Net traffic down on first day of Swedish antipiracy law
The same day a new antipiracy law went into effect in Sweden, Internet traffic took a dive and five audio book publishers went after an alleged illegal file sharer in court.
The so-called IPRED law, which went into effect Wednesday, requires Internet service providers to reveal subscribers' Internet Protocol addresses to copyright holders in cases where a court finds ample evidence of illegal activity.
As of 2 p.m. local time Wednesday in Sweden, Internet traffic was down about 30 percent from the day before, according to Computer Sweden (in Swedish). The average traffic over Netnod, a company that measures most of the Internet traffic access points between Swedish and international networks, was 80Gbps Wednesday compared to Tuesday's 120Gbps. Traffic had been steady the previous week.
A similar effect occurred after The Pirate Bay raid three years ago. Then traffic dropped from 30Gbps to 22Gbps, according to Computer Sweden. However, Netnod declined make the connection between the new IPRED law and the drop in Internet traffic.
Also on Wednesday, Earbooks, Storyside, Piratforlaget, Bonniers, and Norstedts took advantage of the legislation, bringing their grievances to a district court in the Stockholm suburb of Solna in an attempt to reveal the identity of the person behind a particular IP address.
Among the authors with works published by those companies are noted crime novelists Henning Mankell, Hakan Nesser, and the estate of deceased crime novelist Stieg Larsson.
The Swedish Publishers' Association, which supports the audio book publishers' action, claims the alleged pirate had up to 2,000 audio books stored on a server.
The illegal file sharing of audio books has increased over the past year, according to the organization. "It has hit writers, publishers, and Internet book retailers financially, and there is a longer-term risk that publication will decline," Kjell Bohlund, chairman of the Swedish Publishers' Association, said in a statement.
The case will likely serve as precedent; the record industry confirmed Wednesday that it is preparing its own first case.
"It will be interesting to see what the court determines to be sufficient proof," Lars Gustafsson, CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, told Swedish news agency TT. "We are naturally examining their evidence and comparing it with ours."
An estimated 1 in 10 people engage in file sharing in Sweden. The country is also home to the world's largest BitTorrent sharing site, The Pirate Bay.
In response to the IPRED law, the fast-growing Pirate Party, which lobbies for more "balanced" copyright laws in Sweden, urged its members to stop encrypting their Wi-Fi networks. This free, open, and anonymous network, for which the name "Ipredia" has been suggested, will make it impossible to sentence a person for illegal file sharing, based on a precedent in Denmark, the Pirate Party claims.
In a statement, the Pirate Party said citizens must be responsible for building a knowledgeable society, since, according to the party, politicians don't see that the Internet is a revolution on a par with writing and conventional publishing.
"Politicians have failed to keep the Internet open, free, and anonymous," said Rick Falkvinge, leader of the Pirate Party.
But Swedish police are not happy about open anonymous Wi-Fi networks due to concerns about the spread of child pornography and the like.
There are movies from amateurs, there is music from so far unpublished musicians eager to get their samples under the people, and if I want to read something, there is more stuff on the web on any particular subject, than one could ever hope to find in a bookshop, and all without breaching copyrights.
Some people's drive to create (on the internet) is astounding! Of course, good quality is rare and there are excesses. But lets be real, how many times after a movie or reading a book, that was purchased for good money, have you thought 'what a waste of time'?
For all I know, Hollywood is burnt out! They are resting on their laurels, cashing in on royalties for something created 70 years ago - something to unbelievable to the common man on the street.
Let me explain: who has ever heart of an architect creating a building or a surgeon saving people's lives cashing in on the deed, 70 years after the event? If they can't do it, so what makes musicians and Disney so special? Nothing, in my eyes!
If Hollywood and other content publishers are crying out foul - my advice: look inside your own business practices and you will find more offense in there, than in the illegal download of a 15-old kid!
Mankind needs the internet and its services without artificial encumbrences from the so-called content providers.
Arthur
Put another way, there is no real relationship between whether or not something is actually good and whether people will steal it or pay for it, and worse still, a lot of people will steal if they can.
Were it not for piracy, the vast majority of people would never experience these things. Yet we know that new knowledge is developed as a byproduct of being exposed to existing knowledge. The person who writes a new book is inspired by the works of prior authors. The person who writes a new software program is assisted by operating systems and compilers written and developed by others. You can't reasonably expect people to have to invent the wheel every time they want to engage their own creative talents.
That's why the Internet has done so much to enrich the lives of others, because it facilitates the free flow of information. I would support copyright that lasted for 12 months. That should be enough time to extract a reasonable stipend for a creative work. Beyond that, it belongs to humanity.
The whole idea of everything is free and knowledge is shared for nothing is a utopian consept that has proven not to work over and over. If i write a book called "Adventure of X" (just making suff up here), and someone takes it and changes a title and releases it as "Adventures of Y" then I should have the right to come after them.
If I make a movie that costs 20 million to make, I should have the right to make as muhc money on it as I want. This is called capitalism, this is called free enterprise. By saying that information should be free and shared is like saying that video games should be free and it should be ok to walk into gamestop and steal a game whenever you want.
I can see where you're coming from, you want things to be free. But I have news for you, this will never happen. You use currency to buy goods or services, just as you produce goods or services in exchange for currency. That consept is not new, its been around since the dawn of time, and not you, nor anyone out there is going to change that.
- by glarface April 6, 2009 3:38 AM PDT
- sythara :
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(8 Comments)'If I make a movie that costs 20 million to make, I should have the right to make as muhc money on it as I want. ...............'
Yes, but can you honestly state that which you have devised was conceived in 'Originallity'? Without recourse to anything that preceded it,, thereby ensuring Interlectual copyright?
'................This is called capitalism, this is called free enterprise. By saying that information should be free and shared is like saying that video games should be free and it should be ok to walk into gamestop and steal a game whenever you want.'
Hobloodyhum, so by this statement you would also then accept the owners 'Right' to pay back any losses accrued, even if this means the sale of all assets they hold, or in the case of 'Publicly' traded Companies ALL those held by shareholders, and as such not have reliance upon the taxpayer to repay the result of their own ineptity, or that of Your representatives.
The truth is that by such device as bankrupcy Etc', those who delude themselves into thinking that our so-called 'Free Market Economy' is Capitalism, are actually the ones who advocate theft, or is their expectation that self accumulated debt ought be repayed by those who have been in receipt of no financial benefit, also to be considered as a 'Right'?
please remember that many of the 'Infringements of copyright' protections, pursued through the courts overseas, are held to have no basis within U.S. constitutional Law itself, and indeed, would be seen as illegal acts on the part of the Litigants where such accusations brought befer the U.S. Judicial system..
We live in strange times, wherin access to information is merely a keystroke away, this is highly inconvenient to Governments, and in much the same way as the Catholic Church once prohibited the publication of the Bible in 'Local' language, so as to ensure interpretation was confined to those conventions set by the 'Church', now they (Governments) strive to curtail this access to information, for as was then is still of pertinance now:
INFORMATION = KNOWLEDGE
KNOWLEDGE= POWER
By the way sharing is not theft, as it does not deprive the 'Original'(Sic) owner of that which is then shared. The purchase of the item from the owner does such.
monkeyfun14
'Same people who think everything should be free must think communism is a good concept too right?
How can you equate Communism with everything being free? '
I suppose you believe the U.K.s Health system is 'Free' as well. Perhaps if you took the time to understand the funding arrangements of these organisations befor 'Slapping keys', you'd grasp how inane this statement actually is.