Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I'm a little puzzled about why you think that this is going to affect Sweden?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayth
We don't have international law. Each country has to decide what is the best way to handle piracy. I think this is better than what has been done in most places. Laws in the US facilitate the extortion of their citizens by big media companies, with the only evidence being an IP address. In Sweden, they remove any penalty from the downloader and go after the source, the uploader.
I don't think this effects Sweden much really, my commentary was meant more to say that I think this kind of policy would be good to adopt in other countries. Torrent sites hide behind the fact that they don't actually host pirated data... then change the laws so that it doesn't matter. Forget trying to go after downloaders and start going after uploaders and anyone who facilitates that uploading. It would be easy enough to distinguish a torrent site with legal content from one with illegal content too. Once you've gone after uploaders effectively, downloaders will have very little to download from.
|
Fayth, I think Harry meant how you kept saying "Sweden", when the article was about a ruling in Switzerland. I don't think the Swiss would like being lumped in with the Swedes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
It used to be that MS Windows and Office, Photoshop, Illustrator and a few other programs had such ineffective security that you could swap CDs with these programs and an included key in text form, and install them on as many PCs as you could find. No longer, since security has been upgraded, and each software requires you to verify online (and will disable the SW if it is already registered to a small number of users).
So I suppose Switzerland considers Microsoft and Adobe to be criminal organizations for preventing its citizens to download and use their software without paying.
|
I don't think it is anything of the sort, just that they're not going to prosecute people who pirate for personal use, because they feel it is so rampant and has so little effect on the economy. From what I read on it, the announcement was more or less stating that just because someone didn't pay for one thing, doesn't mean they're not going to pay for something else, and I also got the vibe of the argument of if it wasn't available for download would they have bought it at all.