4 ms·

Clicked through to the article hoping to see a picture of the laptop. Was not disappointed! :) On topic though, this just shows how ridiculous the MAFIAA is ge

by ashray 14y ago

Clicked through to the article hoping to see a picture of the laptop. Was not disappointed! :) On topic though, this just shows how ridiculous the MAFIAA is getting these days. Unfortunately, this episode played out negatively on the artist as well - who probably had nothing to do with the event. So piracy harms the artist, but in this case the MAFIAA hurt the artist even more by prosecuting someone for it [1] ? Not sure if that's justice, but it feels quite strange to think about it. [1] - The article says that the artist experienced a serious backlash on her facebook page from enraged fans.

lambada 14y ago
Given this wasn't related to the RIAA/MPAA (given that this wasn't a US case), I wouldn't lay the blame directly at their door.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  I think it's pretty safe to assume that most (if not all) of the copyright insanity worldwide stems from the RIAA/MPAA. It would be willing to bet a lot that if they became sane, most of the rest of the world would, too.
- ghostDancer 14y ago
  The copyright laws in Spain have been modified from pressures made by the US government ,in fact Joe Biden on behalf of RIAA/MPAA, even threatening with commercial sanctions. I think we can extrapolate those pressures to the rest of the world. It was known as the Biden-Sinde law, now it has changed to Sinde-Wert (name of the ministers who obeyed the orders as seen in wikileaks).
  - znowi 14y ago
    Yes, the U.S. influence is enormous. Very visible in the case of Wikileaks. Their ability to alter another nation's laws at will is unnerving. I wonder how effective a technological solution may be, if they can easily find a judicial way around it. I think there should be the same zest in seeking justice for governments that wage wars and bankers that rob citizens, as it is for a 9 years old watching Winnie the Pooh.
dalore 14y ago
I doubt that is the girls actual laptop. Looks to clean and unused, more like a product picture. I would imagine her laptop to have stickers and glitter all over it.
smoyer 14y ago
The picture I have in my head now is a group of police gathered around a Winnie-The-Pooh laptop listening to the latest Chisu music.
- mhurron 14y ago
  I envisioned the music video to Weird Al's "Don't download this song."
gingerjoos 14y ago
I'm wondering if the backlash might actually be a good thing. If this sort of backlash becomes common, there will be a disincentive for artists to sign up with records who indulge in such nonsense. Perhaps the system will adapt such that prosecutions like this would be eliminated.
- aes256 14y ago
  > If this sort of backlash becomes common, there will be a disincentive for artists to sign up with records who indulge in such nonsense. Unfortunately this is the last thing on artists' minds when they're about to sign a deal with a record label, and that isn't going to change anytime soon.
  - algorias 14y ago
    That's true, but established artists might have some leverage. If they get fed up enough, they will start looking for alternatives.
- potkor 14y ago
  Latest spin from the .fi copyright mafia is "this demonstrates how we need legislation enabling softer measures for enforcement", cue 3 strikes etc badness.
- csense 14y ago
  Maybe people will stop buying music from the MAFIAA
- billirvine 14y ago
  > there will be a disincentive for artists to sign up with records who indulge in such nonsense Why would a creative person who's primary method of feeding the family are checks from publishers not want their publisher to diligently protect the revenue model?
  - __david__ 14y ago
    Because they understand that "protecting the revenue model" distinctly different than confiscating 9 year olds' laptops.
hfsktr 14y ago
In this case the piracy didn't hurt the artist as they couldn't get the working files and went out and bought the cd. So even though it started with piracy they bought the music legitimately. That kind of makes me wonder how it works, or the logic. If you download something to try it (pirate) then go buy the same content you'll still get in trouble? I understand that the law was broken then the legal way to obtain the content came but doesn't that sort of deter you from bothering to buy in the future? My idea above really would matter most for say downloading one song from an album then buying the album (books/movies you'd have the entire content anyways). Just a curious thought as I'm sure I have a lot of the details quite wrong but following the logic here: if you've downloaded any part of an album you might as well download the entire album rather than buy the rest.
- tripzilch 14y ago
  Well, (and I'm not defending what happened here, just explaining what I suppose may be the reasoning), the problem with BT is that you're not just downloading the album, but also uploading and sharing it back to the BT swarm. Compare with the reasoning why downloading is/used to be[1] legal in the Netherlands: Copyright consists of exactly two rights: the right to make public and the right to make copies. Since Dutch law already allows to make "home copies", this means that only the uploader is breaking the law, not the downloader, because the right to make these "home copies" is not contingent on how you obtained the works in the first place. Unfortunately most filesharing networks, and BT in particular, won't let you download without uploading and sharing back. Of course the details of copyright and IP enforcement in Finland would be very different. Still, the point is, if you use BT to download a copyrighted music album, you're violating copyright not just by obtaining a copy, but also by redistributing it back to the BT swarm. Buying the album may make right on the former, but not on the latter. [1] I'm not sure but I seem to remember they reverted that decision a while back. It was all based on a stupid error by BREIN's lawyers in the Kazaa vs BREIN case a long time ago. (BREIN is basically the representative of RIAA in NL, as well as a rather shady organisation)

by ashray 14y ago

lambada 14y ago

Given this wasn't related to the RIAA/MPAA (given that this wasn't a US case), I wouldn't lay the blame directly at their door.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
I think it's pretty safe to assume that most (if not all) of the copyright insanity worldwide stems from the RIAA/MPAA. It would be willing to bet a lot that if they became sane, most of the rest of the world would, too.
ghostDancer 14y ago
The copyright laws in Spain have been modified from pressures made by the US government ,in fact Joe Biden on behalf of RIAA/MPAA, even threatening with commercial sanctions. I think we can extrapolate those pressures to the rest of the world. It was known as the Biden-Sinde law, now it has changed to Sinde-Wert (name of the ministers who obeyed the orders as seen in wikileaks).
- znowi 14y ago
  Yes, the U.S. influence is enormous. Very visible in the case of Wikileaks. Their ability to alter another nation's laws at will is unnerving. I wonder how effective a technological solution may be, if they can easily find a judicial way around it. I think there should be the same zest in seeking justice for governments that wage wars and bankers that rob citizens, as it is for a 9 years old watching Winnie the Pooh.

dalore 14y ago

I doubt that is the girls actual laptop. Looks to clean and unused, more like a product picture. I would imagine her laptop to have stickers and glitter all over it.

smoyer 14y ago

The picture I have in my head now is a group of police gathered around a Winnie-The-Pooh laptop listening to the latest Chisu music.

mhurron 14y ago
I envisioned the music video to Weird Al's "Don't download this song."

gingerjoos 14y ago

I'm wondering if the backlash might actually be a good thing. If this sort of backlash becomes common, there will be a disincentive for artists to sign up with records who indulge in such nonsense. Perhaps the system will adapt such that prosecutions like this would be eliminated.

aes256 14y ago
> If this sort of backlash becomes common, there will be a disincentive for artists to sign up with records who indulge in such nonsense. Unfortunately this is the last thing on artists' minds when they're about to sign a deal with a record label, and that isn't going to change anytime soon.
- algorias 14y ago
  That's true, but established artists might have some leverage. If they get fed up enough, they will start looking for alternatives.
potkor 14y ago
Latest spin from the .fi copyright mafia is "this demonstrates how we need legislation enabling softer measures for enforcement", cue 3 strikes etc badness.
csense 14y ago
Maybe people will stop buying music from the MAFIAA
billirvine 14y ago
> there will be a disincentive for artists to sign up with records who indulge in such nonsense Why would a creative person who's primary method of feeding the family are checks from publishers not want their publisher to diligently protect the revenue model?
- __david__ 14y ago
  Because they understand that "protecting the revenue model" distinctly different than confiscating 9 year olds' laptops.

hfsktr 14y ago

In this case the piracy didn't hurt the artist as they couldn't get the working files and went out and bought the cd. So even though it started with piracy they bought the music legitimately. That kind of makes me wonder how it works, or the logic. If you download something to try it (pirate) then go buy the same content you'll still get in trouble? I understand that the law was broken then the legal way to obtain the content came but doesn't that sort of deter you from bothering to buy in the future? My idea above really would matter most for say downloading one song from an album then buying the album (books/movies you'd have the entire content anyways). Just a curious thought as I'm sure I have a lot of the details quite wrong but following the logic here: if you've downloaded any part of an album you might as well download the entire album rather than buy the rest.

tripzilch 14y ago
Well, (and I'm not defending what happened here, just explaining what I suppose may be the reasoning), the problem with BT is that you're not just downloading the album, but also uploading and sharing it back to the BT swarm. Compare with the reasoning why downloading is/used to be[1] legal in the Netherlands: Copyright consists of exactly two rights: the right to make public and the right to make copies. Since Dutch law already allows to make "home copies", this means that only the uploader is breaking the law, not the downloader, because the right to make these "home copies" is not contingent on how you obtained the works in the first place. Unfortunately most filesharing networks, and BT in particular, won't let you download without uploading and sharing back. Of course the details of copyright and IP enforcement in Finland would be very different. Still, the point is, if you use BT to download a copyrighted music album, you're violating copyright not just by obtaining a copy, but also by redistributing it back to the BT swarm. Buying the album may make right on the former, but not on the latter. [1] I'm not sure but I seem to remember they reverted that decision a while back. It was all based on a stupid error by BREIN's lawyers in the Kazaa vs BREIN case a long time ago. (BREIN is basically the representative of RIAA in NL, as well as a rather shady organisation)