Norwegian Lawyers Must Stop Chasing File Sharers 186
Skapare sends word from TorrentFreak that Norway's Simonsen law firm has lost their license to pursue file sharers. "Just days after Norway's data protection department told ISPs they must delete all personal IP address-related data three weeks after collection, it's now become safer than ever to be a file-sharer in Norway. The only law firm with a license to track pirates has just seen it expire and it won't be renewed." Skapare adds, "Sounds like Norway's government treats privacy seriously. Maybe they've been watching the abuses in the USA. More info on the Norwegian perspective in this Google translation from Dagbladet.no."
This is not over yet... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, for the Norwegian Slashdotters: (Score:2, Interesting)
We've a few questions.
1. What's the tech economy like over there?
2. How long does it take to learn your language OR how English friendly is it?
3. What's the average cost of living in your cities?
Thanks in advance.
How do I Immigrate? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yarrrrr... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is not over yet... (Score:4, Interesting)
"- Da er et brev med en anbefaling på ingen måte nok. Hvis ikke det kommer noen nye opplysninger, vil jeg ikke tro at brevet gjør noen særlig forskjell, sier han. "
(..since we recently had a meeting with the department concerning this..)
"- A letter with a recommondation is by no means enough. Unless there is new information relevant to the case, I do not believe the letter will make any difference".
The summary is wrong. (Score:3, Interesting)
The "pirate chasing"-lawyers got a temporary license in 2006 for doing exactly that while we were waiting for new laws.
That license is now expiring (This autumn) and they're not getting a new one. Not because they want to protect the privacy of Norwegian citizens, but because temporary is temporary.
Now, read my last sentence again please.
(Still though, Norway's a good place to live - can recommend it to everyone!)
Re:Yarrrrr... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, small.
I see what I'm doing as "value added". My years of work are the "value added" part.
Besides, you could easily apply those same concepts to "real" property. Take land-property as an example: the earth was here long before humans. Therefore, any attempts to put up a fence and call this "mine" or "yours" is wrong. The farmer sells crops - but he didn't construct the seeds ex-nihilo, he didn't sit down and design the genetics, he didn't create the sunlight or the soil. Therefore, farmers should not be entitled to sell crops. They should not have the benefit of laws that prevent people from taking them without paying him, because he was not 100% responsible for creating the food. And your car? It's made mostly of glass and metal. The metal was pulled out of the ground. The glass is made from sand. It's all from the earth - not created by man. Therefore, land-property, food crops, and anything made of glass and metal cannot be "property" - because no one constructed them in a vacuum. Once you bring in "value added", suddenly cars and crops become legitimate property. The same goes for the digital world.
Re:Yarrrrr... (Score:1, Interesting)
Nothing is worth anything really.
Stuff is worth what people are prepared to pay for it. It's that simple.
Physical objects are worth something because they are limited by nature. Immaterial objects can be replicated for
free in unlimited quantities.
If people aren't prepared to pay a lot of cash for a plastic disc that comes with a strict set of rules of how one is allowed to use said disc, then tough luck.
This doesn't mean you can't make money making music, movies, etc. You just have to accept that the glory days are over and you won't be able to make as much money as some fortunate people did in the 80s and 90s.
I bet you can still make a decent living out of it if you adapt to the marked and actually provide your customers with what they want (like any other business, instead of relying on obscure and privacy invading laws).
I can't speak for everybody but I can tell you what I want. I want easy access to media without DRM or watermarks, in formats I can use on virtually any device I have.
Media people might be scared of non-DRM media. But from the tiny things I've learned from economics and business is that is better to sell without profit to cover your costs than not to sell at all (last minute tickets etc).
This simply means that it's better to have 1 out of 2 buying your media instead of 2 out of 2 pirating your media.
Getting 2 out of 2 to buy your media will never happen - just accept it.
Re:How do I Immigrate? (Score:4, Interesting)
Top three are pork ribs, Pinnekjøtt and Lutefisk.
Advice: avoid lutefisk. It's nasty, very nasty.
In fact, in the nastiest dish in the world competition, Norway powered into second place with lutefisk. It was judged more repulsive than Scotland's haggis, but less disgusting than the Swedish entry, surströmming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surstrmming [wikipedia.org], even the Swedes have to drink a bottle of vodka before eating it).
Boiled sheep's eyes or raw sea-slugs taste a lot nicer than lutefisk or surströmming. I speak from actual experience.
Re:Yarrrrr... (Score:3, Interesting)
2. I'm not defending the excessively long copyright lengths that we see. Personally, I think ten or twenty years is plenty. What I'm arguing about is the idea that copyright lengths should be eliminated, or filesharing legalized. What those things do is effectively reduce copyright lengths to 0 seconds. Heck, I've toyed with the idea of putting my own work under a much shorter copyright length (like a 14-year founder's copyright) or something shorter. Why would I do that? Simply because I don't agree with current copyright.