7 ms·

Politician Violates His Own Two-Strikes Anti-Piracy Plan

192 points by nextparadigms 15y ago

steipete 15y ago
This is just great. Here's an even better article in german about the whole story (from the german pirates) http://piratig.de/2011/09/30/kaudergate-2ndstrike-sehr-geehrter-herr-kauder/ http://piratig.de/2011/09/30/kaudergate-2ndstrike-sehr-geehr.... Lucky for Kauder, as a politician he's immune to law, but its nevertheless absolutely embarrassing.
- delinka 15y ago
  Lawmakers that are above the law will always be a problem. Edit: I do not mean that such will always exist, though I guess that's an interesting debate in its own right.
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    I agree. Is there a strong argument in favor of politicians having immunity, other than the fact that they had the power to make that law for themselves?
    - herge 15y ago
      If a politician does not have political immunity, he can be arrested on trumped up charges by the party in power.
      - pyre 15y ago
        At least in some cases, it would be better of politicians had to 'eat their own dog food.'
      - delinka 15y ago
        That's not a good enough reason for immunity from the law. While we're playing "maybe/possibly/couldhappen," certainly the media would be watching something like that closely enough that the truth shouldn't be difficult to find.
    - eru 15y ago
      Yes, there is. There are also not completely above the law, but subject to the parliaments procedures (or so). The argument is the separation of powers: the judges shouldn't be able to interfere with the lawmakers. You are free to find that argument convincing or not.
  - boredguy8 15y ago
    > Lawmakers that are above the law will always be a problem. Much like sysadmins who make policy exceptions for their non-admin accounts!
    - jodrellblank 15y ago
      That would be more like police skipping laws they disagree with. Managers/CEOs dictating a 4 email per inbox policy and then getting it removed for them only when it causes them an inconvenience would be more like the above story.
- esrauch 15y ago
  To be clear, the policy in question that he has been pushing for is not a law, and it looks like it was pretty unlikely that it was ever going to become law. He isn't receiving special treatment by the authorities in this case; currently no one would have their page aggressively taken down for this.
- trusche 15y ago
  In Germany, politicians are not "immune to" or otherwise above the law. Parliamentarians (which this gentleman is one of) have limited immunity, as in most democracies, to protect them from arbitrary acts by the executive branch. IANAL, so I'd be curious if this kind of copyright infringement could be acted upon.
- keeperofdakeys 15y ago
  In most jurisdictions (I'm not sure about Germany) Parliamentary Immunity is not immunity from the law. Parliamentary Immunity is immunity from prosecution for things politicians say on the floor of parliament. So a politician can be arrested for breaking the law in most situations.
DanBC 15y ago
Politician's blog: (http://www.siegfriedkauder.de/ http://www.siegfriedkauder.de/) Copied photo: (http://www.vogtsbauernhof.org/content/view/full/213 http://www.vogtsbauernhof.org/content/view/full/213) Pretty clumsy move, especially for a lawyer, especially for a lawyer who claims to want to protect copyright. He's not jsut kept the image in his private collection, but is serving it to whoever many people visit his site. I have no idea about Germany, but in England it's the sharing with other people that becomes a problem.
- RexRollman 15y ago
  He probably couldn't care less about protecting anyone's copyright. He is probably benefiting in some way (personally or politically) and that is why he is pushing for this.
  - stfu 15y ago
    "He is probably benefiting in some way (personally or politically)" ... besides being a politician he is also the chairman of the German music industry organisation. There you go.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
etherealG 15y ago
they should insist his site be taken down, under his own policy any other site would have been for the initial infringement, irrelevant of the later change.
- codeup 15y ago
  Of course this would be an obvious demand and ironic. But I suggest one should only insist that he retreats from his policy aims: accept failure and/or step down. Asking for his site to be taken down in accordance with his own misguided policy could give undue legitimacy to this policy.
- dlikhten 15y ago
  I second this. Can he also be ostracized from the internet completely on all devices/all his locations? In fact hit his office staff too since we are not sure who actually committed the infringement.
Bud 15y ago
This trend of laws which attempt to take away a person's Internet access is very scary. How is this to be enforced? By what logic is it considered a proportional or effective punishment?
- muuh-gnu 15y ago
  > How is this to be enforced? Mass surverillance, mass punishment, mass censorship. You have a vast amount of information that people are not allowed to communicate to each other, even inside their most private communication. > By what logic is it considered a proportional or effective punishment? Nobody claimed that it is considered proportional. We're dealing with a topic that key stakeholders like Mark Getty are describing as the "Oil of the 21'st century". Considering that all copyright matters are decided completely behind closed doors (ACTA for example has been even declared a "national security secret" by the Obama administration, to prevent information about upcomming laws to leak into the public, to decrease the amound of opposition before its too late) and that all copyright jurisdiction is basically routing around democracy and public participation since its emergence in monarchistic Europe, they simply dont see the need to present those measures as proportional because they know that (in the near future) no population will ever be allowed to vote on it.
earbitscom 15y ago
Of all the comments here, @codeup is the most level-headed for the HN crowd. Most people in these forums typically rail the RIAA, tell musicians they should seek new business models, claim that piracy is not stealing, and defend unethical behavior as it pertains to copyright tooth and nail. Then, when a politician fighting for pro-copyright policy infringes, they want to see the policy not just upheld, but to quote @dlikhten "on all devices/all his locations? ...his office staff too..." It just goes to show how weak the defense is for this side of the argument. "See! It's so difficult. Let's just forget about the whole argument, but punish this idiot first."
- glimcat 15y ago
  "claim that piracy is not stealing" Infringement is not stealing, or at least it wasn't before people started trying to abuse marketing to induce linguistic drift in order to promote their agenda. I don't think "let's just punish this idiot first" is a reasonable can of paint to use. It's more likely to be taken as proof that the nominally legal or moral campaign of the copyright lobby is really just abusing the system for profit and power. Copyright lawyer or politician goes on about how horrible kids are for using Napster, is found committing plagiarism or lifting photos. If anything, people want to punish them for abuse of power, not infringement. At most, it's "let's hang this guy with his own rope."
  - earbitscom 15y ago
    Infringement may not be stealing, but it's just as illegal. He's trying to implement a system for enforcing a law that already exists. In particular, it's a law where you get a warning before anything happens. How is that abusive? Further, what is "nominally legal or moral" about protecting the rights of artists to be paid for the use of their works? If you build software and decide to charge for it, and someone else makes a bunch of copies of it and makes it impossible for you to make money from it, do you not want the law protecting you to be enforced? Last I checked, programmers have a hard time making money from merch and touring.
    - glimcat 15y ago

192 points by nextparadigms 15y ago

This is just great. Here's an even better article in german about the whole story (from the german pirates) http://piratig.de/2011/09/30/kaudergate-2ndstrike-sehr-geehrter-herr-kauder/ http://piratig.de/2011/09/30/kaudergate-2ndstrike-sehr-geehr.... Lucky for Kauder, as a politician he's immune to law, but its nevertheless absolutely embarrassing.

delinka 15y ago
Lawmakers that are above the law will always be a problem. Edit: I do not mean that such will always exist, though I guess that's an interesting debate in its own right.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  I agree. Is there a strong argument in favor of politicians having immunity, other than the fact that they had the power to make that law for themselves?
  - herge 15y ago
    If a politician does not have political immunity, he can be arrested on trumped up charges by the party in power.
    - pyre 15y ago
      At least in some cases, it would be better of politicians had to 'eat their own dog food.'
    - delinka 15y ago
      That's not a good enough reason for immunity from the law. While we're playing "maybe/possibly/couldhappen," certainly the media would be watching something like that closely enough that the truth shouldn't be difficult to find.
  - eru 15y ago
    Yes, there is. There are also not completely above the law, but subject to the parliaments procedures (or so). The argument is the separation of powers: the judges shouldn't be able to interfere with the lawmakers. You are free to find that argument convincing or not.
- boredguy8 15y ago
  > Lawmakers that are above the law will always be a problem. Much like sysadmins who make policy exceptions for their non-admin accounts!
  - jodrellblank 15y ago
    That would be more like police skipping laws they disagree with. Managers/CEOs dictating a 4 email per inbox policy and then getting it removed for them only when it causes them an inconvenience would be more like the above story.
esrauch 15y ago
To be clear, the policy in question that he has been pushing for is not a law, and it looks like it was pretty unlikely that it was ever going to become law. He isn't receiving special treatment by the authorities in this case; currently no one would have their page aggressively taken down for this.
trusche 15y ago
In Germany, politicians are not "immune to" or otherwise above the law. Parliamentarians (which this gentleman is one of) have limited immunity, as in most democracies, to protect them from arbitrary acts by the executive branch. IANAL, so I'd be curious if this kind of copyright infringement could be acted upon.
keeperofdakeys 15y ago
In most jurisdictions (I'm not sure about Germany) Parliamentary Immunity is not immunity from the law. Parliamentary Immunity is immunity from prosecution for things politicians say on the floor of parliament. So a politician can be arrested for breaking the law in most situations.

DanBC 15y ago

Politician's blog: (http://www.siegfriedkauder.de/ http://www.siegfriedkauder.de/) Copied photo: (http://www.vogtsbauernhof.org/content/view/full/213 http://www.vogtsbauernhof.org/content/view/full/213) Pretty clumsy move, especially for a lawyer, especially for a lawyer who claims to want to protect copyright. He's not jsut kept the image in his private collection, but is serving it to whoever many people visit his site. I have no idea about Germany, but in England it's the sharing with other people that becomes a problem.

RexRollman 15y ago
He probably couldn't care less about protecting anyone's copyright. He is probably benefiting in some way (personally or politically) and that is why he is pushing for this.
- stfu 15y ago
  "He is probably benefiting in some way (personally or politically)" ... besides being a politician he is also the chairman of the German music industry organisation. There you go.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

etherealG 15y ago

they should insist his site be taken down, under his own policy any other site would have been for the initial infringement, irrelevant of the later change.

codeup 15y ago
Of course this would be an obvious demand and ironic. But I suggest one should only insist that he retreats from his policy aims: accept failure and/or step down. Asking for his site to be taken down in accordance with his own misguided policy could give undue legitimacy to this policy.
dlikhten 15y ago
I second this. Can he also be ostracized from the internet completely on all devices/all his locations? In fact hit his office staff too since we are not sure who actually committed the infringement.

Bud 15y ago

This trend of laws which attempt to take away a person's Internet access is very scary. How is this to be enforced? By what logic is it considered a proportional or effective punishment?

muuh-gnu 15y ago
> How is this to be enforced? Mass surverillance, mass punishment, mass censorship. You have a vast amount of information that people are not allowed to communicate to each other, even inside their most private communication. > By what logic is it considered a proportional or effective punishment? Nobody claimed that it is considered proportional. We're dealing with a topic that key stakeholders like Mark Getty are describing as the "Oil of the 21'st century". Considering that all copyright matters are decided completely behind closed doors (ACTA for example has been even declared a "national security secret" by the Obama administration, to prevent information about upcomming laws to leak into the public, to decrease the amound of opposition before its too late) and that all copyright jurisdiction is basically routing around democracy and public participation since its emergence in monarchistic Europe, they simply dont see the need to present those measures as proportional because they know that (in the near future) no population will ever be allowed to vote on it.

earbitscom 15y ago

Of all the comments here, @codeup is the most level-headed for the HN crowd. Most people in these forums typically rail the RIAA, tell musicians they should seek new business models, claim that piracy is not stealing, and defend unethical behavior as it pertains to copyright tooth and nail. Then, when a politician fighting for pro-copyright policy infringes, they want to see the policy not just upheld, but to quote @dlikhten "on all devices/all his locations? ...his office staff too..." It just goes to show how weak the defense is for this side of the argument. "See! It's so difficult. Let's just forget about the whole argument, but punish this idiot first."

glimcat 15y ago
"claim that piracy is not stealing" Infringement is not stealing, or at least it wasn't before people started trying to abuse marketing to induce linguistic drift in order to promote their agenda. I don't think "let's just punish this idiot first" is a reasonable can of paint to use. It's more likely to be taken as proof that the nominally legal or moral campaign of the copyright lobby is really just abusing the system for profit and power. Copyright lawyer or politician goes on about how horrible kids are for using Napster, is found committing plagiarism or lifting photos. If anything, people want to punish them for abuse of power, not infringement. At most, it's "let's hang this guy with his own rope."
- earbitscom 15y ago
  Infringement may not be stealing, but it's just as illegal. He's trying to implement a system for enforcing a law that already exists. In particular, it's a law where you get a warning before anything happens. How is that abusive? Further, what is "nominally legal or moral" about protecting the rights of artists to be paid for the use of their works? If you build software and decide to charge for it, and someone else makes a bunch of copies of it and makes it impossible for you to make money from it, do you not want the law protecting you to be enforced? Last I checked, programmers have a hard time making money from merch and touring.
  - glimcat 15y ago