OneSwarm Replaces The Pirate Bay in Sweden

The new file-sharing tool OneSwarm is spreading fast, especially in Sweden. From April, a new anti-file-sharing law will enable copyright owners to request Swedish file sharers’ identities from Internet Service Providers. This identification will be difficult, or impossible, when file sharers use OneSwarm, which offers anonymity protection. Another difference compared to BitTorrent is that OneSwarm users don’t depend on a central server. Hence, websites like The Pirate Bay will be unnecessary.

According to the OneSwarm team at the University of Washington, more that 100 000 people visited their website during the first twelve days after the OneSwarm client was released. This was despite the absence of any marketing efforts. More than 40 percent of the people who visited the project’s website came from Sweden.

The number of computers that currently have OneSwarm installed is unknown since the software can be freely distributed. Just from the project’s own website, more than 25 000 copies have been downloaded.

As support for interaction with major social-network sites will be built into OneSwarm, the number of users is expected to rise dramatically.

Make the ACTA Negotiations Public

In EUObserver, I demand that the EU makes the negotiations on the new antipiracy treaty ACTA public:

Since last spring,‭ ‬The European Union,‭ ‬the United States,‭ ‬Canada,‭ ‬Switzerland and Japan have been‭ negotiating a new anti-online piracy treaty‭ ‬-‭ ‬the so called ACTA treaty. The process is characterised by extreme secrecy,‭ ‬and even though the negotiations could result in new,‭ harsh‬ file-sharing laws in member states it’s impossible for the media and for the public to participate in the discussion.‭

Protests from organizations and IT businesses have been ignored by the EU.‭ ‬Any member state that believes in openness should protest and demand that the European Commission makes public which new anti-file-sharing laws they are pushing for with a European mandate.

Read the complete article

Organizations Demand Open ACTA Negotiations

100 non-profit organizations demand that the ACTA process opens up to public scrutiny. ACTA, or Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement, is an international intellectual-property convention that according to some interpretations could mean stricter control of technological innovation and new powers to customs-control employees. Most alarming are the speculations that laptops and mp3-players could be searched when taken through customs.

Two ACTA-meetings have taken place, the latest in Washington DC. Since the meetings are classified, it’s virtually impossible to find out what the negotiations have so far resulted in. Issues that have been discussed are customs regulation and legal tools for civil-court IP-infringement procedures.

At upcoming meetings, the really sensitive issues will be brought up – copyright infringement on the Internet and criminal-law measures. In addition to this, the parties will discuss establishing an international task force to fight intellectual-property violations. The task force will make sure that countries signing the ACTA agreement stick to the regulation.

Many are worried about new legislation that we might need to implement as a result of ACTA commitments. These concerns may be justified. However, the purpose of ACTA is something else – to establish a new IP-regime without third-world countries at the negotiation table. Once ACTA is in place, the plan it to make more countries join.

So why should countries that have little to benefit from extended intellectual monopolies join ACTA? A not too far-fetched theory is that the ACTA treaty will be attached to future third-country trade agreements. Countries that refuse to sign don’t get access to the European and American markets.

Secret Antipirate Treaty Sneaking Up on Us

Wikileaks has published a story about an international antipiracy agreement being negotiated in secret. The process aimed at establishing this treaty, Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement(ACTA) has according to Wikileaks been initiated by the US, the EU, Japan and Switzerland. Instead of going through the conventional organizations for trade and Immaterial Property Rights, a number of countries have chosen bilateral negotiations. At a later stage, more countries will be expected to sign the agreement. Selected copyright lobbyists have been allowed to see the discussion paper that the negotiations are based on. Apart from that, the document has been kept secret until it ended up on Wikileaks.

Several of the proposals in the discussion paper can be recognized from EU’s 2004 Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive(IPRED) and from IPRED2, which hasn’t been approved. For instance, countries signing the treaty will be forced to introduce sanction that deter copyright infringement. According to Wikileaks, there is also a paragraph aimed at criminalizing commercial and non-commercial tools that can be used for copyright infringement. If this is true, it means that the EU commission through a trade agreement are trying to tie up member states to regulation that they have been unable to push through EU’s internal legislation process. This is the equivalent of a national government signing a treaty that commits the country to laws that the parliament rejects.

Another paragraph suggested in the discussion paper would force ISP’s to hand out customer information to rights holders. Today, it’s up to each EU country whether to use that legal tool. The question is whether the implementation can continue to be voluntary if the EU is tied up through ACTA. The Canadian newspaper Calgary Herald writes that ACTA can require ISP’s to disclose customer data even without a court order.

In 2007, the EU commission announced that they sought a mandate to participate in the ACTA negotiations. Now they have that mandate, from a meeting with the European agriculture ministers. The issue was never discussed at the meeting, and the ministers were most likely not aware of the decision they made. The EU position was in reality determined at an earlier meeting with the 133-Committee, a committee without political representation whose actions cannot be examined by the public.

With decentralized file sharing networks and with new ways of sharing files outside the internet, for example via bluetooth devices, the antipirates cannot stop the file sharing as such. Instead they try to attack the possession of copyrighted material by allowing body searches and by examining citizens’ electronic equipment. This 1984 government has probably been an unthinkable scenario to most people, but maybe that where we’re heading.

European Parliament Says No to Internet Ban

With 314 votes against 297, the European Parliament decided that it’s wrong to cut someone’s internet connection, even if that someone is a file sharer. This is a clear signal that the parliament rejects the French plan to fight illegal file sharing by banning citizens’ from the internet.

The proposal was tabled by Christofer Fjellner, Swedish MEP for the Moderate Party. Fjellner’s proposal was put forward as an amendment to the Bono report. Guy Bono, responsible for the report, has himself played a major role in forming the pro-Internet coalition that won majority in today’s vote.

The European Parliament’s file-sharer friendly statement is well timed. France will soon get the opportunity to chair the EU, and one priority will be to force European ISPs to cut the Internet connection of anyone illegally downloading a song or a movie. If insisting on his plans, Sarkozy now faces an uphill battle.

Sweden Rejects Sarkozy’s War on File Sharing

French President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to disconnect European file sharers from the Internet. The idea is already in the process of being realized in France, and will according to Sarkozy be a step toward “a civilized Internet” where ISPs watch the information that their customers exchange.

A couple of weeks ago, the Swedish government rejected the French model, but if France gets its way Sweden could be forced to implement these laws against the will of the parliament. It’s therefore of great significance that my party colleague Christofer Fjellner has tabled a proposal to stop Sarkozy’s internet ban and preserve file sharers’ online integrity.

What Fjellner has done formally is proposing an amendment to the so called Bono Report. Representatives for all parties that are included in the Swedish parliamentary majority alliance have signed the amendment, worded like this:

“Calls on the Commission and the Member States to recognise that the Internet is a vast platform for cultural expression, access to knowledge, and democratic participation in European creativity, bringing generations together through the information society; calls on the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to avoid adopting measures conflicting with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness, such as the interruption of Internet access.”

The European Parliament votes on the proposal on April 9, which is this Wednesday. The decision will not be legally binding, but is important for positioning purposes.

No ISP Surveillance in Sweden

Two years ago, Sweden’s government ordered a study on how to fight the file-sharing phenomenon. The result was the Renfors report. Among other things, the report proposed cutting file sharers off the Internet and giving ISPs a responsibility for their customers’ communication. In reality, this would force ISPs to engage in internet surveillance.

Now Sweden’s non-socialist government throws the Renfors report in the trash. That is good news. Sweden’s no to internet surveillance signals that we embrace new technology. Most importantly, we Swedes distance ourselves from the French model, also favored by the EU Commission, that gives ISPs a responsibility to watch their customers.

As we discard the Renfors report, ISPs can focus on satisfying customers’ demands rather than engaging in police activities. Maybe the recording- and film industries too can follow this path and adapt to the 21st century.

There has been many setbacks lately for those who want to persecute file sharers. One recording company after the other has been forced to give up copy protections that give paying customers a lower-quality product than what illegal file sharers get.

Despite this, the attacks on file sharing and the free internet will continue. John Kennedy at IFPI says that their top priority is to push legislation that makes ISPs responsible for their customers’ communication.

The copyright industry has proposed even harsher measures than what we see in Europe today. Not only do they want to make ISPs responsible for controlling the digital highways. If IFPI were in charge, we would also have net censorship. All file sharing would be blocked as filters would prevent internet users from accessing web sites containing unauthorized copyrighted material.

The strategy of the copyright industry has been to stop film and music on the internet with the assistance of police and courts. Meanwhile, they have neglected the development of legal, user-friendly alternatives. A Swedish IT magazine had their experts comparing the industry’s film sites with illegal websites that violate copyright laws. The experts concluded that the illegal sites are more user friendly, have more extensive catalogues and offer movies adapted for ipods and widescreen television. There are even popular but illegal pirate sites that can charge customers by sms. Instead of suing teenagers and claim that you can’t compete with free, the film- and recording industries should develop services that are actually usable.

Sweden’s no to Internet surveillance signals that we embrace the technology, and that our role in the world is to fight the ever more harmful effects of today’s copyright. With the extreme proposals in the Renfors report out of the way, we can now have a more nuanced discussion on how to proceed with a decriminalization of file sharing.

Letter to the EU Commission

A call to decriminalize file sharing is probably not what the European Commission wanted when they requested comments on a communication on file sharing and copyright. But this is what I sent them:

As a member of the Swedish Parliament and as a Swedish citizen subjected to European-Union regulation I appreciate the opportunity to give my view on the issues of file sharing and copyright law.

The annex of the communication on creative content online in the Single Market consists of 11 questions. What follows here is my answer to questions 9, 10 and 11 regarding stakeholder cooperation and filtering.

The French Model Should not be Exported

The core of the French model for combating copyright violations, as described in the Commission’s communication, is to identify file sharers and to cut their internet access. The ISP:s then have a responsibility for the content that their subscribers download, and to enforce copyright violations some surveillance will be necessary.

In Sweden, a similar proposal has been put forward as a part of “the Renfors report.” When the Swedish government sent the Renfors proposal out to agencies and organizations for consideration the criticism was harsh. The Swedish Courts of Appeal questions whether banning citizens from the Internet would indeed reduce online file sharing. Despite several other countries having already taken similar action, none have had good results to show for it. In Finland, that has implemented this model, files-sharing activity initially dropped. However, after only three months the illegal file-sharing activities were back at previous levels.

The Swedish Data Inspection Board, responsible for safeguarding the individual’s integrity, asks whether the Renfors proposal is consistent with the protection of private correspondence that is granted by the European Convention on Human Rights. EU directives as well as national legislation say that the responsibility of the Internet Service Providers is to offer a tool for communication – not to keep track of what individuals discuss or what information they exchange. The Competition Authority adds that it’s unreasonable to give private businesses responsibilities that should belong to a government agency.

Copyright Enforcement Threatens Integrity

Sweden is one of the world’s most prominent technology nations, and our technology friendliness is reflected in the public opinion that views file sharing primarily as a positive phenomenon. A big part of the Swedish population favors decriminalizing all non-commercial file sharing. With our technological development, this is the only solution, unless we want an ever more extensive control of what citizens do on the Internet.

Already there are anonymization services on the market that make the currently discussed models ineffective. Putting an end to copyright-infringing file sharing will demand other tools that further intensifies the surveillance of the Internet. The simple truth is that almost all communication channels on the Internet can be used to distribute copyrighted information. If you can use a service to send a message you can most likely use the same service to send an mp3-song. Those who want to prevent people from exchanging of copyrighted material must filter all electronic communication between citizens. This would be an unacceptable violation of citizens’ right to privacy.

The media industry needs reasonable rules to play by. The right to reasonable rules should apply also to Internet Service Providers, who don’t want to be an online police force. Making broadband suppliers watch what their customers download on the Internet would be like making postal services open every package. Those who defend creators’ rights should also defend everyone’s right to communicate without surveillance.

Reform Protectionist Copyright Laws

There will always be industries that call for harsher legislation when the market changes. Their interest in stopping progress must be weighed against the public’s interest in taking advantage of the opportunities that technology gives them. If politicians had met the demands from the copyright industry throughout history we would have had a considerably poorer media landscape; without music radio, VCR:s, mp3 players. All these innovations have met political and legal resistance.

CDs and DVDs that you buy in a store or order by mail will be phased out by modern file-sharing technologies. If this means the end of the recording industry as we know it, this is nothing that we can or should prevent. Attempting to stop file sharing to save the recording industry would be like outlawing cars to increase the sales of horse carriages.

While entertainment producers with old business models struggle, new businesses rise as a result of the technological shift. Youtube and Yahoo Launchcast are only two out of innumerous examples of how the Internet can bring both value to consumers and revenue to producers. In fact, we should demand that everyone seeking to make a profit from selling entertainment adapts to this new reality. That means they need to have business models that are consistent with the freedom to share material on the Internet. Copyright laws, as they are designed in most western countries, set out to protect entertainment producers by granting them a monopoly on copying and distributing their goods. Generally, we demand that entrepreneurs have business models that work without legislated monopolies. Why should this not apply to creative artists?

Copyright should not be considered a property right. In “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism”, the economist and Nobel-Prize recipient FA Hayek explains the difference between conventional property rights and copyright. While the supply of material resources is limited by nature the supply of an immaterial good unlimited, unless the government limits the supply by law. According to Hayek, there is no empirical evidence that copyright laws stimulate innovation. A later Nobel-Prize recipient, Milton Friedman, describes copyright as a monopoly that decreases supply to a lever below the optimal level. Copyright and the regulations that follow from it should, according to Friedman, be described primarily as a limitation of free speech.

There is obviously no clear-cut, time-resistant frame defining what the government should protect as property. Neither is there empirical evidence that copyright laws need to be preserved in their current form. Therefore, I strongly react against the suggested efforts to raise “awareness on the importance of copyright for the availability of content.” Such effort could not be described as education, if education is defined as spreading information based on science.

Karl Sigfrid
Member of the Swedish Parliament representing the Moderate party

Interview by Washington Internet Daily

I recently wrote about the Swedish Performing Rights Society’s proposal to introduce a broadband fee for file sharers. Washington Internet Daily interviewed me on the subject:

Rights Group Plan Would Allow File-Sharers to Pay ISPs More for Legal Downloads

A Swedish rights body is mulling legal file-swapping if ISP subscribers pay more. The plan, first reported by the English-language paper The Local, would license file-sharing and was unveiled Friday, a Swedish Performing Rights Society (STIM) spokeswoman confirmed, providing no more details by our deadline.

Moderate Party legislator Karl Sigfrid, who favors decriminalizing file-sharing, said a modest fee would be more palatable to ISPs and users than tougher enforcement of intellectual property rights, but STIM’s plan won’t work until the international copyright regime is changed.

STIM wants to talk to ISPs about enabling customers to pay for music streaming over networks, The Local quoted the group as saying. The regime would raise an average user’s monthly Internet charge in proportion to the total amount of music downloaded, allowing users to access and download all tracks available online at a given time. The system would entail licensing agreements between STIM and other rights owners.

STIM reportedly noted several technical, financial and legal barriers, such as negative effects on existing legal music services. But Sigfrid said the proposal raises other issues as well.

Sigfrid’s chief criticism is that “Sweden can’t solve the file-sharing/copyright conflict in a way that’s radically different” from how it’s done elsewhere. To decriminalize file-swapping, with or without the Internet fee STIM suggests, Sweden must work within the EU, the World Intellectual Property Organization, and other international bodies, he said. But nationally, Sweden can resist setting harsher penalties on file-sharers, Sigfrid said. Uploading and downloading copyrighted content is illegal, but that need not be countered with means many people find overly invasive, he said.

And collecting and distributing user fees could lead to arbitrary distribution of the money, Sigfrid said. Someone collecting money for copyright owners will put it to other uses, he said. If charges are mandatory, non-downloaders would be paying for others’ music. If voluntary, who would pay the fee, he asked.

If international terms can be reached, a monthly fee for downloads would be preferable to more enforcement, said Sigfrid, adding that STIM’s proposal can’t work unless the international copyright regime changes. “Still, the change has to start somewhere, so I think the STIM proposal is a good initiative to start an international debate,” he said. Sweden’s national recording industry association didn’t respond to a request for comment. — Dugie Standeford

Reproduced by permission of Warren Communications News, Inc., 800-771-9202, [ http://mail.warren-news.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.warren/ ]www.warren-news.com

Los Angeles Times: Stealing or Sharing?

On the Los Angeles Times editorial page, Jon Healey brings up my views on immaterial property, or immaterial monopolies as I prefer to call them.

In essence, Sigfrid is saying that something in unlimited supply can’t be stolen. His position is a variation on a theme advanced by Mike Masnick of Techdirt.com, among others: that the entertainment industry’s aggressive copyright-enforcement efforts spring from an outdated, analog-era notion of scarcity. Under this view, copyright holders are helped, not harmed, by file sharing and other online distribution pipelines; they just haven’t adapted their business models to take advantage of the new opportunities. Supporters of this view include musicians, authors and filmmakers who say that that file sharing helped bring the exposure they needed to sell their works.

[...]

As Sigfrid noted, there’s a fundamental difference between intellectual property (copyrights, patents, trademarks) and real property (houses, cars, plasma TVs): The latter is tangible and limited in supply, the former is not. “Copyright infringement is not ‘theft’ in the same way that taking a CD from a store is theft,” said Mark Lemley, a copyright expert at Stanford University Law School. “If I take your physical property, I have it and you no longer do. If I copy your song, I have it, but so do you.”

Read the complete article