD from the common market of EU when you come back from your trip to say London.
Corruption and lobbying behind the scenes The law was written 2002 when Dromberg was minister of culture. She had a special adviser Lauri Kaira who is currently manager of Finnish performance rights organization Gramex. His responsibility is "outside relationships". It is like the scene in lord of the rings. The king is without power, the land is weak and the special adviser hisses his message to ear of the king. Copyright is hard for most politicians to understand. The Industry lobby had their inside man to take advantage of the fact.
The Finnish press has also found out that the civil servant Jukka Liedes (also holds a high place in WIPO) who was responsible of the copyright chapter of the ministry has been in the board of ESEK. ESEK is part of GRAMEX the organization led by Lauri Kaira. ESEK is responsible for distributing GRAMEX monies for the artists. Law professor Olli Mäenpää is saying in Tietokonelehti, that it doesn't sound right that there is such connection with the industry and the civil servant.
Update: Dromberg send a correction to my post: "Haluan hieman oikaista väitettä, jonka mukaan pidän tekijänoikeuslakisähköposteja lähettäneitä kansalaisia terroristeina. En tiedä, mistä väite on peräisin. Suurin osa saamistani viesteistä on ollut asiallisia, eikä minulla suinkaan ole mitään sellaista palautetta vastaan. Joukkoon mahtuu kuitenkin myös haukkumisia ja haistatteluja. Kyseisiä viestejä kritisoin ja toivon niiden lähettäjille hieman harkintakykyä."
English summary (my translation): "I have no idea where the terrorism claim came from. Most of the e-mails I have received have been OK, but some were impolite. I am critisising the latter ones and would hope that the senders would think before sending them."